D&D 5E 18/7/2013 D&D Next Q&A: Feat Progression, Bonus Feats & Requirements

[Li Shenron]

While 'feat' was perhaps always a poor fit as a name, these new super-feats make the fit all the poorer. They're really more like … specializations, or something, when presented as they are here. The only reason to retain the name feat is as a legacy.

Y'know, I wouldn't mind seeing these feats renamed as "Themes", because they seem to be covering the same design space as 4e's Themes.

Definitely. If a new feat is roughly a grouping of 3 old feats, a new feat is pretty much what a Theme/Specialty was before.

Essentially, we don't have "feats" anymore. We have Specialties, just like we had before anyway. Thus it would be more representative to call them such.

All of this pleases me greatly, since day one I have requested Feats be strictly optional in the surveys, and remove feats from class features (bonus feats), so this is exactly what I want.

Hmm. Looks pretty good. I begin to think that maybe, just maybe, 5E will be the edition that redeems the feat mechanic. It's always had great potential and wretched execution, such that I became convinced WotC would never get it right and it was better just to get rid of it. But this is starting to look like something worth having in the game.

Comments like these make me think that people are looking at the labels instead of understanding what is the real thing under the label.

"Feats" were small building blocks to customize your character. With rare exception, 1 feat = 1 bonus or 1 special action or ability.

The new feats are just not feats in the same sense. They are bundles of bonuses and/or abilities, like Theme/Specialties, like Races, and like Backgrounds. Therefore saying "5e redeems the feat mechanic" is nonsense, because this is not the feats mechanic... there is only the name/label left. The feat mechanic is gone.

Now you are totally entitled to like that the feat mechanic is gone, of course.

BTW, I wonder if we still need a Background system at all. "Feats" are now going to be bundles of anything, thus can serve the same purpose as Backgrounds, which won't cover skills anymore and as such will have a free-form similar to Feats, and possible the same magnitude.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think that proficiences would be better placed separately from feats. If you become a heavy armor master, it should probably be the case that you're already proficient, for instance. The question is where to put them, since we want characters to be able to acquire new proficiencies. In my opinion, it should just come down to time and money to train a new proficiency. They could be selected through your background, then given by your race and class, and then if you want to use a particular weapon or armor that you're not proficient in, have rules to say how long it takes to learn. Build it into the downtime system. If you don't have a downtime system, build it into adventuring (as in, survive a level in light armor and you become proficient in it, swing a greatsword near exclusively for that level, become proficient in it). Let the nature of armor/weapons dictate whether or not you want to use them - if you don't want Wizards in full plate, make it undesirable.

I think this could be cool. For instance, a background might be 'Militia', which will give you proficiencies in light armor and one martial weapon, plus suitable skills if you're using them (so backgrounds are still cool if you don't use skills). If you pick a class that already has these proficiencies, admittedly you could lose out, but you could be given your militia kit for free, and there's still the roleplaying element. If you want to become a Wizard though, you've got a sort of battle mage, which is cool.

 

[Dausuul]

The new feats are just not feats in the same sense. They are bundles of bonuses and/or abilities, like Theme/Specialties, like Races, and like Backgrounds. Therefore saying "5e redeems the feat mechanic" is nonsense, because this is not the feats mechanic... there is only the name/label left. The feat mechanic is gone.

Not in the least. The feat mechanic is a self-contained package of special abilities (one or more than one), independent of class and race*, which you can obtain at certain levels and "mix and match." These feats are bigger than those of previous editions, and will presumably be available at fewer levels. But they are the same mechanic otherwise.

Of course, "small feats" are indeed gone, and good riddance as far as I'm concerned. And I agree that the particular label of "feat," which was never a very good one, has become increasingly inappropriate. But the mechanic has not changed.

[SIZE=-2]*Yes, they did have some class- and race-specific feats, but the bulk of the feat list was available to anybody.[/SIZE]

 

[DEFCON 1]

Agree on both counts - apprentice tier be damned! I think most players like to customise their PC from level 1.

You mean selecting a sub-class or scheme or deity or tradition isn't enough customization? Considering the sub-class/scheme/deity/tradition gives you a heck of a lot more than a single feat (or two if you were human) ever did.

