D&D 5E Feats, don't fail me now! - feat design in 5e

[hbarsquared]

Another point: the separation does not prevent the character you want to build.

If the DM runs a combat heavy game and suggests no backgrounds: tack on a background anyway to develop your character.

If the DM runs a roleplay heavy game and focuses must on skills and traits and never resorts to combat: the min-maxer can add on combat feats to his/her heart's content without overbalancing the game at the table.

You could even create one character with both sides, and play in multiple games depending on the group - and it will be an effective character no matter the playstyle!

I would consider that a huge boon.

 

[MoonSong]

@Magil - I agree that specialties are and should be optional. The rule is for designing feats, not choosing them as a player. The goal is that every feat be designed to enhance a particular play style.

@KM - I think that siloing actually helps the DM here. If a balanced game should include all 3 pillars, then each class should have powers that speak to all three. (I'll note that currently anyone who plays a fighter or sorcerer is already "opting out" of exploration or social mechanics.) It's much easier for a combat-focused DM to ban backgrounds than to cherry-pick the feats to see which count as combat feats.

I do hate the idea of focusing in one pillar, though. What's the goal of that - the bard gets to shine for an hour of courtly intrigue while the fighter player takes a bathroom break? The wizard consoles himself when he runs out of spells by saying, "At least I looked cool teleporting us in here!" I like your original point better - each character should take part in all three pillars. And I that end, every character should have combat powers (feats) as well as social and exploration powers (skills and traits). I'm all for adding more of the latter to the game, but IMO refusing to silo powers just means different players are dissatisfied with their characters at different times.

Actually siloing hurts more than no siloing. Under siloing if I have this concept that revolves about exploration and social interactions and I'm forced to take Combat abilites I don't care about at all, I'll be unhappy, just because my character cannot shine at the times I'm more interested in because I'm forced to take combat stuff in order "not to suck" at a moment I really don't care about (and I shouldn't be forced to, feats are extras not math fixes). Of course not all my characters focus on a single pillar all the time, they eventually take feats focussing on more than one thing, but that gets decided organically as my character grows, not every time the game says "you must upgrade your combat prowess now!" or "you must get some exploration stuf at this point and only this point".

Actually the only people who would be happy with siloing are people who care about balance all the time or who happen to be involved on an arms at race to overdo each other. (for them it is a good thing, it isn't nice to be a scrub on a party full of munchkins). However it isn't the case for all people.

The best way to handle this I guess would be with a module. Not all groups are made equal and not all players care about the same things.

 

[bogmad]

Well, I for one hope they eventually make it so that feats can be taken on an individual basis rather than only part of specialties. For all its problems, it's a layer of further character customization that I like, and I'd be sad to see it go.

I'd agree, but I'd also hope the rules emphasize that by picking individual feats you're creating your own specialty which you should be able to name and justify the choices for. It's kind of a nit-picky distinction, but it does force you to think about the story for your character.

Also, the more I think about what I wrote above, the more I'm unsure of it. So I hope no one thinks I'm being combative.

Perhaps instead of combat feats and non-combat feats that help you avoid fights, non-combat feats just mean they are good for not-combatting if you don't want to focus your character that way?
In the case of the snake oil saleman example for instance, perhaps instead of sweet talking the cultist into abjuring his god, his feat has to do with him sniveling in the corner and whimpering so that he's neglected when attempts to avoid it fails. Or something else perhaps a little less cowardly. (just spitballing here).

 

[hbarsquared]

None of those are necessarily limited to one pillar. You could have a skills system that gave you different ratings for weapon proficiencies (I'm +3 in Axes, but I'm not trained in swords!). You could have a background that helps you in combat ("As a weaponsmith, I have my own custom sword that gives me a +1 to attack rolls!"). You could have a feat that aided you in conversation with NPC's ("My Persuasive feat lets me gain advantage on Charisma checks when I'm making an offer to a friendly NPC!").

