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

[Steely_Dan]

I'm not sure about Feats, one of the many problems that 3rd Ed caused.

...not to say 4th Ed was the solution, talk about swatting a fly with a Buick.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

So...don't level up? At least, with bounded accuracy, that seems a possibility.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

In principle, I agree. Yet, two things stand out to me:

First, D&D has always been primarily about combat, it is not a generic or narrative rpg. Consequently, that combat requires a lot more rules-space than "my guy is really smart." Being a sage doesn't require leveling or heroism or any of that D&D stuff.

Secondly, 5e is intentionally modular. If you don't want all the combat bennies that feats provide, or if you want to tone down combat...just drop the feats and use monsters of lower-than-default level. Tada! done. You still won't have a good rules-set for that "my sage is just as valuable a contributor as any other character at the table" game, but that's FATE or Burning Wheel maybe.

 

[Ratskinner]

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).

Honestly, that sounds like a campaign option to me. Trying to fit the kinds of things your suggesting into one party and still make a viable campaign would be very difficult under the general D&D framework, requiring constant DM-intervention with the rules.

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.).

Hard to evaluate without knowing what kinds of non-combat abilities we're discussing. I generally like 5e's "bigger" units of character description rather than the significantly smaller units of 3 and 4e. I certainly don't think the must be on the same schedule as feats, although possibly they don't need to be on a particular schedule.

Just don't force me to silo my abilities.

Siloing has far too many benefits to ignore or discard as a design principle. For instance, if there is a dedicated non-combat silo, you could alter the advancement of that silo in your game independently of the other silos. Some suggestions have already been floated in this thread. So siloing could still allow some of the concept diversity you desire. On the other hand, non-siloing makes a great many other character concepts unworkable in many groups.

 

[MoonSong]

Honestly, that sounds like a campaign option to me. Trying to fit the kinds of things your suggesting into one party and still make a viable campaign would be very difficult under the general D&D framework, requiring constant DM-intervention with the rules.



Hard to evaluate without knowing what kinds of non-combat abilities we're discussing. I generally like 5e's "bigger" units of character description rather than the significantly smaller units of 3 and 4e. I certainly don't think the must be on the same schedule as feats, although possibly they don't need to be on a particular schedule.



Siloing has far too many benefits to ignore or discard as a design principle. For instance, if there is a dedicated non-combat silo, you could alter the advancement of that silo in your game independently of the other silos. Some suggestions have already been floated in this thread. So siloing could still allow some of the concept diversity you desire. On the other hand, non-siloing makes a great many other character concepts unworkable in many groups.

But while siloing could allow SOME character concepts, it doesn't allow ALL or even MOST of what could be possible otherwise. A particular character I had was a Healer/Bard, whose whole assortment of feats consisted on non-combat stuff including some self-debilitating feats. Such a concept would have been impossible at 5th level if I had been forced to pick combat feats at enforced intervals, or worse forced to tale only combat stuff without the chance to enhance the non-combatness of my character.

If you think siloing doesn't restrict charcter concepts, then tell me, how can I build a 4e sorcerer with only utility spells and not a single attack one? (Refluffing is not an option, 3e allows it way fine by RAW and core alone)

 

[bogmad]

But while siloing could allow SOME character concepts, it doesn't allow ALL or even MOST of what could be possible otherwise. A particular character I had was a Healer/Bard, whose whole assortment of feats consisted on non-combat stuff including some self-debilitating feats. Such a concept would have been impossible at 5th level if I had been forced to pick combat feats at enforced intervals, or worse forced to tale only combat stuff without the chance to enhance the non-combatness of my character.

We're just talking in circles now. As has been discussed before, the idea with all this "siloing" (a term I'm frankly getting sick of at this point) is that the default would be that you pick your "feat" at certain intervals, and those would primarily be combat based. HOWEVER, we could also leave in the choice to pick one of the options from the other pillars, with the knowledge that this won't have the same mechanical contribution as the combat feat.

4e doesn't let you do this, you're correct, but right now with the 5e playtest we have the option for the extra skill choice the jack of all trades specialty gives you. The comments in this thread have convinced me to change my mind that this is a viable option, even if it slightly narrows your combat options compared to those who take other specialties. Don't like that the Jack of All trades specialty doesn't let you add to your combat and non-combat feats? Create your own specialty and mix it up then.

And sure, there [edit]should be more robust ways to provide options for the other pillars, but it seems to me wotc is headed in the right direction.

