Feats and How to Ruin Them

[OnlineDM]

[MENTION=70008]Transformer[/MENTION]: Could you provide some examples of what you DO want feats to do in D&D Next? What feats from 3e or 4e would you like to see show up as options in 5e?

You've given some good examples of what you DON'T want feats to do, but I'm not sure what you DO want them to do instead. If they don't carry thematic or mechanical weight, what do they do?

This isn't a criticism; it's actual confusion on my part. And I'm betting that you have some good thoughts on what feats SHOULD be rather than just what they should NOT be. I'd like to hear those thoughts!

 

[Pyromantic]

It's interesting to me how much people differ in their point of view regarding feats. I agree with much of what the OP says, though perhaps not all.

Let me first say that I'm playing a Goliath Warden in a 4E campaign right now, and I've been deciding through several different possible feats: Guard of stone, markings of the victor, a multi-class feat, and so on. This I consider good design. Each of the things I'm thinking about provides significant benefit, but each in a different way, and (perhaps most importantly), each in a different context. What I detest are feats that represent math fixes or are so broad in scope that they are practically essential (*cough* weapon expertise *cough cough*). I think feats should provide significant bonuses but should rarely if ever provide static bonuses that mean they will effectively come into play every round of combat. This also includes certain feat chains in 3.5 that optimize you in such a specific way that you end up trying to do the same thing every single round. Similarly, feats that simply feel necessary for a given build to reach basic functionality have got to go.

I don't have a problem with feats that develop racial abilities, fighting styles, options in and out of combat, substantial bonuses to situations that may happen once or twice in a fight, and the like. That said, I agree that any race/class should feel defined and functional without feats, and that every feat choice should feel like exactly that: a choice.

 

[KesselZero]

Okay, I'm showing my noob here but I have to ask a couple questions about terminology that's getting thrown around.

1. What is siloing?

2. What is a feat tax?

3. What's the deal with Weapon Focus, etc. being "math fixes?" I've heard this story before, that the designers realized at some late stage that some bonuses were too small so they added feats to boost those bonuses, thus making those feats necessary for certain classes. What baffles me is, if the math was wrong and required an additional +1, why not just give everybody a +1? Why do these "math-fix" feats exist in both 3e and 4e? What exactly is broken that requires a +1 to fix it? I certainly agree that having those feats be the obvious, required choices for a starting character is irritating, but where does the general hatred for all static bonus feats come from?

Thank you for your gentle understanding and use of small words in correcting my nubbiness.

 

[OnlineDM]

Okay, I'm showing my noob here but I have to ask a couple questions about terminology that's getting thrown around.

1. What is siloing?

I'm honestly not sure on this one, either. I think folks are referring to feats being a separate piece of the character creation process - I've got my class features, I've got spells/powers/whatever, and I've got feats. The feats don't interact with the others - that's what I'd call "siloing".

2. What is a feat tax?

This is a term that gets thrown around for feats that players feel you "have to" take. Not taking this feat just leaves your character too far behind other characters that do take it in terms of effectiveness (generally in combat, of course). If "everyone has to take" the feat, then it's perceived as a "tax" that is just an obligation, spending your feat slot on this one thing.

3. What's the deal with Weapon Focus, etc. being "math fixes?" I've heard this story before, that the designers realized at some late stage that some bonuses were too small so they added feats to boost those bonuses, thus making those feats necessary for certain classes. What baffles me is, if the math was wrong and required an additional +1, why not just give everybody a +1? Why do these "math-fix" feats exist in both 3e and 4e? What exactly is broken that requires a +1 to fix it? I certainly agree that having those feats be the obvious, required choices for a starting character is irritating, but where does the general hatred for all static bonus feats come from?

At least for 4e (which is what I'm familiar with), Expertise feats and Improved Defenses are seen as "math fixes". The logic here is that rolling, say, an 8 or better on your attack roll should hit an even-level enemy no matter what your level is, and an opponent rolling, say, a 9 or better should hit a PC of the same level. Without these feats, the math changes. Now you need to roll a 9 at paragon tier or a 10 at epic tier to hit even-level foes, and you are getting hit by 8s and 7s from your foes.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm honestly not sure on this one, either. I think folks are referring to feats being a separate piece of the character creation process - I've got my class features, I've got spells/powers/whatever, and I've got feats. The feats don't interact with the others - that's what I'd call "siloing".

You've got the gist of it. The name is evocative of half of what it means, but for the other half, you'd have to know something about actual silos. Namely, not only are things separate, but they aren't mixed, either. In a character build, that means that you get to pick from the feat silo, the skill silo, the power silo, etc. but you do not get to trade picks in one for the other.

Of course, it isn't exactly that strict. See feats that let you get extra skills, for example. Nor does it need to be that strict in practice. All you really need is a restraint on mixing, so that the mixes permitted have acceptable effects on the game. This is in stark contast to, say, a pure point-buy game, such as GURPS, where you can buy anything you want with your points.

Note that this should not be confused with opportunity costs, which you get in some form in either extreme of point-buy or siloing. When you spend your points on X, you can't spend those same points on Y. When you make pick A in a silo, you can't also use that pick for B in the same silo. Siloing can make opportunity costs far more apparent, however, because of the lack of trading.