Limiting them to one pillar seems kind of unnecessary to me. There's nothing about the design space of a feat that suggests that it must be for combat, or about the design space of a skill that suggests it must be for exploration or about the design space of a background that suggests it must be for interaction. It's not inherent in the mechanics of the thing. So I'm not sure what you gain by that limitation.

I definitely see what you're saying here: why limit it when each of the three pillars are ripe for ideas and can contribute to each other? Feats are a cool design mechanic, why restrict it to combat?

I think ease of use is not to be underestimated. Saying "create a character without background or traits is much easier than "don't choose non-combat related feats."

I'm also thinking having an option for each pillar built into the character sheet can only improve the game.

Since 3.0 I hated having to choose between Skill Mastery and Spell Focus. I wanted an awesome Knowledge check, but also be effective in combat. I don't think it's a bad thing to be able to do both. I don't mind choosing between Spell Focus and Metamagic: they're combat choices. I also don't mind needing to choose the skill I put ranks in. But they should develop simultaneously.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

As always, KM and KL make good arguments. Let me respond in a roundabout way.

The absolute worst class ability in 3e, IMO, is Tracking. Why? Because it takes a straightforward and very common use of the skill system and makes it something class-specific. My elven wizard grew up in these forests and is following a band of orcs? Too bad, should have taken a level of ranger.

Most non-combat aspects of d&d are fairly free form. That's WHY, as KM points out, a fighter with the right background or a sorcerer with good Cha can contribute to social encounters: because the social encounter rules boil down to a few skills and ability checks. But if there was a Master Negotiator specialty that gave you advantage on all social checks and let you use them against enemies in combat... Uh oh, either a bard with that specialty can win most encounters without unsheathing a blade or else the raw skills have to be Nerfed so that the specialty is worthwhile.

In other words, if you can choose what pillar to spend your feats on, the feats must be mediocre, or else anyone who invested in the "wrong" pillar feels screwed. Not just because their teammates outshine them, but because monsters and traps and dungeons and social encounters must be designed around some target level of proficiency in each pillar.

 

[Li Shenron]

Ditto. I want 5e to bring D&D back from the "combat is the dominant pillar" point it got to. Saying feats are combat specifics just goes in the wrong direction for me.

I totally agree on wanting D&D taking a step back from being a miniature combat boardgame.

But I have to say (even tho I like the 3ed approach to feats), that if feats were all combat-based, then I can easily opt not to use feats at all, and voilá my campaign is immediately a little less combat-centric.

If feats are all-purpose, then in order to have a Druid with Herbalism or a Wizard with a Familiar, I have to take the whole feats/specialties package into the game, or alternatively I have to go through the list of feats and pick which ones are in (it might be easier to just say "only non-combat feats" if these are enough).

The flip of the coin of course is that if there are both combat and non-combat feats, you can then leave it up to each player which pillar to focus more, so I think eventually the designers will go this route (as we have in fact seen so far).

 

[Falling Icicle]

1. Feats are combat-oriented.

Not sure I agree with this one. While I see your point, I'm used to feats being one of the few ways outside your race and class that you can really customize your character. Backgrounds could fulfill that function, but as of right now, they seem a bit... lean in that regard. I don't think 3 skills and a minor roleplaying feature are quite enough, but thats a problem I have with backgrounds, not feats/specialties.

2. Feats fit into a specialty.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I like how specialties give people a simpler option for making characters, but on the other hand, they seem to take away much of the purpose that feats were created for - to provide more options and customizability for characters in a game that is otherwise severely lacking in it.

Before 3e, you picked your race, picked/rolled your ability scores, picked your class and... that was about it. There were optional weapon and non-weapon proficiencies, casters could pick spells, and rogues could assign points to their theiving skills, but that was it. That was literally all there was to your character. 3e came around and gave us a robust skill system and feats, and it really opened up alot of possibilities. It wasn't perfect, but I don't want to see that level of choice go away.

Having all feats be part of a pre-made package just diminishes the number of options I have for customizing my character. It just rubs me the wrong way, though I understand why they did it.

