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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes, you are.

Nope, I'm not! Isn't this fun?

And for people that see HP as some form of physical damage

Ignoring rules can sometimes, though not always, cause issues. Since hit points are explicitly not meat, then your noncombatant "PC" just has lots of plot protection. It's probably how someone so unsuited to the adventuring lifestyle wasn't murdered by the first kobold they came across.

(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.)

1st-level Experts. Done.

You are still describing, for purposes of normal D&D, NPCs. These are not adventurers. These are people to whom adventurers turn to for help back in town or, at worst, escort under heavy guard to an archaeological site.

D&D PC classes model adventurers (inasmuch as they model anything). Therefore, PC rules should not try to model these types of characters.

They'll see the higher attack bonus, the damage, and so on.

\

Who cares? No one other than you will ever look at your sheet.

Did you complain about this in 3rd Ed? Or 1st Ed? I mean, D&D has never let you create a complete noncombatant.

There's "I'd like to be able to tweak," and there's "I want to ignore most of the game." You're asking for the latter, and I don't think it's a reasonable request.

 

[JamesonCourage]

No, I think that combat is a primary part of normal D&D play

This is what I mean by it's a play style thing. Combat wasn't a primary part of my 3.5 play, and it's not going to be a primary part of any D&D system I use. It's going to be a part of it, yes. But it's not a primary part, and that's why I want things like in-depth or dynamic rules on non-combat activities (crafting, social activity, etc.). And, it's also why I want the option to give up breadth of character (capable in all three pillars) to have more depth in another area.

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.

Again, this is a play style thing. In a game like mine, where you might get 1 combat every 8-10 hours of play, you're not a "dangerous liability" most of the time. And, you might be saving the party when dealing with powerful members through your knowledge (what they like, their history in dealing with matters, crafting gifts for them, massaging their ego, successfully scouting areas, etc.). I'm asking to be better in some areas at the expense of others. To me, this isn't a big request. It doesn't need to be baseline. And, in my game, it'll be used, and it'll aid the party in ways that they wouldn't get otherwise.

I know that it's not going to fit the majority of play styles. I'm not asking for it to be baseline. I'm asking for the ability to alter the baseline in a way that supports a style that I play. Forced siloing actively hurts this, in my view.

Sure, make siloing baseline. Sure, don't give "unbalanced" specialties, and make me go through the feats myself. Sure, explain that altering the baseline will make your character have less breadth, and therefore not useful as often in exchange for more depth in one area, and explain how this can affect the upcoming sessions / adventure / etc. I'm fine with all of that. Go ahead. Just let me play the character concepts I want, please. Don't force siloing. As always, play what you like

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I don't think this form of siloing is preventing character concepts you want. This form is merely saying that feats are a combat-focused module instead of a generic character building module.

I suggest that backgrounds and traits be expanded on, so that it's feasible to, say, build a character with two backgrounds and no specialties, or to trade out a feat for a trait.

The benefits of siloing for those who play combat heavy games are enormous. Those are the people who care the most about combat balance, and who want balanced combat regardless of how much focus they put into the other pillars. For groups who aren't so worried about that, a few optional rules can easily give you the flexibility you need to play the characters you want.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Nope, I'm not! Isn't this fun?

Yes, you are! And no, it's not

Ignoring rules can sometimes, though not always, cause issues. Since hit points are explicitly not meat, then your noncombatant "PC" just has lots of plot protection. It's probably how someone so unsuited to the adventuring lifestyle wasn't murdered by the first kobold they came across.

Explicitly in 4e. It wasn't in 3.5e. And, regardless, there are plenty of people that want HP to be meat to some degree. And I don't think it's an insignificant number. And, in an inclusive edition, I expect HP to be given support in multiple areas (HP as all meat might be an outlier, but some meat is popular, and "only the last HP might count, but maybe not" is popular, too).

This argument isn't persuasive.

1st-level Experts. Done.

Woefully inadequate for the experience I'm looking for. In-depth or dynamic support for non-combat roles, please.

