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

[RobertBrus]

...
If not though... that's really my point. All these feats really do is give us game mechanics. Game mechanics which have no story. Any story that comes from game mechanics and math are the ones that we collectively have agreed upon to use as part of this game called 'Dungeons & Dragons', and we give these mechanics funny little names to help denote and remind us of what we've agreed all this math is supposed to mean. But all these little names we've given to all this math is fungible. They don't really matter. The math doesn't care, and when we use the math the little names don't impact anything. We can call hit points "ablative armor" and damage "dents" and the game mechanics work exactly the same.

And thus... any story that comes out of our game sessions really comes from how we choose to narrate it. How we choose to play it. ...

I would submit that no... you can STILL claim your 1st level Fighter as a "tough" guy, because it's how you roleplay and narrate the character, and not based upon the numbers on your sheet. You DON'T need to take a feat to play your character concept. You can play your character concept however you'd like, completely separate from what the math says. ...

Game mechanics can help support your concept. ... But the game mechanics are just math, and the math can screw you over all the time. ...

But if you just roleplay your character as a "tough guy"... and narrate everything that happens to him through that lens... the story will always be pertinent to you and the game despite those times than the game mechanics fail. ... ANY of those kinds of things will get across in the game that your character is a "tough guy" much, much better than any math.

I just reread this post and find it quite enjoyable and so very well stated. And so, decided to quote from it.

I might add, game mechanics are important, but not necessary for all that your character can do or become. For my style of RPG'ing, the narrative is most important. Without the narrative, both developed during the gaming, and what is brought to the game prior to the first session (backstory, etc.) the rest is just a glorified form of Yatze. But when added to reasonable mechanics, great creative fun.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The reason that the Tough feat lets you play a tougher character is that it says so, and then it reflects it within the game mechanics. You could also theoretically have an Energetic feat, which had the same mechanical effect, but represented the character having greater stamina rather than toughness. If you had two rangers with otherwise-identical stats, but one of them had the Tough feat and the other had the Energetic feat, the former would be tougher than the latter, who would be more energetic.

So we are agreed. Game mechanics DO NO denote character concept. As you state in your first sentence I've quoted... the reason why your character is tough is because the feat says so. It has nothing to do with the actual math... it has nothing to do with any hit points you may or may not have... so long as there's a thing of some sort in the game that gives you the description of being "tough"... then your character is tough.

So let me put this out there... you have a Personality Trait that says "I'm the toughest SOB there is."

There you go. You now have another actual feature in the game that has narratively given you the right to claim in-story that you are the toughest guy around. And you didn't need to use any game mechanics for it. You didn't need to have "more hit points" than another player's character. A feat wasn't necessary to give you in-story recognition of who you are. You chose to narratively claim to have the toughest character there is.

Wouldn't that be good enough? Seems to me it should be. If a feat's name can allow you to claim to be tough, couldn't a Trait, Bond, or Ideal do the same? They are all just game features after all. And that's really my point... the name on a feat is no better than the phrase on a BIFT. They're both merely descriptions. So it seems to me... you can make any descriptions you want about your character and if you play the descriptions that way, it isn't required that the game mechanics math follow suit. Because more often than not, they aren't going to.

 

[Satyrn]

So, curious question: If you could expand on the base rules of the game, and thereby eliminate a feat, would you?

My answer to that question is a definite no. But that's because you required expanding the rules first, and the rules I would use to replace an eliminated feat are already in place - the fundamental part of the game where the DM adjudicates the outcome, asking for a dice roll as desired.

And if so, which feats would you eliminate that way?

I don't really know. But I'm sure Martial Adept, Magic Initiate and Ritual Caster would certainly still be around.

And while Dual Wielder doesn't fit the category of feats we're talking about, it would probably wind up eliminated in a cull just for being boring, a feat just meant to boost some numbers.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Because D&D works like this, you pretty much have to assume equal levels when comparing characters, and this paragraph is a bit disingenuous because of it.