3. Feats are not class-specific.

I agree, for the most part. I too dislike things like feats that give more channel divinities or other such things. That said, I'd like for there to be things like metamagic feats, which obviously would be useless to non-spellcasters.

4. Any feat that affects HP or money should scale with level.

I agree with what you're saying here, but I have an even simpler solution. There shouldn't be feats that add to HP or that save you money. It's boring and uninspiring, IMO. As for herbalist, I keep asking myself, why isn't this one of the options for the artisan background? I don't think it should be a feat at all. I'd much prefer for crafting to be left out of feats entirely.

5. It should take a dedicated action to gain advantage on an attack roll.

I have no objection here, though I wouldn't be against the occasional exception to this rule, as long as it is carefully balanced.

6. New powers must be useful options for the appropriate build.
7. Passive bonuses must be interesting and character-altering.
8. Feats that improve existing powers need to be carefully examined across all applicable classes.

I agree with those.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I certainly don't want to *have to* gain some new combat ability at fixed levels, it's nice to develop a character in other directions, but I understand the desire to avoid trap choices. Allowing any character to specialise too heavily in one area is usually bad for the game and the DM's sanity.

Perhaps some of the feats we've seen so far could include a non-combat usage. Or even the whole speciality. For instance, the Archer might be able to fashion arrows as a Fletcher and craft a bow given time and access to materials. They might also gain a bonus to disable traps that fire arrows or darts. The Acolyte should maybe be trained in Religion? Perhaps they can also perform basic clerical services (a formal blessing from the right god would be useful for a bargain). Perhaps they can also sanctify holy water as well as a weapon, provided they have powdered silver.

The trouble I'm seeing at the moment is that backgrounds don't give you all that much access to interesting skills or abilities for use in non-combat pillars. Some classes do, some don't. Feats definitely don't. So how else are you supposed to get them?

 

[jrowland]

Already Nr. 1 breaks it for me. I want a RPG, not a dungeon crawler.

I think the OP is right...and so are you.

Feats SHOULD be combat only...what we need is a new term for non-combat "feats"...lets call them talents.

If you got both Talents and Feats, you could build a decent combat character as well as have decent non-combat features. The problems usually arise when you have to choose between RP-oriented feats and combat-oriented feat. You always feel the 'other' pillar is short-changed.

So I say, Bring on the Talents!

 

[cmbarona]

[MENTION=94389]jrowland[/MENTION] - I completely agree. I think we're running into a semantics problem here. The claim has been made that feats should be combat-oriented. The reply: "But wait! What if I want non-combat feats?" (Jack-of-All-Trades aside; see question below.) That's a valid concern, but it's skirting around the issue. The issue at hand is that we're going to define some new terms before moving on. Let's take this concept of "feats" and apply them only to combat. There, done, we now have a dedicated design space for combat abilities. What we can then do is take a look at non-combat abilities and dedicate a design space for them as well. Saying that Backgrounds are not sufficient to handle non-combat abilities does not logically lead to the conclusion that non-combat abilities should instead be covered by feats. It's one conclusion, but I think the more elegant solution is to develop Backgrounds. Let's leave feats as the combat design space. I think it's a good thing that it has been siloed. What we're left with is the question of what to do with the remaining pillars of social interaction and exploration. Can Backgrounds and Skills handle both of these? Or can we come up with a different solution that tackles each of those pillars separately as well as Specialties/Feats tackle combat abilities? One thing I mentioned in my last survey was that I think Backgrounds should continue to give you benefits as you level up. I'm a thief; why can't I keep becoming a better thief as time goes by? Likewise for knights, bounty hunters, sages, book binders, whatever. If so, perhaps "Background" could become "Occupation," I don't know. Whatever the case, the fact that Specialties/Feats only deals with combat is a good thing. If the current system for handling social/exploration skills is not robust enough, then let's ask WotC to make that system more robust rather than ask them to intrude on an existing design space that already does a good job at what it intends to do.

