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

[Charlaquin]

I don’t disagree with your core thesis - by providing specific, codified ways to do do specific things within the rules, you indirectly discourage players from reproducing those results via more improvisational means. However, the same criticism could be directed at spells, and I don’t think most of the “experienced DMs” who view feats as sophomoric would be as quick to argue replacing spell lists with a more free-form magic system like you find in Mage: the Ascension. Ultimately all rules options restrict improvisation. But a certain amount of restriction also helps to foster creativity. The line lies in different places for different people, which is why I think including Feats in 5e but making them opt-in was a good idea.

Personally, I think feats are absolutely necessary in 5e, because 5e has so few decision points in character building and improvement. Particularly for non-casters, as at least casters can distinguish themselves with spell choice. But for nonmagical characters, feats are needed, not to give the characters things to do, but to give players ways to make those characters their own, instead of feeling like the same character the other guy is playing with a different coat of paint. I’m not opposed to the idea of a featless system, but that system would need more character customization options than 5e does for it to work for me.

 

[Shiroiken]

Do they stifle creativity and reduce options? No. Most feats simply allow you to do something above the mechanical limitations. There are ones that allow you to do things not listed elsewhere, but you could allow anything that can be done via a feat, just at a cost, either by expanding the requirements or requiring an ability check. I don't have the books in front of me to be certain, so there might be a few things that need extra work to fix.

 

[Arilyn]

I don’t disagree with your core thesis - by providing specific, codified ways to do do specific things within the rules, you indirectly discourage players from reproducing those results via more improvisational means. However, the same criticism could be directed at spells, and I don’t think most of the “experienced DMs” who view feats as sophomoric would be as quick to argue replacing spell lists with a more free-form magic system like you find in Mage: the Ascension. Ultimately all rules options restrict improvisation. But a certain amount of restriction also helps to foster creativity. The line lies in different places for different people, which is why I think including Feats in 5e but making them opt-in was a good idea.

Personally, I think feats are absolutely necessary in 5e, because 5e has so few decision points in character building and improvement. Particularly for non-casters, as at least casters can distinguish themselves with spell choice. But for nonmagical characters, feats are needed, not to give the characters things to do, but to give players ways to make those characters their own, instead of feeling like the same character the other guy is playing with a different coat of paint. I’m not opposed to the idea of a featless system, but that system would need more character customization options than 5e does for it to work for me.

This is what I was going to say, but you beat me to it! DnD, even 5e, is still a crunchy game. Players build their characters with pieces. There are a lot of rules, which precisely lay out what can be done, and exactly how it occurs. Spells are an excellent example. They are more like scientific formulas than magic, and there is very little room to tinker with them. There's rules for bonus actions, movement sped, concentration, damage effects, etc. Feats fit right into the philosophy of the game. In DnD, there isn't much room to narrate stuff, like in looser, more narrative systems.

 

[Sunseeker]

Depends on the feats. Depends on the player. Depends on the build.


EX: when I make characters, when they're human, they're often some kind of pirate theme (I dunno, I think humans play this trope best) but they'll almost always take Magic Initiate, why? Because I want a parrot! It's still a good feat. I'm probably not putting it to the best use.


But for some specific responses....

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"?

The feat puts the burden on the listener. Without the feat it goes like this:
Bob: I try to imitate the Guard Captain.
DM: Okay make your check
Bob: *16* Is it believable?
DM: *results*
In this situation, Bob has to make the attempt to sound like the subject. With the feat it goes like this:
Bob: I imitate the Guard Captain, "i'm busy! Go away!"
DM: *rolls check for NPC*
The feat switches where the burden is placed. With the feat, it is on the listenerto determine there is something afoot.

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.

In short, the DM can do whatever the frell he wants. You can make an inspiring speech and the DM can turn all the listeners into chickens (literally). You can stand on one foot while reciting poetry and attempting to pat your head and rub your belly and the DM can say that gravity just reversed.

