D&D (2024) Feat Levels vs Feat Chains

[Yaarel]

The whole point of feats in the first place is to customize a character concept. Feats are rare accessible while leveling.

To actually use prereqs, such as chains, to gate feats so as to actively prevent players from customizing their character, is counterproductive to the feat design space.

Feats must be as easy to qualify for as possible.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I am fine with feat chains as an occasional thing in a supplement like Strixhaven or Theros if it is absolutely necessary for a setting specific cross-class character concept and subclasses or backgrounds won't do the trick, but I would prefer they be left out of the PHB except for maybe one set to introduce the concept and nomenclature to the game. I don't think WOTC is going to go too crazy with feat chains in 5.5, I am hoping they are focusing their design efforts on figuring out the proper power budget of each of the feat levels.

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm not a fan of feat chains, mostly because they become a tax on certain builds and limit creativity. A handful of ideas can build off of each other, such as a magic debutante following magic initiate, but those are going to be uncommon.

I do have an issue with Feat levels, however, if they remain tied to ASI. If they have 8th level feats, this will simply encourage people to take the ASI to their primary ability at level 4, waiting for the better feats. Having only level 1 and level 4 feats is fine though, since you don't have the option for the ASI at level 1.

 

[Minigiant]

The point of 3e feat chains were to isolate them to fighters and wizards as their class features.

Now both have class features so feats chains would be only needed for guaging feats to tiers.

X Initiate at level 4
X Adept at level 8
X Master at level 12
X Grandmaster at level 16

 

[Mephista]

I'd like to point out something I remember from the UA video. One of the things that they mentoned was something to the effect of "you know these are level 1 feats because there's no +1 stat on them."

So, its possible that everything's going to become a half-feat at higher levels.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd like to point out something I remember from the UA video. One of the things that they mentoned was something to the effect of "you know these are level 1 feats because there's no +1 stat on them."

So, its possible that everything's going to become a half-feat at higher levels.

Doubt it.

I think the point was that they didn't want feats like Tavern Brawler competing with a +1 and the strongest half feat bonus. Feats like the Master feats will likely not have a +1.

My guess is 80% of +1 half feats will be level 4 or in feat chains.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'd like to point out something I remember from the UA video. One of the things that they mentoned was something to the effect of "you know these are level 1 feats because there's no +1 stat on them."

So, its possible that everything's going to become a half-feat at higher levels.

Hopefully get rid of the +2 attrib instead of a feat option too. Merging feats and attribute bumps into the same option just makes players feel forced to take the +2 till maxed while monster math numbers are still pegged all over with values that assumes a 14 or 16 plus a mundane starting weapon .

 

[Gorck]

I'd like to point out something I remember from the UA video. One of the things that they mentoned was something to the effect of "you know these are level 1 feats because there's no +1 stat on them."

I do remember Jeremy Crawford saying that in the interview with Todd Stashwick. I had completely forgotten about it and was wondering if they were going to continue to make us choose between taking a feat or an ASI, or if they were going to go back to the way it was in previous editions where we would get both.

This comment seems to imply that, since there will still be some feats that give a +1, we'll still have to make the choice. If that's the case, I can't possibly see them doing feat chains since, with the new free one in the Background and assuming the ASI's progress the same as 5e, characters will only get 6 feats if they forego all their ASI's (Fighters will get 8). That's not enough to have to dedicate oneself to a chain.

I do think they will only do 1st level feats and 4+level feats, just because some feats are too powerful for 1st level, which I would be perfectly fine with. I hope they don't do any level-gating beyond that.

EDIT: While I'm watching the finale of Legends of the Multiverse, it occurs to me I mixed up my Todds. The interviewer was Todd Kenreck.

 

[Maxperson]

I know a lot of people like the concept of feat chains, but I have always hated them. It just felt like justification for a bad feat because it was a prereq for a good one, and it severely limits customization. I think this is an even bigger problem in 5e when feats are so limited, the vast majority of players (that play to about 8-11th level) will only ever get 3 feats for a character (4 for a human), and that's assuming no ability score boosts. So even a single feat chain basically dictates your characters' entire feat choice.

I think feat levels are a far superior option. You can make penultimate feats that require level 8, and then the player can decide how to get there. If they want to make a chain of similar feats to be the ultimate in X, fine. If they want the cool 8th level feat but also do some other stuff, fine. It also removes the imbalance that humans can bring into the mix, where the right chain means that humans get a major power boost over the competitive.

So I think that with the arrival of feat levels, feat chains are obsolete. The levels are simply a superior mechanic....as long as they are used well. I think the vast majority of feats should be level 1 or 4....with only a handful of "truly powerful ones" being 8th....even 12th feels a bit too long for most feats to come online.

Thoughts?

I personally like chains, but want them to be 1) short and 2) not based on bad feats. What they could do is require a "chain." I put it in quotes because the chain is not set. If you want a level 8 feat, you MUST have both a level 1(supplied by background) and a level 4 feat before you can take it. You can pick the feats you want in order to get there, but you have to have chained the levels together.

 

[tetrasodium]

I do remember Jeremy Crawford saying that in the interview with Todd Stashwick. I had completely forgotten about it and was wondering if they were going to continue to make us choose between taking a feat or an ASI, or if they were going to go back to the way it was in previous editions where we would get both.

This comment seems to imply that, since there will still be some feats that give a +1, we'll still have to make the choice. If that's the case, I can't possibly see them doing feat chains since, with the new free one in the Background and assuming the ASI's progress the same as 5e, characters will only get 6 feats if they forego all their ASI's (Fighters will get 8). That's not enough to have to dedicate oneself to a chain.

I do think they will only do 1st level feats and 4+level feats, just because some feats are too powerful for 1st level, which I would be perfectly fine with. I hope they don't do any level-gating beyond that.

Most of my games run into tier3 (low to mid teens), an awful lot changes. Having an additional tier at 8 or 12 would be nice, especially for casters who at 4 get a heavy dose of "your feats can't be too good or specialized because a slow burn caster is still burning plus 3rd attack & similar aren't online yet so they can't be too good for sorlockadin builds". Unfortunately we don't yet know enough about what's going to change to really guess what niche they would need to target