On another note, I have a very legitimate and sincere question. For all those folks who want to get non-combat prowess with their feats, I'll assume that Jack-of-All-Trades is not sufficient, or this would be a non-issue. Why is it not sufficient?

 

[Derren]

I think the OP is right...and so are you.

Feats SHOULD be combat only...what we need is a new term for non-combat "feats"...lets call them talents.

If you got both Talents and Feats, you could build a decent combat character as well as have decent non-combat features. The problems usually arise when you have to choose between RP-oriented feats and combat-oriented feat. You always feel the 'other' pillar is short-changed.

So I say, Bring on the Talents!

I disagree. There should be no two different resourced for combat and "everything else" because it still gives combat a special status and because either you get shoehorned into combat classes with many feats and nearly no talents and non combat classes with many talents and less feats or every character gets both at the same rate which imo leads not to well rounded characters but two characters in one. Both is not very desirable.

 

[cmbarona]

I disagree. There should be no two different resourced for combat and "everything else" because it still gives combat a special status and because either you get shoehorned into combat classes with many feats and nearly no talents and non combat classes with many talents and less feats or every character gets both at the same rate which imo leads not to well rounded characters but two characters in one. Both is not very desirable.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your argument. Why is combat having a special status a bad thing? And shouldn't the solution then be to give "everything else" equally special status?
Further, to separate Feats and Talents, or whatever they would be called, does not necessarily lead to the consequences you list. They are separated right now in Next. The result is not that the Fighter has more Feats or fewer Skills. It does currently mean that the Rogue has more skills, but I don't see this as a bad thing. And you can have your characters as well-rounded as you want with this system. I could be a really holy person, as a Cleric-Acolyte-Priest, or I could branch out more as a Cleric-Guardian-Knight. They don't conflict in concept or in play. Nor do they conflict in real life. I have my job and I have my hobbies. Me taking aikido classes does not interfere with my ability to sing, nor does either make me a less effective pastor. I could pursue either hobby, if I so chose, on a more professional route, but that doesn't take away my theological education. Look, maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument here. If so, could you please elaborate?

 

[bogmad]

I disagree. There should be no two different resourced for combat and "everything else" because it still gives combat a special status ...

Again this runs into the "play the game you want" problem. All this saying "combat needs to be de-emphasized" in the core, just butts heads with folks who like an emphasis on combat. Why is it not better to design a core where combat can either be emphasized or de-emphasized, according to the whim of the game-runner(s), by tweaking the dials (or adding/subtracting modules)?

The fact is that combat and role play interact with the rules in markedly distinct ways. If you want "non-combat" feats, they should still be able to interact meaningfully within the design-space that is in effect while the rest of the party is embroiled in combat.

 

[MoonSong]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your argument. Why is combat having a special status a bad thing? And shouldn't the solution then be to give "everything else" equally special status?
Further, to separate Feats and Talents, or whatever they would be called, does not necessarily lead to the consequences you list. They are separated right now in Next. The result is not that the Fighter has more Feats or fewer Skills. It does currently mean that the Rogue has more skills, but I don't see this as a bad thing. And you can have your characters as well-rounded as you want with this system. I could be a really holy person, as a Cleric-Acolyte-Priest, or I could branch out more as a Cleric-Guardian-Knight. They don't conflict in concept or in play. Nor do they conflict in real life. I have my job and I have my hobbies. Me taking aikido classes does not interfere with my ability to sing, nor does either make me a less effective pastor. I could pursue either hobby, if I so chose, on a more professional route, but that doesn't take away my theological education. Look, maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument here. If so, could you please elaborate?

However different skillsets require different resources, and that sometimes leads to conflicting interests, unless you are naturally talented, keeping a propper singing voice requires practice, nurturing and dedication, and while you may be a good singer as an amateur, I doubt you'd be able to best a primma donna with years of specialized trainning and who took years and year of musical and artistic education instead of your pastoral trainning. On a similar way someone with an interest on religion and phylosphy may be very good on it and get the main points of the Bible, but will not be able to quote exact passages of different versions and traslations without the propper trainning.