If your argument against the feat is that "Well the DM could just set up some checks and make the thing happen anyway!"
Well yeah the DM can do that. But then WTF do we need rules for if we're just going to have the DM make everything up?
Rules are what keeps the game from being Calvinball. I don't want to play D&D Calvinball.

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.

There was an entire thread on this. Maybe reading it would provide good insight? The key word here is "always".

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.

Again, the DM can do whatever he darn tootin pleases.

Okay. I'm done.

Literally EVERY argument you just made was "Well the DM could have called for rolls and made something up!"

Well yes. He could. He could make everything up. We could toss the book aside, I mean who need class features that tell you how many attacks you get? The Dm could just call for a check! Who needs to know how much damage a longsword does? The Dm could just call for a check!

You see my point here?

 

[Arilyn]

Double post

 

[Mistwell]

Your stating I was blanket disagreeing with you (and now I regret trimming the quote before addressing all points) is a strawman too.

My point eas the only other part of my original post you didn't adress. Which also happened to give context to all the bits you did quote.

Edit: Seperated it out from Skulker: These feats don't stop a player from trying, it stops a player with the feat from failing.

Yes and I knowledged your point in my original post, and said "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. " Not "they will never allow this" but "they won't want to" which was in the context of a longer post where every point was followed by "it will be more difficult to" and "harder to justify if".

So now that you understand the point I was making (which is not "it's impossible to make such checks with such feats in the game") DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE? If your next reply is anything other than an actual response to the actual position I am taking, don't expect a reply. I am done with you being argumentative for the sake of an argument. You're literally the only guy in this whole thread who isn't willing to respond directly. I still don't know what your point is?

 

[Yunru]

I already gave you the response. You proceeded to call it a strawman and start this whole argument.

A DM that uses the existence of an auto-success feat to deny the chance at attempting a manoeuvre regularly is using faulty logic.

It's no more difficult to than if the feat didn't exist. Either way it would be "give me a check" (if the outcome's unclear). It's no harder to justify either. You make a check because you're not an expert at it either way.

As such, auto-success feats should only inspire DMs for ways to rule such things, and inspire (/remind) players that such things are possible.

 

[Caliban]

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

Feats allow creative people to do interesting things. They also allow uncreative people to do the same old thing better.

On the whole, I prefer feats.

 

[Mistwell]

I already gave you the response. You proceeded to call it a strawman and start this whole argument.

A DM that uses the existence of an auto-success feat to deny the chance at attempting a manoeuvre regularly is using faulty logic.

Fair enough for auto-success (though if I were the player who spent a feat to auto-intercept a blow to my mount and every other player could do the exact same thing with a skill check I might be bugged by that), but a lot of what I mentioned isn't auto-success.

It's no more difficult to than if the feat didn't exist. Either way it would be "give me a check" (if the outcome's unclear). It's no harder to justify either. You make a check because you're not an expert at it either way.

Here is the first example I gave. How do you address this issue (and it's the same for the Linguist cipher as well)?

Actor: "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"?

 

[Sunseeker]

Actor: "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"?

They already answered this question. I answered it as well.

There's no reason you couldn't make an attempt. But making an attempt involves a dice roll to determine the quality of your imitation. Taking the Actor feat means you don't. The feat removes the burden of the player making the attempt, placing the whole burden on the NPC to pierce the deception. Another player without the feat could still make an attempt but they would need to make a check. They could fail in the attempt, where a player with the Actor feat cannot fail in the attempt.

In short the person who takes the Actor feat has removed a die roll from equation, increasing their chance of success.

There is no reason for the DM to tell Player 2 they cannot make the attempt. As [MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION] already pointed out, that DM would be, like your argument, operating on faulty logic. That's not to say DM's don't use faulty logic all the time, they're human after all. But that's not an argument against feats, that's an argument against faulty logic and the people who use it.