So what you are saying is that we can't take the game mechanics at face value and use them to illustrate our characters? I'm glad we agree! And thus my point is confirmed-- having more hit points does not denote being a "tougher" character. Instead, it's some other narrative reason why one character would be "tougher" than another, usually because you chose something in the game that had the fancy name of "tough" written on it. But as there is no correlation between a fancy name and any specific game mechanic... it doesn't matter what you choose. So long as the fancy word "Tough" appears, you can take it and you can claim it. And thus it essentially renders any specific game mechanic as unnecessary to denote it for your character.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So we are agreed. Game mechanics DO NO denote character concept. As you state in your first sentence I've quoted... the reason why your character is tough is because the feat says so. It has nothing to do with the actual math... it has nothing to do with any hit points you may or may not have... so long as there's a thing of some sort in the game that gives you the description of being "tough"... then your character is tough.

That's not what I said. The feat makes you tough because it both says that you're tough and augments the aspect of the mathematical model which corresponds to toughness. It artificially inflates the one aspect of your Con score which corresponds to your ability to take a hit. If it only said that you were tough, without altering the aspect of the mathematical model which corresponds to toughness, then it wouldn't actually make you tough; it would instead make you delusional (believing that you are tough, when you are objectively and quantifiably not).

The issue, here, is that the game includes toughness in its mathematical model. You can't freely claim to alter the in-game reality associated with that aspect, unless you actually alter its representation within the model. If you want to be strong, but you have a low Strength score, then you can't claim to be strong unless you raise your Strength score. If you were playing a game that didn't include such things as strength and toughness within their mathematical models, then you could freely alter those aspects without worrying about mechanical representation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have some concern over feats, and the potential bloat that they can create in a game system that was designed, at least to a degree, to minimize bloat. But I also know how much players tend to like feats. So I try to find a balance with allowing them (some of them) without letting "Feat Creep" start us down the road to Pathfinder (for the record I have played Pathfinder and found it enjoyable, but not want I want for my campaign).

If all I am as a character is someone walking down the road with a bag full of feats that I can reach into whenever I come across a problem, then where goes the joy of creativity and imagination? I'm not suggesting that allowing feats will do this to the game, but I urge caution in regard to rules/mechanics bloat, and anything that deprives players--and GM's--the opportunity to exercise and express their imagination. You might say it is the difference between a "bag of holding" versus a backpack. And of course finding that well-balanced point.

This may sound confrontational, and if so I apologize. But...do you do the same thing with spells in your game? Because from where I'm sitting, spells are dramatically worse for the concerns you describe. They are generally more effective than feats (doing much more damage, inflicting nastier statuses, or just "fixing" a problem), you end up with far more of them than feats (*maybe* debatable for uses/day, but simply mathematical fact for the number of "spells in your bag," to steal your phrase), and they are much more easily swapped (your bag's contents change day to day, not every 4 levels). If the fact that the game dedicates 10 pages to feats is "bloated," what on Earth do we call the 100+ pages of spells, which grow with every supplement? (I'm not 100% sure if there has been no new feats in the supplements, can anyone verify?)

It's always struck me as weird how many people (not speaking of you personally) see "I cast my spider climb spell!" as being Great Roleplay, but "I use my Actor feat!" as the death of creativity. I just...don't get it.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Speech Mimicry? No as DM I wouldn't rule it impossible. But I would rule it very very difficult for a character who doesn't have some kind of bordering-on-superhuman aptitude for it. There is a big difference between DC 25 (and it would be DC 25 with or without the existence of the feat) and automatic success. But I don't limit feats to their mechanical effects. Being a phenomenally gifted ACTOR will have roleplaying effects as well.

