D&D 5E Feats: Do they stifle creativity and reduce options?

[Satyrn]

The big ones are things like Inspiring Leader and Mounted Combat, which anyone who could do would probably do quite frequently.

Aye. In a featless game, that would have me ruling that "granting temporary hit points" isn't possible outside spells and potions, alchemical concoctions or something else that would create some sort of limit.

Everyone can still try an inspiring speech, but it would just boost morale in some way - like an inspiring orc leader probably just commands a few more orcs, or those orcs he commands are more keen to fight to the death.

Reasonable outcomes that help the story instead of boosting hp.

Oh, that's the other sort of feat that bothers me. The ones that are just about boosting numbers. I don't like Inspiring Leader for that reason.

 

[Mistwell]

Keen Mind, Linguist and Mounted Combat are all bad logic for the theoretical DM.

Having a player be able to not have to make a check doesn't in any way prohibit another character from attempting a check as normal.

Sure, a party with a Keen Mind'd player will have that info handed to the Keen Mind player, but that's a right and proper pay off for their investment.

Sure a player with Linguist can make a cipher with a DC of Int Score + Proficiency (and thus a minimum of 10, maximum of 26 (without magical items)), but that doesn't stop a player without from making a cipher with DC of 1d20 + Int Mod (minimum of 1, maximum of 25).

Mounted Combat, again, doesn't stop a player from trying to intercept an attack for their mount, the player with the feat just doesn't have to try.

Skulker also follows this trend. It doesn't stop a player from trying, it stops a player with the feat from failing.


Re: Inspiring Leader:
What?
Inspiring Leader existing stops a DM from letting a player try an inspiring speech? What nonsense is this? But before we even get to that line, there are plenty of awards for an inspiring speech, just because the feat uses one, suddenly they're all invalid? (Personally, I'd give the players an inspiration point)

You've gone to extremes and strawmen that were not presented.

I didn't say a DM "cannot" let others try something with a check. I said a DM would naturally be more reluctant to let it happen in a game where another player chose the overlapping feat in an expenditure of a precious resource that you didn't spend. It's a natural pressure on a DM to alter their approach due to the existence of the feat in that game which likely wouldn't be there, or wouldn't be there as strongly, if the feat wasn't there. Similarly it might be natural pressure on a player that they shouldn't try to replicate something done by a feat someone else has, or they might not even ask if they could try as they assume that's how feats work.

On Inspiring Leader, I didn't say a DM would stop a player from trying an inspiring speech. You call it nonsense because it is - your reply doesn't in any way reflect what was said. I don't know if it's because you skimmed it and didn't get a good bead on the details of what I wrote, or if it was an intentional exaggeration for effect, but you're not responding to any position I took in that post.

 

[jasper]

Feats: Do they stifle creativity. NO. I have walked thru an adventure wearing a 3 piece suit, a Persian cat with no name, and a cane of striking. Some people need feats to make their pc, some don't.

Reduce options? YES. Because feats are crunchy. (jasper use a bad word). My crunch options are going to be affected.

 

[Yunru]

Strawman? I hardly think so:

Their players can try almost anything listed in the feats by making some sort of check under appropriate circumstances without the need for rules text to overly mechanize it and, by implication, disallow others from trying those things without that feat.

I am starting to think the more rules you have, the less freedom and creativity the player's have under the illusion they have more "options" which were almost always options they had if they could think of it in the situation.

With it...DMs will feel the pressure to not allow that if some other player has the feat and they don't.

With the feat, DMs won't want to allow that if another PC has the feat and you don't.

Sometimes, the more rules you have for the high level details of every potential circumstance of the game (which is most exemplified by feats) the less freedom you have to try different things if the circumstances call for it because a rule (in a feat) already covers that idea and you don't have that option (feat) on your character sheet (though someone else might).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've enjoyed feats since 3e, and used them in every version since then.

However, I know some people who don't like feats. Some of the most experienced players and DMs I know choose to not have feats in their games. They feel it's much more "sophomore" level of play where people are comfortable enough to try some different things (no longer freshmen) but not comfortable enough to do those things without written rules to cover them (senior). Their players can try almost anything listed in the feats by making some sort of check under appropriate circumstances without the need for rules text to overly mechanize it and, by implication, disallow others from trying those things without that feat.

Slowly, I am starting to see their point. I am starting to think the more rules you have, the less freedom and creativity the player's have under the illusion they have more "options" which were almost always options they had if they could think of it in the situation.

I will provide some examples. This is just six examples, but I feel they're fairly representative of the issue in general, and I could argue for many feats outside this subset in a similar manner. In fact, a lot of the feats apply a mechanical benefit which can be assumed by the circumstance bonus rules already in the game.

Actor Feat: "You can mimic the speech of another person or the sounds made by other creatures. You must have heard the person speaking, or heard the creature make the sound, for at least 1 minute. A successful Wisdom (Insight) check contested by your Charisma (Deception) check allows a listener to determine that the effect is faked."