You are still describing, for purposes of normal D&D, NPCs. These are not adventurers. These are people to whom adventurers turn to for help back in town or, at worst, escort under heavy guard to an archaeological site.

Adventurers also turn to help from monsters (which people want to play), or even other combat-focused characters (which people want to play). If I (or my players) want to play in a game (using D&D's rules) that supports playing a non-combat character, I should be able to do so. These things can be very useful to adventurers, and I want there to be support when I play one of these characters.

D&D PC classes model adventurers (inasmuch as they model anything). Therefore, PC rules should not try to model these types of characters.

And I think this should be expanded. Just as I think there should be in-depth or dynamic rules on non-combat activity. I want rule support. People can ignore it if they want to. It doesn't even need to be baseline. Just give me the support to have the fiction I want backed up by the mechanics, please. That, to me, is a reasonable request (but then, so is asking to be a non-combat character in a fantasy game).

Who cares? No one other than you will ever look at your sheet.

In your group. If a player in my game is absent, I take their sheet, and RP them (as an NPC, effectively), and I use their sheet to do so. My players also look at each others' sheets occasionally, seeing what they're capable faster than the other person can typically tell them.

And, as I said, I want the fiction of the game to be reflected by the mechanics. If I want to trade my combat prowess for some more non-combat expertise, that seems reasonable, to me. It doesn't need to be 1-for-1, thus my earlier example (3/3/3 becoming 5/1/1 or 1/4/3 or /2/2/4).

Did you complain about this in 3rd Ed?

I believe I explicitly said as much. I said, "As much fun as I had with 3.5, this was a problem for us." I then mentioned that my RPG works better for us when we want to scratch that itch, but that you could definitely make a class-based non-combat character. So, yeah, it was a problem for us in 3e.

I mean, D&D has never let you create a complete noncombatant.

Right. That's a problem for us.

There's "I'd like to be able to tweak," and there's "I want to ignore most of the game." You're asking for the latter, and I don't think it's a reasonable request.

No, I'm asking for more support in other areas. You know, the other two-thirds of the pillars they're talking about. That's what I'm asking for. About two-thirds the game to have support. And I think that's a reasonable request. I can agree to disagree, though. As always, play what you like

I don't think this form of siloing is preventing character concepts you want. This form is merely saying that feats are a combat-focused module instead of a generic character building module.

I suggest that backgrounds and traits be expanded on, so that it's feasible to, say, build a character with two backgrounds and no specialties, or to trade out a feat for a trait.

The benefits of siloing for those who play combat heavy games are enormous. Those are the people who care the most about combat balance, and who want balanced combat regardless of how much focus they put into the other pillars. For groups who aren't so worried about that, a few optional rules can easily give you the flexibility you need to play the characters you want.

While I see what you're saying, I disagree (maybe... keep reading for more on this). I'm asking to be better at non-combat roles by losing my combat stuff. Just like, theoretically, somebody could be better at combat by losing their social / exploration stuff. You're saying (as far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent you) "you can still do non-combat stuff without feats."

That's true. I want a trade-off, though. I want my focused Sage to be better at sagery (that's right, sagery) than your Sage-Knight. Again, it doesn't need to be baseline. And, again, the tradeoff doesn't need to be 1-for-1 (my 3/3/3 becoming 5/1/1 or 1/4/3 or 2/2/4). But, I don't want my focused Sage to be just as good as sagery as your Sage-Knight. I want him to be better.

If the solution is simply "implement talents (or improve backgrounds), and take a 2nd one instead of one of each", then I'd say you're just making two sets of feats, and instead of labeling them "Combat Feats" and "Interaction / Exploration Feats", you're calling them "Feats" and "Talents (or Backgrounds)" instead.

And, you know what? If the rules support trading feats or specialties over for talents / backgrounds 1-for-1, and they both have in-depth or dynamic support for their areas, that's more than good enough for me. You've essentially done what I want (and given my style support), you just didn't use the name. And I'm totally okay with that, if you are. As always, play what you like

 

[Derren]

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.

