D&D 5E Feats instead of Race

[Hriston]

Savage Attacker is a weak feat. Nobody is choosing Savage Attacker over +2 to Strength, but plenty of people choose Great Weapon Master over +2 to Strength.

That raises the further issue: namely, that the value of feats are all over the place, even within a given archetype. Spellcasters don't have any feats of that caliber, and one specific type of melee fighter has three feats that are on par with +2 to their prime stat. If you're pricing feats as though they were equivalent to +2 among tertiary stats, then what you're really doing is ranking the pure power of character concepts entirely in order of how many top-tier feats they have to support it.

Polearm-sentinel is already king of the hill, as soon as you add feats to the game in the first place; followed shortly thereafter by crossbow-sharpshooter. By giving everyone three feats at level 1, and taking away the trade-off between those feats and stat bonuses, you're just exacerbating the disparity between feat-heavy power builds and everyone else. I mean, my healer cleric gets basically nothing out of those feats, while the fighter gets (for free) something that they would otherwise have been willing to invest significant resources into.

For my purposes in this thread, a feat’s a feat. Whatever value you place on a feat has to take into account the “weak” feats as well as the “strong” ones. Just because people are anecdotally choosing Great Weapons Master instead of improving their Strength bonus doesn’t mean it’s as good or better. For one thing, its benefits are highly conditional.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

For my purposes in this thread, a feat’s a feat. Whatever value you place on a feat has to take into account the “weak” feats as well as the “strong” ones.

Right, which is an inherent limitation to the proposal. Feats are not remotely balanced against each other, or between builds, and granting more feats only exacerbates that imbalance. A comprehensive solution would involve modifying feats so that they were more balanced, and also introducing new feats for archetypes which are currently unsupported.

Just because people are anecdotally choosing Great Weapons Master instead of improving their Strength bonus doesn’t mean it’s as good or better. For one thing, its benefits are highly conditional.

Aren't you getting rid of flat ability score increases, though? It certainly sounded like you weren't going to allow those, at least for the three feats at level one. GWM is comparable to +2 Strength, and a closer analysis reveals that it's often-but-not-always the superior choice for certain builds. If you've removed the option to take +2 Strength, though, then GWM loses its competition; it becomes the obvious-and-only choice for a melee damage-dealer.

In the base game, it's not the choice between GWM and +2 Strength which is unbalanced. It's the fact that, after +2 Strength is no longer an option (because you've capped out), GWM still gives you an equivalent power boost. With GWM/Sentinel/Polearm, you're operating on the power level of someone who has Strength 26, while the poor wizard is actually capped at a power level of Int 20.

I don't know how you're planning to generate ability scores, but if they're capped at 15 to start, then the fighter who takes GWM/Sentinel/Polearm is effectively operating with a 21, while a wizard with the exact combination of Keen Mind / Observant / Linguist is stuck with an 18. And if the wizard takes any other combination of feats, they can't even reach that.

 

[Hriston]

Right, which is an inherent limitation to the proposal. Feats are not remotely balanced against each other, or between builds, and granting more feats only exacerbates that imbalance. A comprehensive solution would involve modifying feats so that they were more balanced, and also introducing new feats for archetypes which are currently unsupported.

The game allows you to choose any feat you want (assuming you satisfy prerequisites) whenever a feat is available, so your issue is with the way feats are implemented, not with my proposal. My proposal isn’t intended to fix the problem you have with feats.

Aren't you getting rid of flat ability score increases, though?

The proposal is as it says in the OP, instead of a race you get the listed elements, so no, there’s no option to increase your ability scores outside of taking a feat. That doesn’t change the value of a feat in the larger game, however. At ASI levels you could optionally make feats available, as normal.

 

[NotAYakk]

Also, just to be clear, I am absolutely open to feedback on these.

1 wizard cantrip and +1 int seems weaker than 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell 1/day from any class.

Stout's poison resistance also seems weak.

Second, the variant human was often considered the strongest option for martial builds. To reproduce the pre-existing races I think you now need the base race, the feat, and a background?

The game allows you to choose any feat you want (assuming you satisfy prerequisites) whenever a feat is available, so your issue is with the way feats are implemented, not with my proposal. My proposal isn’t intended to fix the problem you have with feats.

So, the problem with feats is bounded due to the difficulty of converting other resources to feats.

You either go variant human or you don't see it until level 4, then level 8. As you are gaining a pile of other abilities over that many levels, the power gap you get from feat-based builds vs non-feat based builds is bounded.