So what you're saying is:
On the same scale of heroism that runs from "chump who has a 50% chance of dying to a group of 3 rats" to "single handedly kills Godzilla without being injured", you think that only someone at the very top end of that scale, who has spent his career focusing on being an awesome performer should be able to reliably deceive "Joe the guy who is out-thought by those 3 rats" into thinking that he hears the voice of "Bob the guy that they are intimately familiar with".

 

[RobertBrus]

EzekielRaiden, I don't take this in a confrontational way. In fact, you bring up some interesting points. Spells can seem even more "bloated" than feats. And to be clear, as my original post might imply otherwise, I allow most feats. In some respects, the additional feats and spells people write is a testament to the creativity of the RPG'ers. Which I applaud.

In fact, the way in which you state this issue from the perspective of spells is requiring me to take a long look at this relative to the idea of feats. And that is a good thing. In some ways you are right, casting a spell can often seem more matter of fact, "I pulled that out of my sack," than the use of a feat.

I would agree that feats alone aren't the problem and that spells could just as easily be used in a "bloated" way. You have sparked an idea along the lines that it isn't ultimately about feats or spells, but the way in which they are used: in a more/less narrative way. Though I am not sure I can yet put this idea into precise enough words. But I thank you for the insight and the gentle push to explore this further.

 

[Hussar]

So you are saying it's impossible to have a tough fighter without the mechanical differentiation of the durable or tough feat?

Because my point all along has been that a high Con is sufficient to call a character tough. That seems to be what you are suggesting as well?

What?

If two characters are mechanically the same, then any "concept" that applies to one character MUST apply to the other. So, no, my character without the feat wasn't "tough". He was the same as the other character. The concept flows directly from the feat.

I understand what you were "trying" to do. The reason I asked my questions were to "reductio ad absurdum" your "reductio ad absurdum" argument. I did so by the way.

Here's the deal in plain English. As you noted mechanical differentiation can sometimes be used for a new character concept (I agree and have been arguing the same thing the whole thread. That we already have the mechanical differentiation enough to enable almost every concept without needing a feat to do so) However, mechanical differentiation sometimes make no difference in character concept. If mechanical differentiation ALWAYS resulted in new character concepts then I would say they are equal. Since it sometimes does and sometimes does not then they are not equal.

But, I've just shown that no, we don't have enough differentiation. Two characters with similar stats (very possible in a standard array game) will be equally tough/not tough. In order to actually BE tough, I needed the feat.

That just means all the PC's are tough in his campaign. I'm sorry he didn't get to be the only tough PC this time around. Feats aren't helping him be a tougher character, they are forcing everyone else to be not as tough. (It's just a matter of perspective).



Nice anecdote. Not sure how it applies here?

Nope. All the PC's in the campaign were average. A 14 Con and fixed HP/level means that every fighter type has exactly identical HP. Feats actually 100% allowed for a concept that wasn't allowed before. Even bumping Con wouldn't really cut the mustard. We're talking, what, 20 HP spread at 10th level if I had an 18 Con? Not exactly fitting the concept there. Wow, my tough as nails character actually only has about 10% more HP. Yippee.

Or, take one feat and the concept is viable and visible at the table.

 

[Kinematics]

If two characters are mechanically the same, then any "concept" that applies to one character MUST apply to the other.

This statement is true in the broad sense (but perhaps not always, in terms of expression)

So, no, my character without the feat wasn't "tough". He was the same as the other character.

This statement is not true.

The only thing implied by the first statement is that, if your character is tough, then so is the other character. If both characters had taken the Tough feat, then they would still be equal to each other, and somehow you take this to mean that your character is not 'tough'.

Your statement would be true if you asserted that without the feat, your character wasn't tougher than the other character. But the quality assertion on its own is not relative, and thus your assertion is invalid.

We're talking, what, 20 HP spread at 10th level if I had an 18 Con? Not exactly fitting the concept there.

And now I'm confused. The Tough feat gives +2 HP per level, so at 10th level you would have exactly... 20 more HP. Which you now say is not fitting the concept.