Here we simply have to disagree, at least on the vision of how a RPG should look like.
Combat should be a viable option to players, but it should not be mandatory. But by forcing players to be good at combat you are elevating combat over every other way to play the game, even more so when you disregard everyone bad at combat as useless.
Why would they be useless? That would only apply when there is nothing else to do in the game than to fight.

 

[thewok]

Just something I want to point out that seems contradictory to me, and it's one problem I have with Next as it currently stands. This is not really about feats, but your post serves as a convenient stepping-off point for me.

1. Feats are combat-oriented. Since feats are part of "specialties" which determine how you play your class, they're almost without exception applicable to combat situations. (The only "exception" that springs to mind is Jack of All Trades, but obviously there are plenty of ways to apply most trained skills in combat.) This is, in my mind, a GOOD thing for roleplaying: if you want to be a shopkeeper or have a bunch of followers, that's either strictly roleplaying or it's part of your background. No need to sacrifice combat prowess for the sake of in-depth roleplaying and character development.

Emphasis mine. I agree with this sentiment. Not so much that all feats must relate to combat, but that your background, skills, etc. shouldn't cause you to sacrifice combat capability.

That said, the betterment of skills at the cost of combat capability is a core assumption of the rogue class. Rogues are built for skill use, and their combat capabilities suffer because of it. I loathe this philosophy with every fiber of my being.

Now, I am fine with the Fighter having a better to-hit bonus that the Rogue. The Fighter is assumed to have formal and practical training in combat, while the rogue is assumed to have only practical. And, I really need to see the Attack bonus progression over the classes' lifetimes in order to really make a final decision. But the projections for the progression put the rogue (everyone really) way below the Fighter in to-hit bonuses.

In 3E, this made sense, as Fighters were meant to sacrifice BAB in order to do other things, like with Power Attack. Expertise dice serve that function now, and the vast increase of attack bonus over every other class needs to be toned down a lot.

5. It should take a dedicated action to gain advantage on an attack roll. No feats that give you advantage when flanking, or when fighting goblins, or whatever. Advantage is awesome and hard to get, because with it you almost never miss - not to mention rogues getting to sneak attack every round.

The Thug gets the ability to have advantage every round, so long as two allies are adjacent to his target. I actually would rather see a return of flanking, with sneak attack triggering off of that, divorced from Advantage. Bring Sneak attack damage down a lot, but make it in line with a fighter's possible damage. Then, give each scheme some form of bonus that triggers off of Advantage: Backstab for thieves, maybe a form of immobilization (called Hamstring?) or a stun for Thugs. Then, let them decide whether or not to go for Advantage every round or not.

If the thief ever feels that he needs to hide every other round just so he can sneak attack, then I think the mechanic fails to be worthwhile. You'll just see Thieves hiding one round, then attacking the next. It's boring, and it's unreliable.

I think Advantage as a mechanic really needs to be equally desirable to everyone; it's very powerful. I'd rather not see a core assumption of a class like Sneak Attack be coupled with a mechanic that reads like it should be somewhat uncommon.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But by forcing players to be good at combat you are elevating combat over every other way to play the game,

No, I'm not.

I'm saying that the rules should silo abilities such that every character has something to bring to the table in each of the three main pillars.

I'm saying that, currently, the playtest fighter is bad because it doesn't offer enough in the noncombat pillars.

I'm saying that you need to elevate noncombat rules to the same importance as combat rules and then, at least in the base rules, not let characters actively suck in any of the areas.

You are, in fact, reading me as the complete opposite of what I am saying. Just like you should not be able to build a completely combat-useless character, you should not be able to build a completely social-useless character.

[EDIT: The player, of course, can always choose to employ that character's abilities in unoptimal or ineffective ways, or to simply ignore them, but by the rules they should be there.]

It wasn't in 3.5e.

Yes, they were. They were in 3.XE, they were in 2E, they were in 1E, and they were in Rules Cycolpedia. The fact that many people continue to be obstinately wrong does not, suddenly, make them right.

want there to be support when I play one of these characters.

Then use the NPC rules.

If a player in my game is absent, I take their sheet, and RP them (as an NPC, effectively), and I use their sheet to do so.