And let's don't get started on the Aikido part, you may be good at it, but to be very good at it you need the dedication only a professional soldier or top athelete would have. Moreover on real life you decide how much time you alocate to each of your hobbies and career paths, nobody forces you to dedicate exactly three hours to singing, three hours to read theology and phylosphy books and three hours to practice Aikido. Or worse forcing you to spend 10 hours singing and only half hour practicing with the sword when you want to become very good on Aikido.

A real life example. I have a friend my age, we both are trained artists, but he spend all of his life drawing and can effortlessly produce characters full of life with a consolidated and attractive artistic style in almost no time, meanwhile I spent most of my teenage years learning crazy tings such as physics, advanced math and readying a lot about wildy different subjects, along with drawing from time to time. I can produce atractive imaginery too, but it doesn't comes as naturaly to me as for him, I actually have to pay a lot of attention when I do so and it is taxing -headache taxing- for me to quickly switch from drawing to verbal or mathematical skills. Of course I can understand stuff he cannot ever hope to comprenhend, but equally I'm nowhere near the level of competency of my friends who actually studied engineering.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Feats SHOULD be combat only...what we need is a new term for non-combat "feats"...lets call them talents.

If you got both Talents and Feats, you could build a decent combat character as well as have decent non-combat features.

This is the "siloing" thing people keep proposing, and that other people (like myself) object to. I want to be able to make a character who is a focused sage, but is bad in a fight. Not just "not good" in a fight, but actually bad. My players want the same thing.

Now, should you be able to make a sage/warrior? Sure, why not, that's also a cool concept. He just shouldn't be as good as the focused sage who's bad in a fight.

By siloing, you're denying me that concept. Me and my players like concepts that include being bad in a fight. Because, though we play 8-10 hours at a time, we probably average 1 combat per session. There's a lot of other stuff going on each session, and we're cool with not fighting very much. As much fun as I had with 3.5, this was a problem for us. Since we switched to my own RPG, which is point-buy (but still level-based), it's a lot easier to scratch that itch. However, you could easily make classes where you suck at combat. I can do it using my RPG.

I'm not a fan of forced siloing. As the default? Please. I'd prefer that. Start everyone 3/3/3 in combat / exploration / interaction. That's fine with me. But, let me tweak my character to 1/4/3 or 5/1/1 or 2/2/4. I don't mind the default being siloed abilities, but make them via specialties (feat packages), where combat and non-combat mix. Then, if I want to upset that balance, I'll pick feats that do so.

Just my take on it. I'm not a fan of siloing. Neither are my players. Make it the default, sure. I'm okay with that. Just don't force me to be good in areas I don't want to be (just like you shouldn't be forced to be poor in areas you don't want to be). As always, play what you like

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

By siloing, you're denying me that concept.

No, we're not.

Nothing says that you actually have to use any abilities that you have on your character sheet.

So what if your "terrible in combat" sage has a +7 attack bonus and +3 to damage with attacks made with his staff, if he never actually attacks with his staff to begin with? Maybe, once in a great while, your sage actually does make an attack, and, look at that, the fates aligned and it was a good one (because your modifiers made it an effective attack)! The rest of the time, though, he stands in the back taking the Total Defense action and yelling "Not in the face!"

Or, you know, just say that despite the fact that (in 3E terms) you have a +4 Base Attack Bonus, you just don't want to apply any of it to any of your attacks, and you want to treat all your weapons like they're improvised, and you always want to strike for non-lethal. Bam! Immediate -12 to your attack roll; instant incompetence!

Siloing abilities makes it far, far easier to make a more robust, balanced ruleset, where everyone who wants to participate in each of the main pillars can do so effectively (if not optimally). For people who want to play (dangerously? oddly?) against type (seriously, why is the useless sage not an NPC character that the party is escorting?), let them figure it out on their own.