 

[MoonSong]

We're just talking in circles now. As has been discussed before, the idea with all this "siloing" (a term I'm frankly getting sick of at this point) is that the default would be that you pick your "feat" at certain intervals, and those would primarily be combat based. HOWEVER, we could also leave in the choice to pick one of the options from the other pillars, with the knowledge that this won't have the same mechanical contribution as the combat feat.

4e doesn't let you do this, you're correct, but right now with the 5e playtest we have the option for the extra skill choice the jack of all trades specialty gives you. The comments in this thread have convinced me to change my mind that this is a viable option, even if it slightly narrows your combat options compared to those who take other specialties. Don't like that the Jack of All trades specialty doesn't let you add to your combat and non-combat feats? Create your own specialty and mix it up then.

And sure, there could be more robust ways to provide options for the other pillars, but it seems to me wotc is headed in the right direction.

I've already posted a list of more than 50 3e non combat feats, it even excludes the number crunching feats. A meager extra skill is nothing in comparation, it isn't enough; +3 to some checks looks pale in comparison with the ability to use your own blood to heal other people's wounds, or to remove fatigue with a song. Saying that us who want non combat support will be happy with only an extra skill every third level is like saying that 4e players will be happy with only battlemat support rules (and even that is a lot more in comparison)

 

[bogmad]

I hate to quote myself, but...

And sure, there could be more robust ways to provide options for the other pillars, but it seems to me wotc is headed in the right direction.

Agreed, there should be more non-combat support. That's the idea of an extra "pillar" for non-combat feats. That pillar would give you non-combat options by the default. Then you leave a few exceptions that proves the rule -to opt into a different pillar- and you're not dooming everyone to be perfectly balanced but there is a default assumption that not only combat is supported by the choices you make in the leveling process.

 

[Ratskinner]

I've already posted a list of more than 50 3e non combat feats, it even excludes the number crunching feats. A meager extra skill is nothing in comparation, it isn't enough; +3 to some checks looks pale in comparison with the ability to use your own blood to heal other people's wounds, or to remove fatigue with a song. Saying that us who want non combat support will be happy with only an extra skill every third level is like saying that 4e players will be happy with only battlemat support rules (and even that is a lot more in comparison)

But while siloing could allow SOME character concepts, it doesn't allow ALL or even MOST of what could be possible otherwise. A particular character I had was a Healer/Bard, whose whole assortment of feats consisted on non-combat stuff including some self-debilitating feats. Such a concept would have been impossible at 5th level if I had been forced to pick combat feats at enforced intervals, or worse forced to tale only combat stuff without the chance to enhance the non-combatness of my character.

"Impossible?" Why? I wouldn't be surprised to see plenty of feats (if not in the first books, in later splat) that swapped some personal combat effectiveness for some greater utility. Healing and support are such a vital part of combat that folks complain about always needing a Cleric (whenever Clerics aren't popular, anyway.) There already a Healer speciality in the second playtest, do you not suspect that future splatbooks would help you recreate this "blood for healing" gimmick? ...could you not see working out a "Revitalizing Music" speciality of your own (if you couldn't wait)?*

As far as the non-combat stuff goes...well, I think if you read upthread, you'll see that a lot of people, myself included, are calling for enhanced OoC stuff. Having it siloed makes it all that easier for a DM or group to make decisions and houserules like: "take a second background, but with half the skill bonus" or something to flesh out characters more fully in the OoC realm. That said, I would not want to see a return of skill points, and I'd prefer everything to be simple and fast.

If you think siloing doesn't restrict charcter concepts, then tell me, how can I build a 4e sorcerer with only utility spells and not a single attack one? (Refluffing is not an option, 3e allows it way fine by RAW and core alone)

That sounds like a more fundamental problem with 4e's AEDU system than siloing. As a complaint about 4e, I'll buy that. Yes, 4e's classes were much more tightly-scripted than earlier editions, especially spellcasters. Doesn't have much to do with the idea of siloing, though.

*I'm not sure what you mean by "self-debilitating". Characters are supposed to get better and more powerful as they level-up. Wanna trade some of this for more of that? Sure. Wanna just get worse? - no, and I don't think such a thing should be in D&D.

 

[JamesonCourage]

So...don't level up? At least, with bounded accuracy, that seems a possibility.

... I want to get better as a sage. This can't possibly be a real reply, can it...?