And, presumably, you base your RP of that character on the way in which the player has been playing them? So, if John has been playing Eralth the Wise as a combat-incapable or combat-avoiding character, you don't suddenly have them charge headfirst into conflicts?

Or do absent PCs have sudden, inexplicable personality changes?

Right. That's a problem for us.

Then might I suggest that 5E, which aims to be inclusive of D&D, not anything and everything, will likely continue to be a problem for you?

You know, the other two-thirds of the pillars they're talking about. That's what I'm asking for. About two-thirds the game to have support. And I think that's a reasonable request. I can agree to disagree, though.

I think, as stated above, that those two pillars absolutely need more support. And, IMO, the best way to support them is through siloed character abilities, such that you cannot, to any great degree, trade off combat effectiveness for social effectiveness - or vice versa.

That way, all players will be able to meaningfully participate in all of the pillars, and social interaction encounters do not become a 1-on-1 conversation between the DM and the party "face."

 

[bogmad]

If the solution is simply "implement talents (or improve backgrounds), and take a 2nd one instead of one of each", then I'd say you're just making two sets of feats, and instead of labeling them "Combat Feats" and "Interaction / Exploration Feats", you're calling them "Feats" and "Talents (or Backgrounds)" instead.

This is exactly what I thought was being said.
"Talents" would potentially be a part of "backgrounds" as "feats" would be to "specialty."

For a base system, balance is a welcome feature, and "siloing" things out makes this easier to implement.

You've already described your group of players as wanting different things than a great many D&D players:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patryn of Elvenshae
I mean, D&D has never let you create a complete noncombatant.

Right. That's a problem for us.

So it sounds like for your group, leaving out specialties and keeping backgrounds might be a valid option.

Like I've said before, the "feats" you want interact wildly differently with rules than the way combat-based feats do, so why not call them something different? Mixing them up and putting them in different modules(backgrounds, specialties, etc) creates imbalance. I'm not even saying completely don't mix them up anymore, but at least let the core idea be that each module primarily speaks to a different pillar.

Those with a wildly different playstyle than the majority of D&D players should still be able houserule more complicated combinations of feats, talents, etc to play how they want to.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

If the solution is simply "implement talents (or improve backgrounds), and take a 2nd one instead of one of each", then I'd say you're just making two sets of feats, and instead of labeling them "Combat Feats" and "Interaction / Exploration Feats", you're calling them "Feats" and "Talents (or Backgrounds)" instead.

And, you know what? If the rules support trading feats or specialties over for talents / backgrounds 1-for-1, and they both have in-depth or dynamic support for their areas, that's more than good enough for me. You've essentially done what I want (and given my style support), you just didn't use the name. And I'm totally okay with that, if you are. As always, play what you like

That's kindof what I'm saying. I've never felt that feats, as they've been presented in the past, did a really good job of providing non-combat options. By separating feats and talents, you can let each work differently, provide them at different rates, etc. It puts them into different conceptual zones. A feat might not equal a talent in the same way that an apple doesn't equal a hand grenade. But, as long as you know the implications, there's no reason not to allow players to choose one in the place of another.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

If feats shouldn't provide boring bonuses, but should open up new abilities, or make existing abilities work differently, then do you really need them to be effective in combat?

Let's compare a Fighter who has chosen a speciality such as Archer, or Survivor, to a Fighter who hasn't (or a Fighter who chooses Jack of All Trades). The latter can't kill a couple of low hp creatures with a single action, only one. Or he might go down one hit sooner than the Survivor Fighter. He still has combat superiority, and has a number of moves available from his fighting style. He is just as likely to hit an enemy and hits just as hard, he just doesn't have as many options.

So, if feats do as suggested in the OP, and don't just boost things you, or your class, are already good at with plain old numbers, but instead open up new abilities, then why do they have to be combat oriented? The gap between a Fighter who takes combat feats and one who takes non-combat feats won't be numerical, it will be merely optional.

 

[bogmad]

If feats shouldn't provide boring bonuses, but should open up new abilities, or make existing abilities work differently, then do you really need them to be effective in combat?