 

[KesselZero]

At least for 4e (which is what I'm familiar with), Expertise feats and Improved Defenses are seen as "math fixes". The logic here is that rolling, say, an 8 or better on your attack roll should hit an even-level enemy no matter what your level is, and an opponent rolling, say, a 9 or better should hit a PC of the same level. Without these feats, the math changes. Now you need to roll a 9 at paragon tier or a 10 at epic tier to hit even-level foes, and you are getting hit by 8s and 7s from your foes.

So this relates to the tiered nature of such feats in 4e, how they increase by +1 additional bonus at each tier. Interesting. Maybe this is caused by D&D's insistence that all halves are rounded down, so the half-level bonus goes +0/+1/+0/+1 rather than +1/+0/+1/+0, but monsters get full level added to their stats? Anyway, I guess the question is really "Why didn't the designers just give everybody a stacking +1 to attack rolls and defenses at each tier?" I also didn't know that Improved Defenses was considered such a feat. I'll have to start taking it now... though I hate that it kind of nerfs the defense-specific feats, since it makes their +2's into +1's.

Thanks for the helpful reply. I can see why people get mad about this!

EDIT: Oh, and [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION], I would have XP'ed you too but I have to spread it around, whatever that means.

 

[OnlineDM]

So this relates to the tiered nature of such feats in 4e, how they increase by +1 additional bonus at each tier. Interesting. Maybe this is caused by D&D's insistence that all halves are rounded down, so the half-level bonus goes +0/+1/+0/+1 rather than +1/+0/+1/+0, but monsters get full level added to their stats? Anyway, I guess the question is really "Why didn't the designers just give everybody a stacking +1 to attack rolls and defenses at each tier?"

Well, if you start analyzing it, you'll find that monster defenses go up by 1 each level. This means that player attack rolls should also go up by 1 each level in order to hit an even-level foe on the same die roll. So, your to-hit bonus at level 30 needs to be 29 points higher than it was at level 1.

We already get +1 every other level thanks to the half-level bonus. That gives us 15 points.

We get a total of +6 from enhancement bonuses on weapons / implements or inherent bonuses if you use that system. Now we're at 21 points.

You get to raise your primary stat by a point at levels 4, 8, 11, 14, 18, 21, 24 and 28. That's +8 to your primary stat, which equals +4 to hit. Now we're at 25 points.

Epic destinies typically let you bump your primary stat by 2 points at 21st level, for another +1 to hit. Now we're at 26 points.

Where do the other 3 points come from? Expertise.

So, it's not really about rounding or anything, and yes, it could have been addressed by the rules just giving you +1 to hit at level 5, 15 and 25 or something like that. In the end, though, it's all a bit of a weird mask on the fact that you get +1 to hit each level (through a combination of stuff).

The same goes for defenses. (+15 half level, +6 enhancement, +4 stat boosts - although one will lag here, +1 epic destiny - two will lag here, +3 from feats)

I also didn't know that Improved Defenses was considered such a feat. I'll have to start taking it now... though I hate that it kind of nerfs the defense-specific feats, since it makes their +2's into +1's.

The defense-specific feats are great if you can take them! If you qualify for Superior Will, Superior Fortitude and Superior Reflexes, go ahead and take them. They're 1 better on the defenses themselves and they give you cool extra features. But you have to take 3 feats instead of just 1 with Improved Defenses (or else you let one or two of your defenses be significantly lower).

I didn't mean to imply that you have to specifically take Improved Defenses; I just meant that the feats that bump up your non-AC defenses (of which Improved Defenses is the simplest) are also a math fix to make sure that your defenses keep pace with monster attacks (which, like PC attacks, go up by 1 point per level).

 

[KesselZero]

Extremely thorough and clear answer to my questions

I run into the "spreading XP around" problem again. Thank you so much for an excellent explanation.

 

[Zustiur]

I think perhaps the key point of this thread is that feats need to be less diverse in the size of their effect. One key way to do this is to remove flat mechanical bonuses.
There shouldn't be any feats that are used every round. Therefore +"1 to hit with [primary weapon type]" is a bad feat.
Whereas, "+2 to hit prone targets", is an ok feat. Not a great feat perhaps, but okay.

As it stands in 4E, I never choose feats that look too circumstantial. For example - Sehanine's Reversal "Trigger: You roll a natural 20 on a saving throw." Who in their right mind would select that over a feat which gives them a substantial bonus EVERY ROUND? On the other hand, if all feats were highly circumstantial, then picking one that only occurs on a natural 20 doesn't sound so bad...


Other than things like armour training, I'm not sure that I want feats at all in my games anymore. I like being able to customize my character, but the feat system doesn't seem to do it very well. I've got very mixed feelings on this, and I suspect the reason is that feats cover too broad a range of topics. Maybe if they were broken into combat feats and non-combat feats - and you chose from them separately with different 'feat points'. I don't want choosing 'Improved etiquette' to mean that I'm going to be less useful in combat. Yet I do still want trade offs in my games.

A complete overhaul of feats is due. I'm just not sure which way it needs to go.