D&D 5E D&D 5e Feats

[Sirot]

I think feats as they were in 3e and are in 4e are fundamentally broken. Feats are way too numerous and for any given character, only a handful would apply to them. Worst of all, many of the feats I end up taking only give numerical bonuses because I need to pay the tax to stay viable as a character. Feats that only boost numbers are boring (unless the affect is unique or interesting) and they prevent us from making our characters unique.

I think the focus of feats should change. They need to stop tweaking numbers and be the way that characters get options opened up for them. A great example is that feats are now the way for wizards to gain at-will abilities. That's cool! That's interesting! I would want more of that and it would get me excited to buy a book to just see its new feats.

That said, I think that the majority feats should be class specific. There should be general feats, but they have to be really exemplar and really be the stuff that every class or a big segment would be interested in getting. A feat that allows a character to get an animal companion (e.g. a pet blink hound) is a good feat. A feat that gives me a +2 to AC when I am wearing cloth or no armor is not interesting. Especially if I have realistically no choice in taking it or not.

What should feats be able to do? How many of them should there be and how many of them should be class specific?

 

[SensoryThought]

I think part of the problem is that feats are based around giving small mechanical and often combat related bonuses. All benefits are roughly equivalent so there was no reason not to take those that were the least situational (eg weapon expertise, improved defenses, man at arms for 4e).

I actually think it is less of a problem with the idea of feats and more of a balance issue. Those feats less likely to be used should have greater proportional benefits.

 

[Raith5]

I must say I could be sold on having a greater number of feats, especially at the start, to customise my PC better from the get go. I quite like what the computer game Skyrim does with perks (where you get one each level) then choose in talent trees. Maybe alternate each choice between combat and social kinds of feats?

Not sure about class feats being the default, I think class abilities by level as in 4th essentials is the way to go for class options.

But I am with you about not having any/too many math feats. I especially hate extremely contingent math bonuses, ie you get +2 to hit when adjacent to a wall and standing on one leg.

The thing that 4th ed essentials got right was to cut down the number of choices, made many of them scale with tier and made them more interesting and significant (though in the case of the defense feats, I think they were a little too good)

 

[Mattachine]

Feats that give small, general bonuses that all PCs of a certain type will almost certainly take are bad design. Those should simply be class features. That was one of the problems with the 3.0 and 3.5 fighter. All were going to take weapon focus, weapon specialization, greater WF, and GWS. They should have been class features, rather than a "feat tax" as described here and elsewhere. Likewise, in 4e, your caster could take feats to boost damage type X, but in all likelihood, your caster used damage type X for all or nearly all attacks. Why not just make the damage higher in the first place?


Feats should provide interesting options for characters, whether class based or not, and should stay away from non-conditional bonuses.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I think the focus of feats should change. They need to stop tweaking numbers and be the way that characters get options opened up for them. A great example is that feats are now the way for wizards to gain at-will abilities. That's cool! That's interesting! I would want more of that and it would get me excited to buy a book to just see its new feats.

I agree with this. Feats that give number bonuses are boring in the same way that plain +x weapons and armor are boring. Both have a bad effect on the game's math and balance. Both should DIAF, IMO.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I hate Feats. I remember when 3e came out and I read about Feats and thought "That sounds awesome! How modern!" but it wasn't. It was horrible. Then when I read up on 4e, I thought "It sure sounds like they fixed Feats! Awesome!" But no. They made them even worse. It was where they moved all the fiddly to.

I agree with this. Feats that give number bonuses are boring in the same way that plain +x weapons and armor are boring. Both have a bad effect on the game's math and balance. Both should DIAF, IMO.

I like +X magic items. It's such a simple and effective way to communicate their special nature. "It's a sword so good that it guides your hand." I mean, given that not everything and your mom give you a bonus.

On Feats, I'm torn. I'm not one to cry over the death of static bonuses -- what with the modifier treadmill and all -- unless they replace them with dynamic ones. I don't want to have to think about "If X AND Y happens, I get +Z."

