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

[CubicsRube]

I think that feats do enhance creativity rather than detract.

But, I tend to come at this from the DM's side, rather than the player's. Far too many times, when a player tries to do something that isn't rules defined, the DM will set the difficulty far too high and/or set the cost of failure too high and discourage any further attempts to act outside of the defined rules. And that seems to be a very, very common issue from what I see on message boards whenever someone talks about setting DC's.

For example, in the recent Player's Decide to Go North, I saw more than a few DM's decide that the DC for determining north was based on 10 or even 15, meaning that most groups will fail far more often than succeed on something that I feel is pretty trivial.

Feats allow the players to do things without relying on DM's fiat which often is far too punishing IMO.

I think dc 10 is not utilised enough. Sure its pretty much an auto success for someone using their prime attribute and a proficiency at a mid level.

But for everyone else? Nope. Even with advantage its amazing how hard it can be to roll above a 10 when you need to. (Despite the argument for statistics, i dont roll a d20 400 times in a gaming session to get an even distribution).

Below 10 i wouldnt even ask for a roll. Going north for example. If you can see the sun or stars, no roll.

 

[Dualazi]

Not in the slightest. Frankly in 5e, I find it's the opposite; people would like to take feats they feel would make their characters more interesting, but don't do so because increasing your prime stat is so much more potent.

 

[mellored]

None of this applies to just feats. It applies to spells, ability scores, attack rolls, and, well, pretty much everything else as well.


Any structure will limit creativity, but it also provides something for people to gather around and share.

 

[Mistwell]

None of this applies to just feats. It applies to spells, ability scores, attack rolls, and, well, pretty much everything else as well.


Any structure will limit creativity, but it also provides something for people to gather around and share.

I know it doesn't apply only to feats. However, I think on a scale of "applies very strongly" to "applies very weakly" the feats tend to be closer to the "applies very strongly" end of the spectrum.

Part of that is because they are optional and the game does not assume the party has then and also does not assume the NPCs have them. Part of it is because the feats tend to involve a lot of overlap with ability checks already. Many require something that, if not an ability check itself, could fit into an ability check if it didn't exist under the right circumstances.

While these concepts can apply to other elements of the game (as Ovinomancer mentioned earlier in the thread) it doesn't tend to apply as strongly to those other elements. Which is why I am highlighting feats. It's optional, and seems to have this impact on the game more than most other elements of the game, even if the impact isn't exclusive to them.

 

[5ekyu]

I know it doesn't apply only to feats. However, I think on a scale of "applies very strongly" to "applies very weakly" the feats tend to be closer to the "applies very strongly" end of the spectrum.

Part of that is because they are optional and the game does not assume the party has then and also does not assume the NPCs have them. Part of it is because the feats tend to involve a lot of overlap with ability checks already. Many require something that, if not an ability check itself, could fit into an ability check if it didn't exist under the right circumstances.

While these concepts can apply to other elements of the game (as Ovinomancer mentioned earlier in the thread) it doesn't tend to apply as strongly to those other elements. Which is why I am highlighting feats. It's optional, and seems to have this impact on the game more than most other elements of the game, even if the impact isn't exclusive to them.

But i still do not get the premise.

Where do you draw the conclusion that GMs would out of thin air with really no other in-game references allow an inspiring chat with a good CHA check to provide temporary hit points to say everone without a bigger innervate *without* a feature adding that notion at all into the game?

Where do you draw the conclusion that this "chat for THP" would be dreamed up and applied in play by,more GMs and players than use the feats that do this?

The premise is that the feats providing mechanics and those ideas - even without mandating "only way is thru feat" - reduces or results in less use of things like this in play, right?

So before 5e provided this feat, how many times did you see GMs winging CHA chats restoring or granting HP in play? It must have been lotsa times right, if it was one chosen to highlight this reduction in in-play options after it is defined and provided as a option for many characters?

Have you seen that done hundreds of times? I have been playing for more than a little bit and i never once saw a GM or a player wing CHA chats into THP or HP once, and thats with hearing lotsa of wild ideas over time.