 

[Derren]

seriously, why is the useless sage not an NPC character that the party is escorting?

See, thats the entire problem. You think that combat is the primary function in D&D and everyone who can't fight is useless and should be an NPC.

That is fine for a Hack&Slash dungeon crawler, but in an RPG a learned character should/can be as useful as a combat character and be a valid character choice a player can role play with.
By making combat "special" you remove this ability as the game gets more geared towards combat than everything else.

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, we're not.

Yes, you are.

Nothing says that you actually have to use any abilities that you have on your character sheet.

That's not true, if you're following the rules. Medium HP? I can take more hits. And for people that see HP as some form of physical damage (rolling with the hits, etc.), and not plot protection, this is a problem. If the class gives higher defenses (saves, AC, whatever), that'll come up, too. And so on.

I want the fiction I want (a sage who is bad at combat, a craftsman who can make neat contraptions but isn't a combatant, a courtier who is great socially but couldn't fight to save his life, etc.) to be matched up closely with the mechanics of the game. And if you force me to be good at combat (or even "not bad"), you're not doing that for me.

And I don't want that. My players don't want that. It's not what we want. And you're denying us that concept. Nobody can pick up our sheet, see our character, and play him as we fictionally want him to be. They'll see the higher attack bonus, the damage, and so on.

That's not the character I want. That's not how I want the game to represent my character. The "ignore the rules" is nice and all, and I will, but I have no great interest in switching to a game that enforces broad competency on everybody. Set it as the default, please. I'd like that just fine. Just let me alter it.

Siloing abilities makes it far, far easier to make a more robust, balanced ruleset, where everyone who wants to participate in each of the main pillars can do so effectively (if not optimally). For people who want to play (dangerously? oddly?) against type (seriously, why is the useless sage not an NPC character that the party is escorting?), let them figure it out on their own.

Or, you know, support their playstyle. Make specialties balanced across the pillars. Make classes balanced across the pillars. Make this the default.

Then, give me options on altering that. Trading combat stuff for social stuff. Trading exploration stuff for more combat stuff. And so on. If I want to pick "unbalanced" feats, make me do it by hand, instead of by specialty. I'm fine with this. Just don't silo it and force me. Because you're killing my concepts. As always, play what you like

 

[bogmad]

If specialties are the "how" you do something, then they should do what they're supposed to and say how you interact with your environment. If you want your choices to reflect that you're bad in a fight the feat should be specific enough to say exactly how you're bad in it. An extra bookworm feat doesn't actually describe anything about how you interact with the world, just that you get a +2 when thinking about the underdark or whatever. Let it give you an action to deduce an interesting fact about how to avoid a monster or something, but no way to smack it or use a spell in an interesting manner. Similarly, a feat based around acrobatics shouldn't just give a boost to an acrobatic skill roll, it should give you new ways to interact with the combat rules.

All feats being combat feats doesn't mean every feat has to relate to beating something over the head, or shooting it with a spell. It just affects how your character interacts mechanically when certain parameters are in effect (in this case, a fight).

All that said, you've worn me down. I don't see why there couldn't be a slight bleed over for people like JamesonCourage who actively want to be "bad in a fight". Most Feats should still be able to relate to combat, but if someone insists on taking the extra knowledge skill feat that doesn't interact with combat rules I don't see why we shouldn't let him play as he likes, as long as he doesn't start arguing later about being ineffective in the fight, or the fact that no one ever takes the skill feat... because, really, when you mix them up more people will end up taking the combat feat.
Also, that non-combat feat choice shouldn't mean that he can't have access to that skill through something he chooses through the option that provides "talents"

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

See, thats the entire problem. You think that combat is the primary function is D&D

No, I think that combat is a primary part of normal D&D play, and that someone who is not merely "Not Good" at combat but who is "Actually Bad" (@JamesonCourage's words, not mine) is a dangerous liability to the party.

That makes the character type suitable for use as an NPC, but a hard sell as a PC.