Honestly, that sounds like a campaign option to me. Trying to fit the kinds of things your suggesting into one party and still make a viable campaign would be very difficult under the general D&D framework, requiring constant DM-intervention with the rules.

Thus, it is "optional" with the default as "balanced."

Hard to evaluate without knowing what kinds of non-combat abilities we're discussing. I generally like 5e's "bigger" units of character description rather than the significantly smaller units of 3 and 4e. I certainly don't think the must be on the same schedule as feats, although possibly they don't need to be on a particular schedule.

If they aren't on the same schedule, then I don't think the "get another background/talent by losing specialties/feats" is an appropriate answer. And if that's not doable or appropriate, then I have an objection.

Siloing has far too many benefits to ignore or discard as a design principle. For instance, if there is a dedicated non-combat silo, you could alter the advancement of that silo in your game independently of the other silos. Some suggestions have already been floated in this thread. So siloing could still allow some of the concept diversity you desire. On the other hand, non-siloing makes a great many other character concepts unworkable in many groups.

Dude, I feel like I've addressed this over and over. You replied to my take on it in your post that I'm responding to now. Make the move away from siloing optional. Make everything "balanced" as the baseline. But give me the option (with mechanical support) to change it to something else. You never, ever have to leave the baseline, default, siloed approach to the game. Everything will be "balanced" across the pillars for you from the get-go. Awesome.

Me? I want mechanical support if I want to alter those assumptions. Other people do, too. Give us that support. Just design background/"talents" just like you do specialties/feats, have them run simultaneously, and I'm fine with it. If I can't switch out my Intimidation skill for more punchyness, or my fighting skill for more knowledges, etc., then you're killing my concepts. Yours live either way. Yours are even supported as the core assumption. Just let there be support for mine by not forcing siloed abilities. As always, play what you like

We're just talking in circles now.

Seriously...

the idea... is that the default would be that you pick your "feat" at certain intervals, and those would primarily be combat based. HOWEVER, we could also leave in the choice to pick one of the options from the other pillars, with the knowledge that this won't have the same mechanical contribution as the combat feat.

Yes. This. Clearly explain that this is the case. Make sure it's noted that it's not appropriate for certain campaign styles or expectations. Etc. But let things be swapped away from the baseline assumption. Please, do what the bogmad says. As always, play what you like

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I do not think it is important that Feats be combat only -- that degree of inflexibility is not necessary to bake into the system, but I agree it is a good philosophical starting point for Core. It is desirable to ditch any assumption in the foundation of the system that non-combat factors can balance combat factors.

IMO the main advantage of a class-based system is that you get a highly viable package deal that has easily understood strengths and weaknesses. If you really want characters that are outright bad at combat, that sounds like a non-Core class that should live in a module.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think its quite apparent at this point that some folks want something of a break-out of Combat Feats (as "Weapon Proficienceies" in 2e or classic Combat Feats in 3e and 4e) to supplement/diversify/focus PC's combat capabilities and Career Feats (as "Non-Weapon Proficienceies" in 2e or classic Non-Combat Feats in 3e and 4e) that serve as an extension of Background that round out exploration or social play.

I'm not certain that it would be terribly difficult for the designers to build "Career-Extension Feats" based off each of the Backgrounds. These could be flavor abilities (such as the various lodging abilities or rep abilities or having a lab, shop, kit, etc) as the ones built into the Backgrounds or different uses for the Background Skills (and possible moderate gains - maybe Advantage in certain scenarios...careful here though as + 1 inflation on skills will quickly perturb the bounded system's success vs DC expectations). This would allow folks to augment their Background/Career in the stead of their combat potency. I don't think it would cause too much of an issue. 4e (which is the poster child for balance adherence) had plenty of non-combat feats in the system and non-combat skill powers you could purchase. I had a character who went heavy on Skill Powers and therefore didn't optimize 100 % for combat and we were able to manage just fine (in a party of 3 played through Epic tier no less). However, if the expectations of the Encounter Balance paradigm in 5e is such that an expectation of combat feats is embedded in the system, then a clear "BUYER BEWARE" should be tagged on this mode of operation with DM advice on how to handle the disparity of combat potency (the aggregate potency of an n-party group of which said character would be a member) as it will have implications on combat encounter balance. However, somehow I doubt 5es encounter balance formula will be as tight as 4e (unfortunately) given that balance in the overarching "Adventure" is the paradigm they are building around.