I like Feats like Skill Training and Ritual Caster. Stuff that gives you new abilities/access to new things, or that let you replace STR with DEX in Melée and such.

 

[Sammael]

Feats should never grant flat, boring numerical bonuses. Rerolls are much better.

Alertness: when someone tries to sneak past you, he must roll the check twice and take the lower value.

Improved Initiative: when rolling for initiative, roll twice and take the better value.

Additionally, they should grant cool abilities that are not specific to one particular class.

Aftersight: Once per day, you may call upon this mystic ability to glimpse at the past events that occurred at your current location.

Animal Affinity: Non-predatory animals always start with a friendly attitude towards you and will not run or flee unless threatened.

Educated: You can retry a failed lore skill check once per encounter. If you have access to a library while attempting a lore skill check, your equipment bonus is doubled. You also gain one contact from the world of academics (typically one of your mentors).

Granted, some of the above examples may fit the 5E concept of themes better. We'll see.

 

[1of3]

I agree that special mechanics and plain bonuses shouldn't be in the same category.

Actually I was hoping that in 4e they would put all the special mechanics into powers and make the feats simple bonuses. In the end, the opposite happened. Feats modifying powers and class features.

That's especially bad, because these feats fail to illustrate the character, while making characters more individual was the basic idea. So my Ranger is a Lethal Hunter. Isn't that the whole idea of being a Ranger? My fighter can push people, when the mark triggers. How does that change the appearance and flavor of my fighter?

Those modifications to standard features just might work but not in this framework. It's OK for, say, the Guardsmen of Schnackpuk to do fancy stuff with their shields. So tell me about Schnackpuck and its Guardmen and only then how they push people on triggered marks. And call that crunchy bit Schnackpuk Guard Training.

 

[Grazzt]

Feats should never grant flat, boring numerical bonuses. Rerolls are much better.

Agreed. That's one thing I liked about SW Saga was that some racial features and feats granted rerolls instead of +x. And people like rolling dice, so it works out well.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I like Feats like Skill Training and Ritual Caster. Stuff that gives you new abilities/access to new things, or that let you replace STR with DEX in Melée and such.

While I agree that feats should be more like Skill Training and Ritual Caster, I always thought that the Weapon Finesse feat in itself was always a Feat Tax for Rogues and many of those character types.

 

[Viking Bastard]

While I agree that feats should be more like Skill Training and Ritual Caster, I always thought that the Weapon Finesse feat in itself was always a Feat Tax for Rogues and many of those character types.

Well, I like characters outside of Rogues having the option, but the Rogues should definitely get it for free. To give this context, I also like fewer and broader classes, rather than niche stuff like, say, Bladesingers.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like feats that give statistical bonuses.
Weapon specialization is not new to 3rdor 4th edition.

It just was new, that those weapon proficiences competed with non weapon proficiencies (skill training)
In ADnD 2nd edition, you just had two different pools.

With class, race and theme, there could easily be class, racial and theme feats. And you get them seperately. Maybe a class feat every odd level, a theme and/or a racial feat at every even level. Class feats are combat related, like weapon proficiencies/focus/and styles (I agree that weapon finesse should be built in light blades), theme feats will cover skills, and racial feats will allow to ge some nice racial utilities.

 

[Hassassin]

Feats should never grant flat, boring numerical bonuses. Rerolls are much better.

In D20, being better at something means having a bonus to the roll, and vice versa. Rerolls just push it closer to a dice pool system. It is not inherently any more interesting.

If you don't want feats that grant a flat bonus, don't design feats that simply make you better at something.

 

[Bohemian Ear Spoon]

Agree with all the haters. feats are my least favorite parts of 3e and 4e. They sounded great at first until I was drowned in them.

I don't want a computer to roll up a character, or 40 books open in front of me, which is the only option with the current game and its (literally) THOUSANDS of feats.

God I hope they get this right, or at least make feats modular, so I can modulate their existence right out of my game.

