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

[Satyrn]

Even then, some of there were okay. Although I only ever paid attention to the one for Athletics so "some" may be "one" [emoji14]

Yeah, some were fine to me, too. That athletics one you mention - Brawny - is one of them (ignoring the part that grants Expertise because of my dislike for numbers inflation, but that's another story).

 

[Lanefan]

If Your character concept is to be the toughest character in the group (and you are a fighter) would the existence of such a barbarian in the group invalidate your character concept? Would the possible existence of such a barbarian in the game invalidate your character concept? Doesn't it raise some kind of red flag to you when what you are claiming is a character concept can be invalidated by other players character choices?

Let me chuck an example out there of how this concept-vs.-reality thing can and does work in practice:

In our Saturday game I play a magic-user these days with Int 19 (a big deal in 1e which in theory caps at 18). She considers herself the smartest person in the party, if not the town, and maybe the world, as her rather inflated ego will not have it any other way.

Yet as fate would have it there's an even smarter character in the party! Does this stop my character from thinking (and claiming) she's the smartest and operating on that basis? Hell, no - she just pooh-poohs this other character's claims of being smarter and carries on with her day.

Concept 1, Character-sheet-reality 0.

Lan-"the one time I play a Lawful character I get stuck in a party whose average alignment other than mine is roughly Chaotic Greedy"-efan

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I agree with Hussar that having feats increases the ability to realize his character concept with more precision than otherwise would be available. I do not agree that he cannot realize his character concept without feats, only that such an approach is not as exact.

I do not agree with FrogReaver that having feats reduces choices. I do agree that the lack of feats does not prevent you from realizing a character concept, though it will likely be a bit rougher than what feats allow you to define (though how the DM handles things also affects the results).

Very well said. I'd say that this is pretty much wrapping this thread up with a bow.

Now, I'd point out that I didn't actually say that I could not realize my character concept without feats, ever. I said, in that specific example, I couldn't realize the character concept without feats simply because of other factors. As was mentioned before, I could have played a barbarian or made a higher Con character, or boosted Con up to 20. There were more routes I could have taken but didn't because, well, we play with feats. Why would I? I didn't want to play a barbarian. I didn't want to play a hill dwarf. And, well, sure I could have bumped Con with an ASI, but, at the end of the day, I simply took advantage of the extra choice available to me, and took toughness to make a tough character.

It's actually pretty stunning to me that this is up for debate. Adding choices to the game reduces options? Seriously?

 

[Satyrn]

It's actually pretty stunning to me that this is up for debate. Adding choices to the game reduces options? Seriously?

well when you put it like that . . . I realize we're not talking about the same thing.


Adding a feature that says something like this -

While performing, you can try to distract one humanoid you can see who can see and hear you. Make a Charisma (Performance) check contested by the humanoid’s Wisdom (Insight) check. If your check succeeds, you grab the humanoid’s attention enough that it makes Wisdom (Perception) and Intelligence (Investigation) checks with disadvantage until you stop performing.

- reduces my options during play. As a player, I now feel like I can't distract a humanoid with my performance unless I have this feature. And even if I have this feature, I'm left thinking I can't try to distract a whole roomful of people.

And as a DM, how should I rule on this when a player without this feature does a clown show to distract a roomful of people? There are people in this thread saying I just need to make it less effective or less automatic than the feature describes. But this feature is already neither automatic, nor very effective to begin with. So it really limits my options as as DM.

On the plus side, this feature never made it out of playtesting.

 

[Hussar]

well when you put it like that . . . I realize we're not talking about the same thing.


Adding a feature that says something like this -



- reduces my options during play. As a player, I now feel like I can't distract a humanoid with my performance unless I have this feature. And even if I have this feature, I'm left thinking I can't try to distract a whole roomful of people.

And as a DM, how should I rule on this when a player without this feature does a clown show to distract a roomful of people? There are people in this thread saying I just need to make it less effective or less automatic than the feature describes. But this feature is already neither automatic, nor very effective to begin with. So it really limits my options as as DM.

On the plus side, this feature never made it out of playtesting.

Then why are you bringing it up then? It's obviously a bad idea, for exactly the reasons you bring up. I suppose you could make the argument that poorly written mechanics can limit choice. I'd certainly agree with that. Poorly balanced mechanics result in cookie cutter characters, for example. Sure, I'll buy that.

------

There's a couple of other things to remember too.

1. Character concepts are rarely limited to a single idea, IME. Most PC's are more than one single trick or schtick. Which means that having multiple ways to achieve a concept helps choices since one option (choosing hill dwarf) might conflict with another option (being a Solamnic knight).

2. Character concepts aren't necessarily automatically obvious at 1st level. Feats allow new concepts to be added to characters later on down the road. Similar to multi classing. Just because I started with a fighter at 1st level didn't automatically mean that my character was the "tough guy" at 1st level. As I said, it wasn't until 8th that I took the Tough feat when I had the option to do so and it made sense for that character. It allows for more organic growth during play.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Adding a feature that says something like this -

- reduces my options during play. ...On the plus side, this feature never made it out of playtesting.

Adding features doesn't reduce options, adding bad - particularly bad in the sense of imbalanced - features can.

Your specific example is just horrid. Contested checks are the very devil in d20, swingy and frustrating to the players & DM both, a contested check to impose a penalty? Appalling. A normal skill check one roll has to go your way, in the above 'feature' 3 out of 4 rolls have to go your way.

A more plausible mechanic to use performance to cause a distraction: roll your performance skill while your allies roll group stealth, if either of you beat the DC set by the DM, they sneak by. If you both fail, they're caught.

Not wonderfully nuanced, but not mathematically rigged to undermine character concepts and frustrate players.

 

[Satyrn]

Then why are you bringing it up then? It's obviously a bad idea, for exactly the reasons you bring up.

I bring it up as a clear example of the sort of thing that's caused by less clear examples that are already in the game, and what I think Mistwell was trying to talk about in his OP.

I don't think more character building options limit "character concepts" but I definitely find they limit actions the players at my table take during the game, and change the way my DM and I both rule on certain actions when e're behind the screen.

 

[Satyrn]

Your specific example is just horrid.

Thank you. It's from the Performer feat in the Skill Feats UA, BTW.

(Although I kinda hope the person who wrote it doesn't see what you said about his work)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Thank you. It's from the Performer feat in the Skill Feats UA, BTW.

(Although I kinda hope the person who wrote it doesn't see what you said about his work)

Pet peeve, I just don't think contested checks are ever a good idea under d20 resolution. Using a 'passive check' like passive perception as a DC is better (though also a tad deceptive).

Group checks, OTOH, fine idea.

 

[Yunru]

You know what stifles roleplaying the most? The d20.

That's why I use a d10+5