The question for me is what extra abilities has the fighter with jack of all trades gained and is it comparable to what another feat might give? It's arguably not an even trade off. But you know what? I've been convinced. Let there be non-optimal feat choices. It doesn't really hurt anything if there's an option there most people won't take.

Skill based feats for combat could be interesting, but that might skew a little too closely to 4e skill powers, and limit creative use of skills.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yes, they were. They were in 3.XE. The fact that many people continue to be obstinately wrong does not, suddenly, make them right.

You said explicitly. Go ahead and show me.

Then use the NPC rules.

Which, in my mind, should be the same as PC rules. There should just be shortcuts for a DM to use to get close approximations on the fly, when he doesn't have much prep time, etc.

And, presumably, you base your RP of that character on the way in which the player has been playing them? So, if John has been playing Eralth the Wise as a combat-incapable or combat-avoiding character, you don't suddenly have them charge headfirst into conflicts?

I base the personality on the way the player has been playing them. I use their mechanical abilities to map to their capabilities within the fiction. That is, if that PC is attacked, I'll use his mechanical defenses. "Ignoring it" might work for John (even if it's breaking the rules, which is also undesirable, since that means my style is not supported and that's a failing of the system), but it doesn't work for me when I take over, since I don't have John's sheet memorized, and will be using the stats off of it.

Then might I suggest that 5E, which aims to be inclusive of D&D, not anything and everything, will likely continue to be a problem for you?

I'd say that this doesn't fit with the "three pillars" thing they keep going on about. Calling for more mechanical support in two of the three pillars seems reasonable. Asking for an optional trade-off is also reasonable when they want to be inclusive of play styles.

They've already added mechanics not seen in D&D so far. I'm asking for them to flesh out something that people already use (even if it's optional), and allow me to customize the game to my table (which they've stated they'd like to do). I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable. Again, though, I can agree to disagree.

I think, as stated above, that those two pillars absolutely need more support. And, IMO, the best way to support them is through siloed character abilities, such that you cannot, to any great degree, trade off combat effectiveness for social effectiveness - or vice versa.

That way, all players will be able to meaningfully participate in all of the pillars, and social interaction encounters do not become a 1-on-1 conversation between the DM and the party "face."

This is a play style thing. You'd just be able to go along with the "default" method. My group, however, could tweak our game to make characters who are more interested in one field or another. How is this not win-win? Your way is the baseline assumption, and mine is not baseline. It's purely optional. But, the option lets both of us have our own styles.

Set up siloing as default, sure. That's fine. I like that. Just give me the option to opt out of it. My players are okay letting the "face" talk, and only chipping in. It works for them at the table as players (they don't get bored). You don't like that; fine, don't play with the optional rules I'm asking for. Wouldn't that be easy? As always, play what you like

That's kindof what I'm saying. I've never felt that feats, as they've been presented in the past, did a really good job of providing non-combat options. By separating feats and talents, you can let each work differently, provide them at different rates, etc. It puts them into different conceptual zones. A feat might not equal a talent in the same way that an apple doesn't equal a hand grenade. But, as long as you know the implications, there's no reason not to allow players to choose one in the place of another.

I'm kind of on board with this, but not completely. If "talents" are just "feats" by another name, though they deal with non-combat, that's fine. Just as long as the same design philosophy that goes into feats is carried over into talents (except the combat part, obviously).

Essentially, I want them to have the same impact, within the fiction, that feats do. I want them to be prepackaged, but also able to be taken individually. I want them taken at the same rate over all of your levels. Etc. If that's the case, and you present an optional rule for trading your specialty for a talent package (or a feat for a talent), then you've got me on board. It's basically exactly what I'm asking for.

This is, in my mind, essentially not making all feats combat-only. To others, it is. And that's cool; it works for both of us. And that's what I'm asking for. As always, play what you like

For a base system, balance is a welcome feature, and "siloing" things out makes this easier to implement.

I agree. That's why I said the baseline should be balanced (3/3/3 for combat / exploration / interaction).

So it sounds like for your group, leaving out specialties and keeping backgrounds might be a valid option.

