OneDnD Feat Chains are Incompatible with Easy CharGen + 1st Lev Feats

TwoSix

Unserious gamer
The only real reason to have a feat chain in 5e is if the first feat gives a novel active ability that the second feat then modifies to make more powerful. That could conceivably happen since they're planning on now treating feats as "non-class specific class features" (or something like that.) Otherwise, they should in now way make strong feats at higher levels that are balanced with the idea that you took a lesser version at earlier levels.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
My only worry about feat chains is that they have always been wrong about the first feat needing to be weaker than feats that don’t start a chain, and don’t seem to have learned that lesson, based on the Dragonlance UAs.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
My only worry about feat chains is that they have always been wrong about the first feat needing to be weaker than feats that don’t start a chain, and don’t seem to have learned that lesson, based on the Dragonlance UAs.
That depends on if the feat down the chain is stronger than most second feats you would take. If not, then you are correct and the first one should be the same as the rest. If the second one is stronger than normal, then the first one has to be weaker or you turn the chain into something that is too good and everyone will take it.
 

IMO feat chains should be thematic chains, not 'power chains'.
Feat A is about as useful and power as other feats available at the given time.
Feat B (which is a 'follow up') to feat A, is about as useful and powerful as other feats available at the given time.

Having A be weaker because B is stronger is a form of 'balance' that harkens back to much earlier editions where a Wizard was a [carry] class and then became the [awesome] class if it survived long enough. You have to be bad now (for who knows how long) to be better then.

Which leads to the obvious problem of : well, if you're stronger [then], that can easily lead to problems at the table - seeing as you're stronger that the other players. If you're not stronger [then], then why did you have to be weaker [before]... ?

This type of approach works very well when the delay between the time-states is small. In 5e, the delay between the acquisition of feats, is not quick enough to make this work IMO. And that's not even talking about the fact that [then] might never happen...

Of course, some people enjoy this approach - or have the conditions required to have it be fun - and good on them. But I do not wish for the general game to be headed in this direction.
 

Lojaan

Adventurer
The assumption here are is that 1st level feats are part of feat chains, and that the chains themselves are complex. We don't have enough information yet to draw a conclusion on this.

Wait and see, and focus feedback on what is in front of us. Not what it might become.

We have potentially TWO YEARS of play testing people. Pace yourselves.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I'm okay either way. I doubt there would be many chains, and like someone mentioned earlier, they would probably only be 2 feats long. Having it limited to level, though, works as well.

One thing they could do with feat chains is to make them automatic. Pick a 4th level feat and it advances in strength at 8th level, rather than costing a second feat. It could be a more power version of the abilities granted at 4th level, or the addition of another ability to the 4th level feat at 8th level.
Another way to go is to have variable prerequisites. Ie, “any feat that grants spells” or “any feat that grants a proficiency”, etc.

The Knight of Solamnia feats could require any feat which grants superiority dice.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
That depends on if the feat down the chain is stronger than most second feats you would take. If not, then you are correct and the first one should be the same as the rest. If the second one is stronger than normal, then the first one has to be weaker or you turn the chain into something that is too good and everyone will take it.
I disagree completely. Simply having a prerequisite feat allows for a little extra oomph, as long as it isn’t a big difference.

But I don’t care either way. As long as we don’t have a 3/.5 Dodge feat situation, or even the Dragonlance UA feat chains where you can take a strictly inferior feat in order to gain a feat that is maybe in the top third of feats by power, but not above the power level of the PHB.

That and feats that unlock things that everyone should be able to do are my main deal breakers, for feats.
 

It's not really a question of simplicity vs complexity per se, but one of information design. There are any number of ttrpgs, supplements, and video games that do this, but they could also just look at one of their own products:


Instead of/in addition to just an alphabetical list, feats (and things like invocations, etc) could be organized visually. There could even be character creation flow charts, where a new player can answer a few questions about who their character is and 'discover' their class or background by following the chart. Session 0 could include a procedure that tells DMs how to guide character creation and how the PCs choices necessarily impact their setting. All of these things can be displayed on a single A4 page, maybe even available as a free pdf to print out or otherwise distribute.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I disagree completely. Simply having a prerequisite feat allows for a little extra oomph, as long as it isn’t a big difference.

But I don’t care either way. As long as we don’t have a 3/.5 Dodge feat situation, or even the Dragonlance UA feat chains where you can take a strictly inferior feat in order to gain a feat that is maybe in the top third of feats by power, but not above the power level of the PHB.

That and feats that unlock things that everyone should be able to do are my main deal breakers, for feats.
I totally agree with you that we can't have a dodge situation, but the level of 5e feats is such that even the half feats are much better than dodge, so I don't think that's going to be an issue.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I totally agree with you that we can't have a dodge situation, but the level of 5e feats is such that even the half feats are much better than dodge, so I don't think that's going to be an issue.
The Dragonlance UAs have initial feats that are strictly worse than similar feats.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Feat chain starters need not be weak. Just appropriate to Tier.

That was always the problem. in order to get the end feat appropriate to tier but keep you from getting it too early, the starting feats had to be simple and weak/numerous.

There is no problem now as not class is solely built on feats.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I've wanted feat trees ever since I played Diablo II.

View attachment 258701
I love these kinds of ability trees in RPGs, but there’s a reason they always give you a flowchart-like visual map of the whole tree. You need to be able to look at the higher-level ones to decide which ones you want to take early on. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does conflict with the stated goal of separating feats by level so as not to overwhelm new players with having to read all the options.
 


CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I love these kinds of ability trees in RPGs, but there’s a reason they always give you a flowchart-like visual map of the whole tree. You need to be able to look at the higher-level ones to decide which ones you want to take early on. Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it does conflict with the stated goal of separating feats by level so as not to overwhelm new players with having to read all the options.
That's a good point. I mean, already we're asking the player to read through several dozen subclasses just to decide what kind of "mage" they want to play...having to then map out a whole tree of feats on top of that would be a nightmare.

Yep, 5E is overdue for some streamlining.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Yes, though available outside those backgrounds.
I have two thoughts. First, backgrounds should be completely separate when unique like that. Second, backgrounds, since they are free, should be equivalent to one another, but not necessarily with feats you can choose. Of course if you can choose backgrounds with a normal feat selection, then they all should be roughly equal.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
That's a good point. I mean, already we're asking the player to read through several dozen subclasses just to decide what kind of "mage" they want to play...having to then map out a whole tree of feats on top of that would be a nightmare.

Yep, 5E is overdue for some streamlining.
Personally, I think it would be fine as long as feat chains are short - two to three feats at most, have no branching options, and are strongly thematically linked. The Dragonlance ones seem pretty reasonable to me.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Personally, I think it would be fine as long as feat chains are short - two to three feats at most, have no branching options, and are strongly thematically linked. The Dragonlance ones seem pretty reasonable to me.
I would prefer the feat tree to be five-feats tall (for 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th levels), but that's a personal preference. A three-tier structure would probably be more accessible for most players.

I'm fully aware that I'm not "most players."
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I would prefer the feat tree to be five-feats tall (for 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th levels), but that's a personal preference. A three-tier structure would probably be more accessible for most players.

I'm fully aware that I'm not "most players."
They've already said that feat chains will be short. Whether short is 2 or 3 is the question. I'm inclined to think 2, since 3 would be most of the feats a character gets.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top