@ZombieRoboNinja Unrelated, I have contrived several feat trees (specialties) for various fighting styles. Unsurprisingly, Duelist/Swashbuckler was the first one that I worked on. Your feat in the lead post is to the letter the same as one of mine. I suppose that is good news for 5e designers that their system is, at least, moderately intuitive.

Very good lead post by the way (in format and content). You do good work.

 

[Ratskinner]

... I want to get better as a sage. This can't possibly be a real reply, can it...?

Yes. Yes it is. For most of D&D's history, such a character is represented as an NPC, traditionally a "0-level" NPC. D&D's core design concept for the party is a group of quasi-protagonistic tomb-robbers...err...adventurers acting like a fantasy special ops team. Character Level is a generalized measure of a PC's ability to stomp on the bad guys and defy traps and other hazards. The centrality of the tomb-robbing part has varied a bit over the years, but the adventure part hasn't.

I realize that people play D&D in a wide variety of playstyles and with a wide variety of motives. However, the concept of Fantasy High-Adventure is pretty central to the design of the game. I can't think of any edition (barring Dragon articles or the near-infinite splat material) where playing a "I don't fight or contribute to fights" is an easily workable concept (maybe a wizard who refuses to cast spells?).

If you and your group are not interested in that...then, and I mean this earnestly... maybe this isn't the game you are looking for. (FATE, Burning Wheel, I'm sure there are others...) I don't suggest that lightly, either. I'd love to have a FATE group going, but AFAICT, I'm the only one in my area interested. However, if your group is interested in going that far afield of the D&D script, you might want to consider it.

If they aren't on the same schedule, then I don't think the "get another background/talent by losing specialties/feats" is an appropriate answer. And if that's not doable or appropriate, then I have an objection.

If I can't switch out my Intimidation skill for more punchyness, or my fighting skill for more knowledges, etc., then you're killing my concepts.

Okay so...You don't want to swap a combat specialty/feat for more OoC/Background stuff, but then you do? Is it just the idea they might not be called the same thing? If they are separated into Columns A and B, then adding items to Column B that say "get more from Column A" has got to be one of the easiest houserules I can think of (if it isn't core from the get go.) But then you seem to be objecting to that as "an appropriate answer"...

I think the critical thing about this is that the relative desirability of abilities between the three pillars varies a lot between campaigns/characters, making it very difficult to balance between the pillars.* However, the combat stuff is always desirable to a large portion of the audience ("my character's survival is at stake!"). Putting them both in the same pile means that many players will feel obliged to always select the maximum-value Combat choices, and ignore OoC stuff ("trap options", etc.) In this way, a lack of siloing decreases viable character concepts for a large segment of the audience, turning every character into a combat machine. (I know that's not realistic behavior for humans...but then D&D PCs are pretty far from realistic anyway.)

Because of the "survivability trump", I further think that these exchanges should be one-way. That is, you should be not be able to trade RP or Exploration abilities for increased Combat effectiveness. Doing so makes it very difficult to produce a reasonably predictable game at all.**

Also, "punchyness" ?

*For example, I, as a DM, am not terribly fond of traps, but I do love NPC interactions. I suspect my games distinctly "imbalance" the two OoC pillars of Exploration and Role-Playing. Not that anyone complains.....

**The entirety of my thinking on this matter is predicated on the general structure and habits of D&D. Plenty of other games have structures and design goals where such siloing would be counterproductive or nonsensical, yet other games have structures and designs where entirely different siloing is effective..

 

[Manbearcat]

@Ratskinner

I don't have time to comment on the above post (I couldn't really add much to it anyway) nor can I xp but this is a pretty fair and circumnavigated penetration of the issues (without being dismissive). Good stuff. Incoherent, broad game design versus focused, coherent game design is always going to be an issue with D&D as it appears that so many groups loved the focused nature of 1e and 4e while others loved the broad, drift-friendly nature of 2e (due to its lack of focus) or the broad toolkit nature of 3e.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Okay so...You don't want to swap a combat specialty/feat for more OoC/Background stuff, but then you do? Is it just the idea they might not be called the same thing? If they are separated into Columns A and B, then adding items to Column B that say "get more from Column A" has got to be one of the easiest houserules I can think of (if it isn't core from the get go.) But then you seem to be objecting to that as "an appropriate answer"...