 

[DEFCON 1]

BTW, I wonder if we still need a Background system at all. "Feats" are now going to be bundles of anything, thus can serve the same purpose as Backgrounds, which won't cover skills anymore and as such will have a free-form similar to Feats, and possible the same magnitude.

We don't need ANY of those systems... because everything is just a bundle of "stuff". Race... class... background... feats... specialties or whatever. You could eliminate or rename any of those things in the game if you wanted to... because all of them are just piles of game mechanics that have descriptive text layered on top of them to make them seem different.

Why would we need a background and a feat/theme/specialty system?

Because according to the fluff... backgrounds go over what we learned and know before becoming adventurers, and feat/theme/specialty are what we evolve into because we are adventurers. That's why they are different systems. Their stories are different just like the stories behind the mechanics we got for our race and our class.

 

[Li Shenron]

We don't need ANY of those systems... because everything is just a bundle of "stuff". Race... class... background... feats... specialties or whatever. You could eliminate or rename any of those things in the game if you wanted to... because all of them are just piles of game mechanics that have descriptive text layered on top of them to make them seem different.

Why would we need a background and a feat/theme/specialty system?

Because according to the fluff... backgrounds go over what we learned and know before becoming adventurers, and feat/theme/specialty are what we evolve into because we are adventurers. That's why they are different systems. Their stories are different just like the stories behind the mechanics we got for our race and our class.

Yes but in the first year of playtest, the fluff was backed up by Backgrounds and Specialties delivering different types of abilities. What I mean is that they have already announced that background was not going anymore to deliver skills, but instead it would deliver traits (generic abilities although mostly related to downtime, so far) and proficiencies. Feats will deliver combat or non-combat abilities and proficiencies. These sound similar enough, that they could just merge both into one system only.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Yes but in the first year of playtest, the fluff was backed up by Backgrounds and Specialties delivering different types of abilities. What I mean is that they have already announced that background was not going anymore to deliver skills, but instead it would deliver traits (generic abilities although mostly related to downtime, so far) and proficiencies. Feats will deliver combat or non-combat abilities and proficiencies. These sound similar enough, that they could just merge both into one system only.

From a mechanics point of view you are correct. But not necessarily when it comes to the story and fluff of these things. And that's why they probably should remain separate... because they tell you different things about who your character is.

"What's your background, kid? How'd you earn a living when you were younger?"

"I was a Heavy Armor Master!"

...

...

"Is that a salaried position or did you get paid by the hour?"

 

[I'm A Banana]

Therefore saying "5e redeems the feat mechanic" is nonsense, because this is not the feats mechanic... there is only the name/label left. The feat mechanic is gone.

Only if you narrowly define the feat mechanic as "a character option of small impact." If you define it instead as "a character customization option outside of race or class," it's the same.

 

[jrowland]

I think for the "standard" game these are fine. Obviously, "basic" game is to use ability bumps only, and "advanced" will likely be "feel free to mix and match features of these feats to create your feats" or "break each of these feats into their individual components and change the rate at which feats are acquired." or some such thing that brings them back to a 3e/4e style of feat.

I, for one, like the idea of:

Race, Class (and sub-class), Background (Roleplay specialty), Feats (Combat Specialty), and hopefully another thing I'll call Talent for lack of a better term (Exploration Specialty). A "mega-feat" approach to each pillar is a fine. Giving each a separate name helps avoid confusion and allows for different rates of advancement (one, every 4 levels, and maybe only one, respectively)

 

[VinylTap]

I think its better to look at the metagame goal of system, instead of getting fiddly about system mechanics . The system is changing, but its goal is the same-- to create a mechanical manifestation of your character's abilities within the game's math.

"I hit the orc really hard!" (the rp) << i got a feat for you, power attack! (the mechanics)

"I shoot a bunch of arrows quickly!" (the rp) << I got a feat for that, quick shot! (the mechanics)

The end result of the feat system changing isn't really all that different, its just being organized differently. Instead of a chain of feats you pick up every level, you get a bulk of abilities once every few levels. i think its a great progression, and should lead to less useless feats, and better class balance/direction.