 

[Sirot]

I think rerolls are a better way to go since it's a way to reduce the amount of numerical bloat you get with the actual roll + modifiers. That and I think it has a psychological effect on the player, you don't feel as vulnerable to a bad roll.

 

[Ferghis]

I agree with the spirit of getting rid of boring "+1 to damage" feats.

I do want to see swappable parts on the "advanced" characters, however it may be done. I'm happy to have something in the style of a 1e fighter, or even an essentials-fighter, but I also want to be able to swap out a lot of features for other features. In a way, this is what feats might do, and I don't dislike that, provided it works and is limited.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

My view on what feats should become is as follows:

1. Fewer in number, greater in power. Taking a feat should have a significant effect on your character, or perhaps several smaller effects. Each should really help define what makes a character unique.
2. Have associated fluff. No feat should exist just to fill a mathematical niché. Instead, each should represent a kind of training or style that fits within the setting.
3. Grouped Thematically. Nothing is worse that an alphabetical list of all feats. They should be grouped, much like spells are, into themed packages that make it easier to find something related to a character.

In a way, I see feats as replacing prestige classes or paragon paths by getting bigger, beating them up, and taking their stuff.

 

[Sirot]

I agree with the spirit of getting rid of boring "+1 to damage" feats.

I do want to see swappable parts on the "advanced" characters, however it may be done. I'm happy to have something in the style of a 1e fighter, or even an essentials-fighter, but I also want to be able to swap out a lot of features for other features. In a way, this is what feats might do, and I don't dislike that, provided it works and is limited.

Making feats swappable class features is the way to go. That is why I am pushing for class specific feats being the norm. I would even suggest that level requirements for feats become common to allow more power variance in feats and make them feel more like class features. The biggest thing this will do is turn 300 feats to choose from by any class into 25 feats per class (assuming 10 classes) with 50 general shared feats, which are further broken down by level.

The best thing WotC could do for the feat system is make it so they have a database of all the feats they have ever printed by easily searchable on their site for free. If they do that, and make feats more class/level specific, character generation would become more manageable and enjoyable.

 

[Sammael]

I don't want to see class specific feats. Feats should be general abilities that are not specific to a class; if something is specific to a class, it belongs on the class progression chart.

On the other hand, I fully endorse feats that will grant PCs the ability to dabble without full multiclassing, as long as full multiclassing is still an option.

 

[Rbuse]

Feats RE:

If i have this correct, upon character creation you can choos a race, a class and a theme all would have standard abilities of bonuses that they would give you. Race seems to be where your bonuses would come from, Class where abilities would come from, and a theme would give a secondary bonus/ enhance race or class and or give a skill specialty. Feats are now more about swapping "out of the box" race, class, or template traits another one that would make your character unique. If i understand theme correctly Avenger would be a theme that would enhance say the paladin class, or Maybe High elf would be a theme that would enhance the elf race.

It would seem that instead of the 20-30 catagories of feats we have now in 4e we would have Class feats/Race feats/Theme feats which the ability granted may be more powerful than what we are used to in 4e however there is a cost assosiated with taking the feat.

On rolling:
Most tabletop gamers love the idea of the fate of their character depending on the roll of a die, I agree it makes it exciting.However, whats not exciting to me is useless rolling. A complaint of mine has always been wondering why my (for instance) exceptionally strong character can perform amazing feats of stregnth and then in the next room not roll high enough to bust through a rickity wooden door. Streamlining rolls where if your below a certain threshold you need to roll and if your above is an autosuccess is a great idea.

On playstyle:
A modular version of D&D is very exciting to me as the group i game with is very diverse. We have a mix of players that enjoy more story driven and tend to play a more balanced character, two players who want all of the intricate complicated skill and ability choices, one player who if at all possible would be completely skill based, and myself who enjoys a simple streamlined character(I've been playing an essentials thief).

These people mentioned above are who the feats are for the skill player can trade out some abilities for more skill specialties. The complicated players can trade their abilites in for complicates specific use ones, or you can just play out of the box. Everyone can get what they want out of the game without having to play a different edition.