Actually I think his point here was that if they ARE siloing feats into combat feats vs. noncombat traits/talents, then you should get new feats at the same rate you get new talents (maybe even at the same levels) so that it's straightforward to swap a background for an extra specialty or vice versa. Which sounds like a fair request to me.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] - thanks for the compliments, and I hope that the fact that we two came up with the same idea ups the chances that WOTC will too! I feel like when it comes to "fighting style" specialties like these, adding extra active abilities is way more interesting that granting static bonuses. I'm still hoping they replace two-weapon defense...

 

[JamesonCourage]

Yes. Yes it is. For most of D&D's history, such a character is represented as an NPC, traditionally a "0-level" NPC. D&D's core design concept for the party is a group of quasi-protagonistic tomb-robbers...err...adventurers acting like a fantasy special ops team. Character Level is a generalized measure of a PC's ability to stomp on the bad guys and defy traps and other hazards. The centrality of the tomb-robbing part has varied a bit over the years, but the adventure part hasn't.

This reasoning doesn't satisfy me one bit. You begin to touch on why immediately, though:

I realize that people play D&D in a wide variety of playstyles and with a wide variety of motives.

And this is exactly why. D&D 5e wants allow or support multiple play styles. That's good, in my mind. While the majority certainly doesn't need completely combat inept characters, I think that the majority would enjoy shifting the 3/3/3 balance around from time to time. Even if one person from every group does it at some point, that means that every group would be affected by that optional rule.

That's not insignificant. For groups like mine, it's a requirement. But, hey, I'm not going to switch over to it as my main game, anyways. However, I might play in it when my brother decides to run a game, or occasionally run it myself as a one-shot. To that end, having a character that isn't forced to silo his abilities is very important. And, again, it's not just important to me. If one person from every group shifts that 3/3/3 balance just once (with permission from the DM and possibly other players), it would have an effect on every group. I imagine this would be true for at least 50% of groups at some point.

However, the concept of Fantasy High-Adventure is pretty central to the design of the game. I can't think of any edition (barring Dragon articles or the near-infinite splat material) where playing a "I don't fight or contribute to fights" is an easily workable concept (maybe a wizard who refuses to cast spells?).

You know those NPCs you mentioned earlier? Sometimes people think they'd be fun to play. Sages, inventors, courtiers, etc. How many characters from Game of Thrones (or Song of Ice and Fire) look like they'd be fun to play? To me, a lot of them. Sure, they include combatants (Jon Snow, Eddard, Jaime, Bronn, Jorah), but they also include people who are certainly not combatants (the Spider, Catelyn, Daenerys, Samwell, Maester Luwin).

People play the game in different ways. I'm not asking to change the default assumption. And asking for support for people who want to change the default assumption. And I think that's reasonable, when it could be as easy as "since Feats [combat] and Talents [non-combat] run on similar tracks, just swap your Feats for Talents." That's easy, simple, and intuitive, and it's optional. The baseline is still 3/3/3.

If you and your group are not interested in that...then, and I mean this earnestly... maybe this isn't the game you are looking for. (FATE, Burning Wheel, I'm sure there are others...) I don't suggest that lightly, either. I'd love to have a FATE group going, but AFAICT, I'm the only one in my area interested. However, if your group is interested in going that far afield of the D&D script, you might want to consider it.

Like I said, I almost assuredly won't be switching to it, regardless. I still have a vested interest for when I play in it, and also for the direction that the game is taking. If they do the same thing with multiclassing that I think they should, then I might look into it.

However, trust me on this, games like Fate and Burning Wheel aren't my style. Just because I don't feel like every character should be inherently wed to all three pillars (not just combat), it doesn't mean that I enjoy more dramatist games. I don't, when it comes to fantasy games. When it comes to scratching the non-3/3/3 itch, though, as I said, we just use my RPG.

Okay so...You don't want to swap a combat specialty/feat for more OoC/Background stuff, but then you do?

I said that if they're not on the same schedule, then I'll have an objection. If they're both every level, of both every other level, etc., I'd be okay with it.

Is it just the idea they might not be called the same thing? If they are separated into Columns A and B, then adding items to Column B that say "get more from Column A" has got to be one of the easiest houserules I can think of (if it isn't core from the get go.) But then you seem to be objecting to that as "an appropriate answer"...

I'm not trying to be combative when I say this, but did you jump into this conversation and disagree with me without reading the back and forth I had? I said, rather explicitly, that I'm okay with them (combat abilities and non-combat abilities) being called different things, as long as they're on the same schedule.