No, it's not. I'll repeat why I think that, too: I'm asking to be better at non-combat roles by losing my combat stuff. Just like, theoretically, somebody could be better at combat by losing their social / exploration stuff. You're saying (as far as I can tell, and correct me if I'm wrong because I'm certainly not trying to misrepresent you) "you can still do non-combat stuff without feats."

That's true. I want a trade-off, though. I want my focused Sage to be better at sagery (that's right, sagery) than your Sage-Knight. Again, it doesn't need to be baseline. And, again, the tradeoff doesn't need to be 1-for-1 (my 3/3/3 becoming 5/1/1 or 1/4/3 or 2/2/4). But, I don't want my focused Sage to be just as good as sagery as your Sage-Knight. I want him to be better.

Like I've said before, the "feats" you want interact wildly differently with rules than the way combat-based feats do, so why not call them something different?

As I said, I'm okay with them being called something different. I just want them to essentially be the same resource, or optionally able to be swapped with feats, etc.

Those with a wildly different playstyle than the majority of D&D players should still be able houserule more complicated combinations of feats, talents, etc to play how they want to.

I'm looking for support, not for house rules. I already have the RPG I made; I don't have any strong desire to "fix" 5e. I'll advocate for the support I want, so that if my brother runs a game with it or something, I'll have that support. But, saying "you can ignore the rules" or "you can house rule" just doesn't appeal to me in 5e. As always, play what you like

 

[BobTheNob]

I don't think this form of siloing is preventing character concepts you want. This form is merely saying that feats are a combat-focused module instead of a generic character building module.

I suggest that backgrounds and traits be expanded on, so that it's feasible to, say, build a character with two backgrounds and no specialties, or to trade out a feat for a trait.

The benefits of siloing for those who play combat heavy games are enormous. Those are the people who care the most about combat balance, and who want balanced combat regardless of how much focus they put into the other pillars. For groups who aren't so worried about that, a few optional rules can easily give you the flexibility you need to play the characters you want.

Pretty much where I am at with this. I just cant see how siloing prevents concept. You want a sage, make a sage. Your emphasis is on knowledge and its ability to solve problems, great. You can achieve that with OR without siloing.

Not excited about the combat aspects, then play it non-combatively. Find ways to get around fights rather than picking them.

I remember having this discussion with a contemporary at the closing of our 4e campaign. The general feeling was that we needed far far FAR less emphasis on combat, yet in all that time we played, players never did. Sure, they COULD have taken non-combat feats, but none of them did. I dont hold them "wrong" for doing that, I dont think the campaign was inflexibly forcing combat scenario's...the guys just liked a good fight and liked to be good at it. But there was always those times when fighting it out was an inferior option.

At those times I would have liked that they had something a bit more robust than a weak list of skill shoved into the bottom corner of 1 page of a 5 page character sheet. That they just had more RP-meat to them WITHOUT requiring them to give up on what they want to do with there characters.

I WILL NOT tell my players to stop being combative in order that they can find ways to resolve things without fighting. Fact is I find that characters with high degree of flexibility to be far better suited to Tabletop RPG's to one that is single pillar application.

So, as imperfect as siloing is, I find it to be an imperfect solution to an imperfect problem.

 

[MoonSong]

If feats shouldn't provide boring bonuses, but should open up new abilities, or make existing abilities work differently, then do you really need them to be effective in combat?

Let's compare a Fighter who has chosen a speciality such as Archer, or Survivor, to a Fighter who hasn't (or a Fighter who chooses Jack of All Trades). The latter can't kill a couple of low hp creatures with a single action, only one. Or he might go down one hit sooner than the Survivor Fighter. He still has combat superiority, and has a number of moves available from his fighting style. He is just as likely to hit an enemy and hits just as hard, he just doesn't have as many options.

So, if feats do as suggested in the OP, and don't just boost things you, or your class, are already good at with plain old numbers, but instead open up new abilities, then why do they have to be combat oriented? The gap between a Fighter who takes combat feats and one who takes non-combat feats won't be numerical, it will be merely optional.

Exactly, feats shouldn't provide numerical bonuses, just extra stuff.

