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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yunru]

Well, that's not necessarily true for two reasons.

First, of course, is the paradox of choice. When confronted by too many choices, a person will often refuse to make any choice at all. It is often better to have a carefully curated selection of choices than to have an infinite number of choices. (There's also the associated issues that you might end up with less happiness because of the number of choices, but that's neither here nor there).

Whether you think of it in terms of behavioral economics or diminishing returns, more choice can actually lead to less choice.


Second, what some argue is that choice constrains. Think of this in terms of an adjective (as in, an actual adjective). You would say that adjectives are awesome! Adjectives make nouns pop! It's not just a car, it's a RED car.

But an adjective, by definition, is a word that limits a noun. A car can be any type of car, but once you adjective it, you have limited it. A RED car cannot be green; a BIG RED car cannot be a small yellow car, and so on. The more choice points you have, the more limited your options. Because you are defining it in the rules. Now, that's not a bad thing (just like using adjectives isn't a bad thing), but it's real enough that this debate has existed since D&D has existed (as I wrote at the beginning, I remember people arguing about the Thief's abilities, and I'm sure there are antecedent arguments).

Nah, feats are more of a car parts analogy.
You lose nothing from adding a loudener to your car (except the respect of anyone who hears it), for example.

Sure you could of spent that money on getting a slightly better engine, but overall it's still going to be the same car with the body of your choice.


Some things are restrictive (and now that I think about it, are actually adjectives too), such as race (an elven archer can't be an ork), or to a lesser degree class (when looking at high levels), because they're mutually exclusive. But not feats.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This may be related to the lack of seriousness many players claim comes with the social simulation aspect. Many like to think RPG gaming means a Tactics quick combat simulator, where there isn't time for things like talk and appearance. They argue that charisma should be not a stat, at least not a core one, and that all of the social layers should be pure improv — almost no mechanics. These same folks often are those who obsess, however, over the minutia of combat tactics mechanics.

Personally, I think computer games offer a lot of options in Tactics gaming while tabletop RP with real people is an opportunity to do more of the social stuff. If you want a crunchy numbers game a well-designed computer game can provide that. We're too far from advanced AI for a compelling alternative to real-life gaming for the social simulation part. It's important to have depth and breadth in the rules associated with social simulation or it tends to come crashing down. It's tiring and difficult to do a lot of improv. If your session is very short, you have a lot of time to prepare, and you know how the other players will behave very well, maybe it can work relatively well — especially if your people are good at improv and comfortable with acting. But, if this is so freeing and superior then why not throw out most, if not all, of the combat rules and wing the combats, too?

Firstly, I'm not actually sure this addresses my concern, and in fact seems entirely orthogonal. Some of the most anti-"tactical" people I've known have spoken the way I mentioned. That is, they consider invoking any feat, or any other character feature, as being "trapped by the character sheet" or something like that. But when it's "using a spell off-label" (or even on label, all to frequently), doing that is great roleplay, being deeply invested in the character, being creative and engaged. The two types of mechanics are treated vastly differently, despite both being something on the character sheet, which requires very little actual thought to employ.

Secondly, it's entirely reasonable to argue that different "pillars" (to use the 5e term) warrant different approaches. I liked the way 4e did it. You were given a baseline of tools, and a reliable (if poorly explained) framework for creating actually-weighty expanded challenges that had nothing to do with "combat" proper. More or less what I'm saying is, 4e "got out of the way" with RP, because the designers knew RP was far too variable, and far too contextual, to make enough assumptions that reliable, testable designs could be implemented. I actually think Heinsoo and Tweet captured this excellently in the 13A core book, which has much the same attitude as 4e about RP-related stuff, when discussing the "linguist" feat. Its adventurer-tier (base) version lets you be semi-conversant and literate in most languages (potentially even fluent in some); its champion-tier version makes you fluent in damn near everything, and able to puzzle out even the most obscure spoken or written expressions given a bit of research time. Then, they write, "There shouldn't be any need for an epic tier linguist feat. If you really want one, you know what you want it for better than we do." (emphasis in original) This is not a cop-out; it is an admission that the potential upper limits go beyond the ability to be designed, and must thus be custom-made.

I like there to be a solid baseline of flexible, universal, easily-explained mechanics, which can then accept the occasional intrusion of creative applications of other things. For example, a 4e character expending a relevant Daily power to get a bonus during a Skill Challenge, or even just to a single important skill roll; or, a player considering the possible applications of, say, a Fire at-will, to deal with a situation. The former reflects flexibility and adaptation; the latter reflects critical thinking about the resources one has, vs. the problems one must solve. I prefer 4e's powers over other editions' spells, both because all characters get powers, and because spells are often very complex to explain, while powers are easy to read and explain.

This also requires that DMs be willing to allow their players "off-label" uses for their abilities, e.g. allowing a Knock spell to (say) bust a small hole through a stone door to pass an object through it, or allowing someone with the Actor feat to mimic the sound of an animal to throw off an attacker. It's surprising how reluctant many DMs are to do this, even though they claim to want spontaneity, cleverness, and creativity.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Yunru]

Of course with the feat the party doesn't have to try in order to know where north is, but nothing stops parties without it from trying.

None of the feats move an ability that would be normally possible into feat-only territory. They create a feat-only territory of automatically succeeding at such thinhs.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[FrogReaver]

Remove caps? Because it is always a good idea to BREAK THE WHOLE GAME in order to remove a rule you don't like?! Okay, so I will assume you have never played 3.0 and so don't know all the problems caused by uncapped stats (armour becoming meaningless at high levels, characters having no choice but to max out prime stat in order to remain viable, and many many more). You suggestion is still illogical: you want to change dozens of rules (stat caps, ranged weapons in melee, "loading" property etc etc) in order to enable people to still do the same things they could do anyway using one rule you don't like (which you don't have to use anyway).

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."

Sure, you can build a fire sorcerer or a consumptive gunslinger without feats. And just accept that they are mechanically rubbish characters. You know what? if you want to play a mechanically rubbish character you can still make them even if feats are allowed in you game, because no one forces you to take them. And increasing ability scores by a couple of points is so, so, more interesting! <= [this is sarcasm]

You think a fire sorcerer is rubbish without feats?

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?

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?

 

[Yunru]

So, I assume you misunderstood me.

I have played D&D for decades. I have always played D&D with the implicit assumption that the players knew the directions (North, etc.). This was partly for "realism," (because these are adventurers, duh). And this was partly due to gamist reasons (it makes it a lot easier for mapping and directions).

But by making this a feat, this is no longer a player ability. What, they have to roll (and possibly fai)l to know directions now? Great.* This would mean a lot of unneeded time, unless I make players take this feat. And then it's not a choice- it's just burning resources.

That you don't see this is okay- you don't play at my table. I understand you enjoy feats; feats are fine. But it helps when you expand your horizons to consider that others might play differently than you do.


*FWIW, I ignore this part of the feat.

Well of course normally the party can indentify north. But that's not what the feat does. It makes you able to always identify north.
Stuck in the underdark? You know which way's north.
At the bottom of the ocean? You know which way's north.
In the middle of a fog bank? You know which way's north.
Etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

This logic is absurd.
It doesn't matter how many resources are required, having more optioms gives more choices.

You do not believe it's possible to have a choice take away other choices?

 

[Yunru]

You do not believe it's possible to have a choice take away other choices?

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