Without this feat in the game, why wouldn't you be able to try a Charisma (Deception) check to try and mimic the speech of another person or sound made by other creatures, contested by a Wisdom (Insight) check? And if Player X has this feat in your game, wouldn't it be natural for a DM to tell Player Y they cannot try that because they don't have the feat and it would step on the toes of Player X who spent a precious resource to gain that "ability"?

Inspiring Leader: "You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight. When you do so, choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) within 30 feet o f you who can see or hear you and who can understand you. Each creature can gain temporary hit points equal to your level + your Charisma modifier. A creature can’t gain temporary hit points from this feat again until it has finished a short or long rest."

Without this feat in the game, if a Player makes a very inspiring speech which the DM judges would give a psychological boost to their allies, the DM might choose to give those allies some temporary hit points from the speech related to the PC's charisma (and probably would limit it to those who could hear it rather than an arbitrary 30' distance). They might even allow it a second time without as rest, under appropriate circumstances (like a forced march while chasing foes who have kidnapped their companion). But with this feat in the game if Player X has it, it would be hard for a DM to justify allowing Player Y to try it, or to even alter the rules to have it work without a short rest or outside 30' because the rule is right there in black and white on a PC's character sheet that way.

Keen Mind: "You always know which way is north. You always know the number of hours left before the next sunrise or sunset. You can accurately recall anything you have seen or heard within the past month."

Without this feat in the game, any of these things could be determined with an appropriate ability/skill check, or perhaps even automatically depending on the circumstances. And maybe it still could even with this feat in the game. However, if Player X happens to have this feat? The DM will probably naturally feel more reluctant to hand out that sort of information without the feat to the other PCs who lack it.

Linguist: "You can ably create written ciphers. Others can’t decipher a code you create unless you teach them, they succeed on an Intelligence check (DC equal to your Intelligence score + your proficiency bonus), or they use magic to decipher it."

Without this feat in the game, I see no reason why any PC couldn't try and create a written cipher which could be broken by an Intelligence check similar to the one described. With it, I can see a DM having trouble justifying allowing such a thing without the feat.

Mounted Combat: "You can force an attack targeted at your mount to target you instead."

Without this feat in the game, I cam definitely see circumstances where a player will argue they can intervene in a strike against their mount like that. With it...DMs will feel the pressure to not allow that if some other player has the feat and they don't.

Skulker: "When you are hidden from a creature and miss it with a ranged weapon attack, making the attack doesn't reveal your position."

Without this feat in the game, I can see a Player reasonably trying to not reveal their position after a missed arrow attack, depending on the circumstances. With the feat, DMs won't want to allow that if another PC has the feat and you don't.

Conclusion: I am slowly starting to agree with this set of more experienced DMs and players I know who don't have feats in their game. Sometimes, the more rules you have for the high level details of every potential circumstance of the game (which is most exemplified by feats) the less freedom you have to try different things if the circumstances call for it because a rule (in a feat) already covers that idea and you don't have that option (feat) on your character sheet (though someone else might).

What do you think? Have you seen this concept in your game? Think I am completely off base? Something in between?

Doesn't this same argument target class abilities and even spells, though?

 

[Satyrn]

Doesn't this same argument target class abilities and even spells, though?

It can, yeah.

For my part, I know that my feeling on this are in part a backlash against the overabundance of feats and skills from 3e and Pathfinder (and 4e's powers to a lesser degree) but still I'm aware, as [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] points out, the issue's always been in the game.

So I'm just feeling like I'd prefer a balance where the issue is mostly confined in the class/race abilities.

 

[Mistwell]

Strawman? I hardly think so:

Just repeating my post without making any actual point doesn't help clarify anything. What part of "feel the pressure" and "sometimes" was unclear? Again, you used extreme language to describe a post that didn't use extreme language. This is an issue of gradations and pressures, and your reply stated it was an issue of total disallowance. So yes, strawman. Do you have a reply?

 

[CTurbo]

I don't think the problem is that feats exist, I think that the problem is that there are too many terrible feats or just poor feat balance in general. I agree that SOME of the features of those feats would probably have been possible anyway, but there some very flavorful feats, there are some that are probably too good, and there are some that are a downright headache for the DM.

 

[Mistwell]

Doesn't this same argument target class abilities and even spells, though?

Yes. That supports my contention the more rules you have the less freedom ultimately you have. But, as described, I think this is an issue of gradations, and it's more prominent with feats than with most other rules. In fact I suspect it's one reason it's an optional rule, and one reason old school players sometimes don't like those options.

 

[Yunru]

Just repeating my post without making any actual point doesn't help clarify anything. What part of "feel the pressure" and "sometimes" was unclear? Again, you used extreme language to describe a post that didn't use extreme language. This is an issue of gradations and pressures, and your reply stated it was an issue of total disallowance. So yes, strawman. Do you have a reply?

So now you're shifting from "I never said that, it's a strawman" to "I said that conditionally, you're argument that they shouldn't under any condition is still a strawman."

Nice. I'm not competing with moving goalposts.

I also note you don't actually address the point I made either.