3.x provided lots of non-combat feats, even if we ignored the math skill feats, (such as skill focus and Deceitful) we have at least the following:

- Eschew Materials.- Has a combat use, namely being able to cast spells with material components while grappled. However in practice it has most benefits out of combat, namely you save the cost and the weight of a spell component pouch, also you aren't tied to equipment for a good chunk of spells which allows you to cast on situations where you normally wouldn't be allowed to. Not to mention the fact it helps to build flavour.
- Silent spell.- it has a combat use (casting spells while grappled/deafened) but it is more useful on out combat situations, are you a sneaky wiz who doesn't want to get caught while hidden? use silent spell, want to cast without people noticing? combine it with still spell and eschew materials and nobody will know.
- Track.- a very cool feat that enables another use of the survivial skill
- Endurance
- Magic item creation feats

Outside core:
- Appraise Magic Value
- Disguise Spell
- Brachiation
- Jack of all trades
- Subsonics
- Versatile Performer
- Most Wild Feats
- Nimbus of Light
- Stigmata
- Spell Mastery
- The "get 3 spell like abilities" feats
- Transdimentional spell
- Augment Healing
- Sanctify relic
- Swift call
- Animal devotion
- Witchlight
- Spell thematics (obvious combat use, but has a heavy flavor that cannot be ignored)
- Sweet talker
- Half the Luck feats
- Trap Engineer
- Trap Sensitivity
- Chant of the Long Road
- Dragon Friend
- Dragon song
- Education
- Able learner
- Monastic trainning

 

[hbarsquared]

Wow, this thread degenerated quite a bit over the past day.

For siloing to work well:

• Background/Traits/Talents must be robust.
• "Specialties" and "Backgrounds" can easily be removed or added in.

Backgrounds need to provide more options as well provide choices when leveling up. You should be able to grow your character through exploration/social abilities just as you grow your character through combat ability.

For non-rp groups and characters, they can just leave out Backgrounds and all characters are created with a Specialty. Or for a super combat-heavy game: 2 Specialties.

Non-combat groups (or characters who want to actively be bad at combat), leave out Specialties and just create a character with a Background. Or for super rp-heavy games: 2 Backgrounds.

Hell, if I was playing an average game (each character with 1 Background and 1 Specialty), and one player actively wanted to be poor at combat, I'd say, "Sure! Feel free to switch out your Specialty and ability to choose combat feats for a whole second Background and get twice the number of 'talents'! No problem!"

As a DM, I probably wouldn't even have a problem substituting "Talents" for "Feats." Sure, create a character with a Specialty and a Background. Choose a couple of combat Feats for your character at the beginning for their Specialty, but a 5th-level you decide to pick up a Talent in place of a Feat. Why not?

These are all options. If things start out "siloed" you can cut and add at well. Siloing still allows characters to sacrifice combat ability for rp ability. It even allows you to mix-and-match if you really want to.

What siloing does is open up options for those that don't want to sacrifice rp ability for combat ability. If everything is jumbled up under one mechanic, it's impossible to separate out and balance.

 

[Derren]

That's kindof what I'm saying. I've never felt that feats, as they've been presented in the past, did a really good job of providing non-combat options. By separating feats and talents, you can let each work differently, provide them at different rates, etc. It puts them into different conceptual zones. A feat might not equal a talent in the same way that an apple doesn't equal a hand grenade. But, as long as you know the implications, there's no reason not to allow players to choose one in the place of another.

I disagree. A character should not only get more powerful in combat because his class earns a feat at that level even if the player doesn't want it.
Also I don't think that a character must automatically be good at everything (=every pillar) to be viable and thus should not be forced to advance in every pillar in parallel.
Instead he should have a choice where to advance and this is done by only having a single resource which can be spend on every pillar, be it combat or non-combat.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I disagree. A character should not only get more powerful in combat because his class earns a feat at that level even if the player doesn't want it.
Also I don't think that a character must automatically be good at everything (=every pillar) to be viable and thus should not be forced to advance in every pillar in parallel.
Instead he should have a choice where to advance and this is done by only having a single resource which can be spend on every pillar, be it combat or non-combat.

