D&D 5E (2024) Feat Chains are Incompatible with Easy CharGen + 1st Lev Feats

[doctorbadwolf]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Maxperson]

The Dragonlance UAs have initial feats that are strictly worse than similar feats.

Those are background feats, right?

 

[CleverNickName]

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Those are background feats, right?

Yes, though available outside those backgrounds.

 

[Maxperson]

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]

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]

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]

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.