Cannot imagine how many times you musta seen it.

Care to share?

 

[Satyrn]

I think that feats do enhance creativity rather than detract.

But, I tend to come at this from the DM's side, rather than the player's. Far too many times, when a player tries to do something that isn't rules defined, the DM will set the difficulty far too high and/or set the cost of failure too high and discourage any further attempts to act outside of the defined rules. And that seems to be a very, very common issue from what I see on message boards whenever someone talks about setting DC's.

For example, in the recent Player's Decide to Go North, I saw more than a few DM's decide that the DC for determining north was based on 10 or even 15, meaning that most groups will fail far more often than succeed on something that I feel is pretty trivial.

Feats allow the players to do things without relying on DM's fiat which often is far too punishing IMO.

Oh, indeed. This is why I have wholeheartedly adopted the philosophy that adventurers are capable of every easy thing like finding North under normal conditions. And if there's gonna be a check the DCs will simply be 10 or 15, with the rare 20 is the ridiculous stuff.

And I think I miss AD&D's ability check mechanism - where I wouldn't even need to set a DC when asking for a Dex check.

 

[Li Shenron]

Oh, indeed. This is why I have wholeheartedly adopted the philosophy that adventurers are capable of every easy thing like finding North under normal conditions. And if there's gonna be a check the DCs will simply be 10 or 15, with the rare 20 is the ridiculous stuff.

Well, there is also the underground situation... it's not "ridiculous" and it's not even that rare in D&D, and yet it is definitely hard to know where north is without a compass!

I rather think that the point is that most of the time it is not particularly useful to figure out where is north.

 

[Satyrn]

Well, there is also the underground situation... it's not "ridiculous" and it's not even that rare in D&D, and yet it is definitely hard to know where north is without a compass!

I rather think that the point is that most of the time it is not particularly useful to figure out where is north.

I should clarify something. My definition of ridiculous encompasses things like leaping off a skyscraper with a firehose tied round your waist. That is, I don't really mean ridiculous hard, but rather ridiculously implausible.

I think Finding North underground is either straightforward success for a player who draws on his dwarf's stonecunning, his drow's background underground, or some similar declaration.

Maybe the player of the human druid declares that he's using his nature skills to locate a fungus that grows in sympathy with leylines that point in directions he's familiar with. (Because I'm cool with players inventing facts to move the story along, this works for me, and in this case, the check - a DC 10 - would be more about deciding if the fungus is actually present rather than deciding if the druid is capable of finding them.)

Or, if the player of a human tried divining North by remembering where North was relative to where he entered the dungeon and judging by the twists and turns he's taken since, I'd go with a DC 15 check (that seems hard to do, implausible but not ridiculously so.)

So, I'm already providing ways that players can essentially always know where North lies. That part of the feat just doesn't add anything for me.

 

[Sunseeker]

I know it doesn't apply only to feats. However, I think on a scale of "applies very strongly" to "applies very weakly" the feats tend to be closer to the "applies very strongly" end of the spectrum.

Part of that is because they are optional and the game does not assume the party has then and also does not assume the NPCs have them. Part of it is because the feats tend to involve a lot of overlap with ability checks already. Many require something that, if not an ability check itself, could fit into an ability check if it didn't exist under the right circumstances.

While these concepts can apply to other elements of the game (as Ovinomancer mentioned earlier in the thread) it doesn't tend to apply as strongly to those other elements. Which is why I am highlighting feats. It's optional, and seems to have this impact on the game more than most other elements of the game, even if the impact isn't exclusive to them.

Personally, I think the big "creativity limiter" is Spells. You're far more likely to get a DM to tell a player "You can't cast Iceball (Fireball, but with cold), because the rules don't say it exists." than you are to get a DM to say to to letting a player make a check that a feat exists for.

I mean if this thread is any example than your premise is completely bogus because I don't think a single person in here has agreed with it.

 

[Satyrn]

I mean if this thread is any example than your premise is completely bogus because I don't think a single person in here has agreed with it.

What? Did I get drunkenly married again last night!?!


Ah well, I'll be a single person once I get it annulled.