With your option, you permit more feats, which means that the power imbalance grows faster than it does in the base game. Hitting 3 feats at level 8 is already strong, but we are now comparing a spellcaster with polymorph an ally into a trex to an insanely high-damage output fighter (for the level). Getting those 3 feats at level 1 means we are comparing a now insanely high-damage-output fighter (for the level) to someone who can cast burning hands (gained little from the feats, like a +1 to DCs and that's it).

GWM sentinal polearm is getting 3 taps/round at level 1. On a low AC target they are tapping for ~15 damage per tap. It is an insane power up. The only thing that keeps that under control in the base game is the difficulty of getting feats, and how that boost is smeared over many levels.

You are removing that thing that keeps this under control.

 

[Charlaquin]

1 wizard cantrip and +1 int seems weaker than 2 cantrips and a 1st level spell 1/day from any class.

Referring to High Elf Education as compared to Magic Initiate, I take it? Yeah, the latter is definitely better. Note, HEE also gives a language, which still leaves it worse than MI, but it’s a small consolation. I think this is a good argument in favor of making the race feats character creation only, so the opportunity cost helps increase their value relative to general feats. Thank you for the input!

Stout's poison resistance also seems weak.

You think so? +1 con, advantage on saves vs a condition and resistance to a damage type seems pretty solid to me. Worth considering if you have an odd number in Con, at least.

Second, the variant human was often considered the strongest option for martial builds. To reproduce the pre-existing races I think you now need the base race, the feat, and a background?

Correct. But note that these racial backgrounds are effectively in addition to a regular custom background. At least in the iteration I posted here, though I’ve had some other thoughts on the matter recently, which I might post in a new thread to avoid detailing this one.

 

[Hriston]

So, the problem with feats is bounded due to the difficulty of converting other resources to feats.

You either go variant human or you don't see it until level 4, then level 8. As you are gaining a pile of other abilities over that many levels, the power gap you get from feat-based builds vs non-feat based builds is bounded.

With your option, you permit more feats, which means that the power imbalance grows faster than it does in the base game. Hitting 3 feats at level 8 is already strong, but we are now comparing a spellcaster with polymorph an ally into a trex to an insanely high-damage output fighter (for the level). Getting those 3 feats at level 1 means we are comparing a now insanely high-damage-output fighter (for the level) to someone who can cast burning hands (gained little from the feats, like a +1 to DCs and that's it).

GWM sentinal polearm is getting 3 taps/round at level 1. On a low AC target they are tapping for ~15 damage per tap. It is an insane power up. The only thing that keeps that under control in the base game is the difficulty of getting feats, and how that boost is smeared over many levels.

You are removing that thing that keeps this under control.

I’m just using the currency that already exists between ASIs and feats to liquidate races. I don’t think you’re taking into account the power that’s being removed along with race. How many feats would you say a race is worth?

 

[NotAYakk]

I’m just using the currency that already exists between ASIs and feats to liquidate races. I don’t think you’re taking into account the power that’s being removed along with race. How many feats would you say a race is worth?

Sometimes less than 1.

Insofar as many builds would willingly trade having any racial abilities at all for a feat.

Sometimes more than 2. For pure spellcasters, many feats not nearly as important as stat bumps; feat abilities are ribbons. So they will use feats for the +1 to a stat mostly.

Fundamentally, more choice when that choice involves something that isn't orthogonality balanced with the rest of the game, changes game balance. How much?

Well, a full PAM build online at level 1 is pretty ridiculous.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The proposal is as it says in the OP, instead of a race you get the listed elements, so no, there’s no option to increase your ability scores outside of taking a feat. That doesn’t change the value of a feat in the larger game, however. At ASI levels you could optionally make feats available, as normal.

From a game design standpoint, I strongly disagree with this. The value of any given feat depends entirely on its opportunity cost - what else you could take, instead of that feat. If you hand out three feats at level one, and the opportunity cost for those feats does not include the possibility of an ASI, then that radically changes the relative value of a feat at later levels.

The balancing factor against Sentinel is that you're giving up Strength in exchange. If you aren't making a choice between the two, because Strength is off the table, then there's no longer any semblance of balance.

 

[akr71]

It’s always bothered me that, for example, an elf who grew up an orphan in some human city would somehow naturally know how to use a longbow, shortbow, longsword and shortsword.

Yes! A thousand times yes! This has bothered me for a long time, however it doesn't seem to bother my players much (or at all), so I just left it alone and just gripe about it with like minded individuals on the internet.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes! A thousand times yes! This has bothered me for a long time, however it doesn't seem to bother my players much (or at all), so I just left it alone and just gripe about it with like minded individuals on the internet.

It’s one of those annoyances that’s probably not worth the effort it would take to “fix.” But I’m trying anyway haha.