The text you quoted described how it can be done without a single resource. The default is more structured, as is befitting a class based system, but there are options for those who want to swap feats for traits or specialties for backgrounds.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So first off, everything [MENTION=4550]jeremy_dnd[/MENTION] said above.

The debate at this point reminds me of when 4e was the new edition under discussion and some posters were ready to defend to the death the idea that low-level spellcasters should suck and high-level ones should be godlike. They pointed out that this fit a lot of fantasy tropes, that flattening the curve would ruin their campaign world, etc.

My response was this: if you want wimpy wizards at low levels and godlike ones at high levels, then make spellcasters start the game two levels below martial characters, but give them double XP. That way, you still get to see them outstrip martial characters, but you're not eliminating the entire point of a level-based system. It's very easy to unbalance a system and pretty tricky to balance one; since I'm paying WOTC for a rules system, I want them to do the extra work for the latter.

Same idea here: by siloing combat-related feats apart from noncombat "talents" (or "traits"), you make sure that anyone who wants to make an "unbalanced" character or group is fully aware of what they're doing. Put a sidebar in the PHB about dropping your Specialty for extra talents or traits (or vice versa) and let players do so with the DM's blessing.

I will say, though, that I hope they're careful with what counts as a trait/talent. Like the Tracking example I mentioned before, I'd hate to see traits/talents restrict what you can do with freeform use of skills/ability checks and roleplaying.

 

[Ratskinner]

I disagree with these; they close off options, put undue over-focus where I don't want it, or go against my preferred approach to running a game when I play D&D or similar fantasy RPGs.

While I'd like 5e to be less combat-oriented...or at least have a broader focus...I think you're wrong about this. Having feats be combat-only would allow you to just drop them out of your game, if you don't like the impact they have. It also would allow them to be more easily balanced when you are using them. Most of what people consider "trap" options involve making sub-optimal choices wrt combat. I think it makes much more sense that an increased focus on the non-combat pillars shouldn't involve trading off with combat abilities.

Now, putting a little more "oomph" or development into backgrounds, that I could really get behind. Maybe some kind of background advancement, like getting knighted or something? Get a Role-Playing Pillar kick a little later on. ('course, I guess "Background" wouldn't be an appropriate word at that point.)

 

[JamesonCourage]

While I'd like 5e to be less combat-oriented...or at least have a broader focus...I think you're wrong about this.

Thank you for the respectful disagreement.

Having feats be combat-only would allow you to just drop them out of your game, if you don't like the impact they have.

"No combat feats."

It also would allow them to be more easily balanced when you are using them. Most of what people consider "trap" options involve making sub-optimal choices wrt combat. I think it makes much more sense that an increased focus on the non-combat pillars shouldn't involve trading off with combat abilities.

Like I've said, I'm okay with a 3/3/3 divide as the baseline, but I see absolutely no convincing reason to leave out an optional rule about trading combat ability for more non-combat utility (even if the trade isn't 1-for-1: 5/1/1, 1/4/3, or 2/2/4).

And, with that in mind, I'd prefer that if feats are purely combat, that whatever works as the "non-combat" equivalent be on the same progression as feat (every other level, or whatever), with individual areas that can be swapped wholesale (lose a specialty but gain a background, or lose a feat and gain a talent, etc.).

That, to me, is essentially keeping them together, and labeling some "combat feats" and the rest "non-combat feats." It won't be to others. And that's fine, we'll both be happy. Just don't force me to silo my abilities.

Now, putting a little more "oomph" or development into backgrounds, that I could really get behind. Maybe some kind of background advancement, like getting knighted or something? Get a Role-Playing Pillar kick a little later on. ('course, I guess "Background" wouldn't be an appropriate word at that point.)

It's kinda why I'm not a big have of the term "background" being the non-combat stuff. But yeah, fleshing out that stuff is a must, in my mind. I need it to enjoy the game. Combat won't be enough. And, further, forced siloing will be a major turn off when it means I can't play a concept that I want to (my non-combat sage that's a better sage than your sage-knight). As always, play what you like