I think the critical thing about this is that the relative desirability of abilities between the three pillars varies a lot between campaigns/characters, making it very difficult to balance between the pillars.*

Which is why I'm in active support of 3/3/3 being the baseline.

However, the combat stuff is always desirable to a large portion of the audience ("my character's survival is at stake!").

This is why I'm in active dissent as 3/3/3 being mandatory. In my group, the combat stuff isn't always survivable. And, yes, I know you said "to a large portion of the audience." But, the reason that I'm invested in this point, is that I'm part of a group that has the same take on it. My players have complained when getting automatic hit points at every level in 3.5. It didn't fit what they wanted from the game.

I think giving the kind of support I'm asking for should be easy enough. I really do. And it doesn't change that baseline assumption at all.

Putting them both in the same pile means that many players will feel obliged to always select the maximum-value Combat choices, and ignore OoC stuff ("trap options", etc.) In this way, a lack of siloing decreases viable character concepts for a large segment of the audience, turning every character into a combat machine. (I know that's not realistic behavior for humans...but then D&D PCs are pretty far from realistic anyway.)

If you make Feats = Combat, and Talents = Non-Combat, and they run on similar tracks, and you make an optional rule that you can switch one for the other, you've essentially made them into one pile. That's fine with me. I want that. You've basically done the same thing as labeling them "Combat Feats" and "Non-Combat Feats." Make them separated, sure. Assume that you're getting an equal number of each, sure. The baseline is 3/3/3. But, let people swap the moving parts around to fit their campaign.

I also might disagree with your use of "viable", since I'm guessing that heavily depends on the type of campaign you run.

Because of the "survivability trump", I further think that these exchanges should be one-way. That is, you should be not be able to trade RP or Exploration abilities for increased Combat effectiveness. Doing so makes it very difficult to produce a reasonably predictable game at all.

Label the option as such. Make people informed. Don't force your style, though, when it should be easy enough to allow them their own. I'm in strong support of saying "taking this will lead to these results." Awesome, that's great to include. But, I'd really rather not hear "you can't take this because it would lead to the results you're looking for." That's exactly what I don't want to see, you know?

Also, "punchyness" ?

Able to punch more/harder? No? Must be just me... As always, play what you like

 

[Obryn]

You know those NPCs you mentioned earlier? Sometimes people think they'd be fun to play. Sages, inventors, courtiers, etc.

Wouldn't this best be in a module as opposed to part of the core rules upon their release?

-O

 

[JamesonCourage]

Wouldn't this best be in a module as opposed to part of the core rules upon their release?

-O

Depends on what you mean by "best" doesn't it? It would certainly fail for my group. Having two simultaneous tracks (Feat = combat, Talents = non-combat) with an optional rule to switch out? Easy enough, in my mind. Just explain that you're upsetting expectation, maybe give some advice (or leave that to the DMG), etc. As always, play what you like

 

[bogmad]

I'm not trying to be combative when I say this, but did you jump into this conversation and disagree with me without reading the back and forth I had? I said, rather explicitly, that I'm okay with them (combat abilities and non-combat abilities) being called different things, as long as they're on the same schedule.

Thing is, I don't know that they should be on the same schedule, if by schedule you mean you get to choose one trait, and one feat at the same time. To get two choices to add at the same time creates bloat on the character sheet and perhaps too many choices at once. Perhaps you could get them at the same rate, but not on precisely the same schedule.
Personally I'm not even sure if getting them at the same rate is a necessity, but I'm open to exploring the idea.
Here's why:
Since they do interact with the rules in different manners, I'm not sure it makes sense to say 1 talent or trait is equal to one feat. You can still get the option to take a one of those in exception to a feat, but I'm not sure it would create an awful disastrous scenario for most people (as it foreseeably might for JamesonCourage's group) if they were on different schedules and at different rates. After all, if you're choosing 1 trait instead of a feat, and if you get traits at a slower rate than a feat, then that extra trait you're choosing is even more valuable.
I'm nearly positive I'll be met with disagreement on this point though. I'm open to the idea of receiving traits at the same rate as feats, but I'd want to see how it affects complexity and ease of entry to the game.

 

[bogmad]

Also, to try and get this thread back on track. What would good design guidelines be for a non-combat feat?

I think it's been touched on that just a skill bonus is a little weak-sauce.