D&D (2024) 75 Feats -- not nearly enough

[Swarmkeeper]

There is nothing inherently wrong with power-gaming. We have a couple power gamers at our tables. They play well with others.

A power-gamer can become a problem, however, if they are insisting that every character must take (or avoid) certain feats or spells or skills or subclasses or whatever otherwise that "less-than-powerful" character is endangering the rest of the party. It seems a bit hyperbolic but I've seen that supposition on this board before. It's utter nonsense - unless everyone at the table is truly on board with the premise ahead of time. The game functions perfectly well without players telling other players how they must do anything with their PC.

 

[Horwath]

yes. So fighters become generic if everyone or lots of them are taking the must have feats.
And with more feats, it makes the running the older modules harder to balance. got to go.

you know what is even more generic?

fighters without feats.

Let's see:
max out STR or DEX as primary
max out CON
max out WIS as most important save after.

wow, so much variety...

 

[AnotherGuy]

They are common on message boards. They've got a lot less common since 2007 with the fall of White Wolf and the obsoleting of 3.x

Long Live Pathfinder! Another option is they became DMs to fix the continued bad design by WotC.

One cannot moan about anti-Min/Maxxers without acknowledging also that elements of poor design exist within the game.

 

[ezo]

you know what is even more generic?

fighters without feats.

Let's see:
max out STR or DEX as primary
max out CON
max out WIS as most important save after.

wow, so much variety...

That's why we have so many subclasses....

Seriously though, feats are too unbalanced, a few handful get taken more often than all the others put together IME.

Besides, if you want less generic fighters, try something like barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, or rogues.

Let's see, there is also:

• race (more and more all the time!)
• background (completly customizable)
• subclasses (also more creeping in all the time...)
• fighting styles (more coming soon to a theatre near you!)
• armor and weapon selections
• skill choices

There is also the most important option: how you play your character!

There's really no reason IMO any character should feel generic, especially simply because you don't allow feats... of all things. Players had tons of fun with D&D for decades without them, after all. There are also groups who don't use them now, enjoy the game, and I doubt feel their characters seem generic.

 

[Horwath]

That's why we have so many subclasses....

Seriously though, feats are too unbalanced, a few handful get taken more often than all the others put together IME.

Besides, if you want less generic fighters, try something like barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, or rogues.

Let's see, there is also:

• race (more and more all the time!)
• background (completly customizable)
• subclasses (also more creeping in all the time...)
• fighting styles (more coming soon to a theatre near you!)
• armor and weapon selections
• skill choices

There is also the most important option: how you play your character!

There's really no reason IMO any character should feel generic, especially simply because you don't allow feats... of all things. Players had tons of fun with D&D for decades without them, after all. There are also groups who don't use them now, enjoy the game, and I doubt feel their characters seem generic.

some logic.

you were saying that fighters with feats are more generic than fighters withot feats.
Then I present you with that is your options for ASIs instead of feats and you go on about subclasses, backgrounds, races and styles of play.
That was not the issue, issue is what you take for ASIs if you ban feats, and in 99% of the cases it's the same.
Primary to 20, Con to 20 and if by some miracle the campaign didn't end, probably Wis as it is most valuable saving throw+Perception.

 

[Minigiant]

The issue with feats before was that WOTC threw them together haphazardly as their main target was grognards they thought would ban feats.

Then 5e blew up and they didn't want to fix feats as they were making big bank on the PHB and didn't want to errata.

The 2024 edition is letting them finally fix the PHB feats without killing their book sales.

But I still want tier 3 and tier 4 feats.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Besides, if you want less generic fighters, try something like barbarians, monks, paladins, rangers, or rogues.

these aren't less generic fighters though, they're barbs, monks, paladins, rangers and rogues.

Let's see, there is also:

• race (more and more all the time!)
• background (completly customizable)
• subclasses (also more creeping in all the time...)
• fighting styles (more coming soon to a theatre near you!)
• armor and weapon selections
• skill choices

the current fighter already gets all of these things though, and they haven't made them interesting, you're pointing at things we already have as if we're oblivious morons who haven't realised they exist.

There is also the most important option: how you play your character!

how i play my character doesn't give them new mechanical features though, this is just the terrible 'roleplay has infinite potential' argument, well, the other classes have infinite roleplay potential AND cool mechanical features to use! give the fighter cool mechanical feature too, through feats or otherwise.

 

[Horwath]

give the fighter cool mechanical feature too, through feats or otherwise.

wotc decided that fighter needs to be "the dumb" class, even if some subclasses do make it more interesting
Battlemaster should be default of all fighters if not ALL martial characters.

Funny how warlock got 8 extra feat slots and that is OK because they are not feats they are "invocations".

 

[tetrasodium]

wotc decided that fighter needs to be "the dumb" class, even if some subclasses do make it more interesting
Battlemaster should be default of all fighters if not ALL martial characters.

Funny how warlock got 8 extra feat slots and that is OK because they are not feats they are "invocations".

With that bolded bit I think that if you look back about how much the onednd UA videos gushed about the theme and feel of warlock it shifts from being "funny" to something that should never have happened from a company as large as wotc.

 

[Remathilis]

1. rebalance all feats to half feat levels, remove ASIs from them.

2. break up feat slots/ASIs into separate pools per level:

1: Combat feat, non combat feat
2: Combat feat
3: +1 ASI
4: non combat feat
5: Combat feat
6: +1 ASI
7: non combat feat
8: Combat feat
9: +1 ASI
10: non combat feat
11: Combat feat
13: +1 ASI
14: non combat feat
15:Combat feat
16: +1 ASI
17: non combat feat
18: Combat feat
19: +1 ASI
20: Combat feat, non combat feat

Just play Pathfinder 2e.