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

[Weather Report]

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

And comments like this make me think some people are looking at what is underneath, but getting caught up in labels.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

Don't get me wrong, I actually liked the fluff concept behind Backgrounds vs the one behind Specialties. It's just that now things have changed a lot... if they end up being two systems granting more or less the same kind of stuff, they could be merged and then leave it up to the player to decide when one package comes from having a job for 10 years (probably the first Feat they get) and other packages from what they've been up to lately.

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.

You are right. But that is how I defined them, just because it's what feats have always been so far, since their introduction in 3e and until the last playtest package.

I am not even sure what the word "feat" in English exactly means, I thought it was something between "feature" and "stunt", but always sounded to me like it referred to a single thing. I think theme/specialty sounds more appropriate to a package of abilities that is picked up as a whole, along the way to 20th level. Otherwise also backgrounds, traits, flaws, tricks... they all fall into the second definition.

 

[Ratskinner]

I am not even sure what the word "feat" in English exactly means, I thought it was something between "feature" and "stunt", but always sounded to me like it referred to a single thing. I think theme/specialty sounds more appropriate to a package of abilities that is picked up as a whole, along the way to 20th level. Otherwise also backgrounds, traits, flaws, tricks... they all fall into the second definition.

Generally speaking, you're right. Its closer to "stunt". As opposed to "feature", "feat" represents a singular event. So a acrobat or hero might perform "feats of daring". It can also refer to impromptu achievements: "Avoiding that truck was quite a feat of driving!" I definitely agree that especially as big packages, that "specialty" or "theme" are much better titles for the mechanics than "feats". (Which wasn't a very good one to begin with.)

[h=3]feat[/h]/fēt/

Noun An achievement that requires great courage, skill, or strength.

Synonyms exploit - deed - achievement - performance

 

[Ratskinner]

If someone mentioned this already, I didn't see it...


Does this imply that some prestige/paragon classes will now be a singular "feat"? I seem to recall Mearls' saying that they wanted the feat system to handle all that kind of stuff.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I'd be extremely surprised if the "proficiencies" granted by background shared any common ground with things like weapon and armor proficiencies. There isn't going to be any overlap between backgrounds and feats. They know better than to make that mistake. If they don't, we'll tell them when they make it, and they'll fix it.

One of the things that demonstrates different D&D interpretation styles is how people view character customization. See, I look at it and see:
1. Start with a race (from a half dozen or more choices), ability scores (with a lot of customization), background (of probably dozens of choices), and alignment (if desired)
2. Add an adventuring class (of which you will have around a dozen or more choices), and equip your character as desired
3. Add a subclass (of which you will have multiple choices for each class), either immediately or in the first few levels
4. Then add a feat/specialty (of which you will have many choices) at about level 4 or 5
5. Multiclass if you want to
6. Add additional feats as you level up

And I think, "how is that not enough character customization?"
I just don't see "I don't want to be like every other fighter" as a valid criticism, since it is rarely accurate. It simply sounds more compelling than saying, "I don't want to be like every other Str 12, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 13, Wis 15, Cha 10, chaotic good, wood elf, giant killer ranger with a priest background who wields shortswords, a longbow, and throwing daggers, and prefers studded leather armor. And 4-6 highly flavorful suites of special features that I can select isn't going to cut it." Really? This is a class-based system. There is going to be plenty of customization for a class-based system. Any more customization and you hardly have a class-based system.

I love skill-based systems. D&D is the only game that I actually like a class-based system in. So I find arguments that amount to saying, "that's too much like a class-based system" rather foreign to my preferences.

Play what you like, it just makes me shake my head like a boat was missed somewhere.

 

[Stalker0]

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

I'll disagree here. 3e feats had a very wide range. Everything from piddly bonuses to super bonuses to bonuses that changed how you cast your spells, gave you a familiar with all of its complex rules, let you craft items with those complex rules, gave you several tactical options in one feat, gave you "super bombs" with x/day free metadata magic ability, to learning new martial manuevers....etc.

This new packaging isn't new, 3e tried a bunch of different feat styles over its lifespan.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

This one is a big question for me. My general take is that classes will still give you proficiencies, and that these feat proficiencies will effectively let you get abilities outside of your class. For example, a rogue probably won't have heavy armor proficiency, but could get it by taking the heavy armor feat.

 

[Argyle King]

How much will taking a -5 matter in a game which (supposedly) has flatter math?

I'm trying to get a feel for if these feats will be on equal footing with ability score increases.

 

[GX.Sigma]

How much will taking a -5 matter in a game which (supposedly) has flatter math?

Enough that it's only a good idea if your opponent's AC is less than 11 + your attack bonus.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I'm waiting to see how these feats turn out. On one hand I can see the reduction in feats as many of the must have things and character options have been collapsed into class features. But I'm not too big on the "take an important ability score increase or a feat and be mediocre" deal that may be appearing.

What I feel is a reasonable number would be something along the lines of a character gets 20 in their important ability score (with 16 being the assumed starting value) and at least 3 or more feats. So I feel that all classes should get at least 5 of these slots, more for classes that depend on multiple ability scores.