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

[FrogReaver]

Not at all.
Choices can make others redundant or inferior, but it can never remove choices.

Does choosing to paint my car red tomorrow remove the choice of painting it green tomorrow?

 

[Yunru]

Does choosing to paint my car red remove the choice of painting it green?

Of course. Choosing an option removes all choice. Having another option to choose from, however, doesn't.

If you paint your car red, you didn't paint it green, but having the option to paint it yellow doesn't mean you can't still paint it green.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yunru]

I don't really think you're trying to understand, so much as argue. What's the difference between my table, where players "always" know north already, and this? For that matter, what does it mean to "always" know north in a game with planar travel?

You are welcome to your opinions, and choices; but a universal opinion is no longer a choice, my friend.

My bad, what I read from your statement was that the adventurers would always be in an area with sufficient information to locate north, in which case it does nothing (since you only call for a check if it wouldn't auto-succeed/fail). As such the listed were areas that would lack said information, making that part of the feat relevant.

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course. Choosing an option removes all choice. Having another option to choose from, however, doesn't.

If you paint your car red, you didn't paint it green, but having the option to paint it yellow doesn't mean you can't still paint it green.

Of course.

Let's say there are two car painting shops and you have 2000 dollars.
To get a good bright sharp looking shade of red the first one charges you 1000 dollars. You can then use the other 1000 dollars to upgrade something else on your car.
The other shop offers options. You can get a red paint job that isn't nearly as nice a color of red for 1000 dollars or you can get a really nice shade of red like the first shop offered for 2000.

Customers of the second shop can get a red paint job and something else. Or they can get a really good red paint job and nothing else.
Customers of the first shop can get a really good red paint job and something else.

Customers of the second shop have more technical options. However, at the end of the day, customers of both shops are going to have a red car, its just how nice the paint job was and whatever else they decide to do with their remaining money.

A few observations:
Customers that want a high quality paint job get more options with shop 1 as they have leftover resources they can do other things with
Customers that that go to shop 2 get more options with shop 2 but no comparable options to what getting the paint job at shop 1 allows

In D&D terms.
Modeling a very tough character requires less resources in a game without feats than it does in a game with feats. As such the player in the featless game has more remaining resources to spend on things.
A game with feats provides more options up front but because it now takes more resources to create a very tough character then said tough character end up with less options and no comparable options to the very tough character in the featless game.

 

[Yunru]

Nope. In a game with no feats and no magic items the toughest you can be is 380HP (assuming Primal Champion adds +4 con, afb).

With feats you can equally tough with 1 less ASI thanks to the Tough feat. Heck, you can use that spare ASI to take Durable and be both as tough and more enduring.

So yeah, adding feats reduces the cost of being any given amount of tough and provides options for being even tougher.

 

[Yunru]

EDIT: Ignore! App screwing up showing it as a new post.

Does choosing to paint my car red tomorrow remove the choice of painting it green tomorrow?

Given you've only got enough cash for the one paint job? Yes. But don't worry, you get paid in 4 levels. I mean days.

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope. In a game with no feats and no magic items the toughest you can be is 380HP (assuming Primal Champion adds +4 con, afb).

With feats you can equally tough with 1 less ASI thanks to the Tough feat. Heck, you can use that spare ASI to take Durable and be bough as tough and more enduring.

So yeah, adding feats reduces the cost of being any given amount of tough and provides options for being even tougher.

You cannot compare the max hp in a feat game with the max hp in a featless game. That's not how concepts work. You take whichever framework you are working in and decide which describes very tough.

However, you define it, because the feat game has more times you can increase your toughness it's going to be easier to get more hp in said game but that ease also factors into what is considered tough and what is not considered tough in that game.

 

[Yunru]

You cannot compare the max hp in a feat game with the max hp in a featless game.

Of course you can. The majority of the world is NPCs, and they don't use feats either way. The "framework" is the world you adventure in, and that doesn't change with the inclusion or exclusion of feats.

Are you tougher than a Dragon? It doesn't matter whether you play with feats or not.
Are you one of the toughest? It doesn't matter whether you play with feats or not.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think you missed the most important part what I wrote: "If we find capped stats desirable then feats shouldn't be created to essentially bypass the capped stat either."

This is why it's a good idea to have at least a faint understanding of game mechanics before spouting off. It's things like attack bonus and armour class bonus that matter with respect to ability score caps. Hit points don't really matter, which is why the Tough feat can safely exist. If it wasn't for Barbarian's Unarmored Defense and a smattering of racial abilities that use con you could get away with uncapping that ability score. But it would be a bit odd to have one uncapped and the rest capped.

You think a fire sorcerer is rubbish without feats?

Every time they encounter a fire-immune monster (which tends to be frequently) yes.

You think you can't play a consumptive gunslinger with a high Con? You think it's a rubbish character if it has a low Con and no toughness feat?

I think they are likely to die before the end of the first session by random rocks falling on their head, yes.

Like seriously, is the only way that you can fathom to create a consumptive gunslinger that isn't rubbish is to give him low con and give him the toughness feat?

No, you might play an Abjurer, or a class with the False Life Spell, but the feat gives you MORE options. Not fewer. MORE.