OneDnD Feats still optional in 1D&D: and other notes from the survey results

dave2008

Legend
Well, if you're willing to move the goal posts of your argument from "feats are optional in One D&D" to "background feats in One D&D are not feats because +2 Charisma or +2 hp/level isn't the same as XYZ", well, that's your perogative.

I don't play moving goal posts.
I didn't mean to move the goal post and I updated the OP. I always intended it to mean feats past 1st level were not required. That is what I meant in my original OP when I said:

"They way he said this implied to me that the intent is for feats to remain optional and the 1st level feat is a one time feat/feature requirement."

So I apologize, I was not trying to change the discussion, I just wasn't very clear. I see what I was misunderstood.

So to clarify, I am guess that if only a first level feat is required (even if they are unlike other feats) then you feel feats are required, is that correct? Even though no other feats are required, you feel that unique background feat qualifies as them making feats required?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
"background feats in One D&D are not feats because +2 Charisma or +2 hp/level isn't the same as XYZ",
Also, what does this mean? 1sr level feats do not give ability score bonuses. Are you conflating the playtest backgrounds which give ability score bonuses and a 1st level feat with first level feats on their own? I was never talking about the new backgrounds - that would be you moving the goal post wouldn't it?
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
It's hard to not view this in light of something Jeremy said back in 2018: that a majority of D&D players don't use feats.

Yes, but 2018 was four years ago. 5e was released in 2014, so 5e has doubled it's lifespan since that statement. 2018 was before the massive boost in online play with covid. Statements from 2018 cannot be relied upon to hold today.

...this may be a flawed premise because there was no question asking "do you want bonus feats at 1st level?"

While I understand that, if you don't want feats, you want them to ask that specific question, but there are actually good surveying reasons to not ask questions in that form.

People respond differently to high-level, abstract and theoretical questions differently than they answer specific or experiential questions. If you give someone a theoretical thing, or a general idea, they will tend to answer on ideological lines. If you give someone an experience, and ask if it was good or bad, that response often does not match their ideological stance.

Like, you can ask someone if they don't like Brussels spouts, they'll reject them, but if they have a dish that includes Brussels sprouts, they may like it. Ultimately, WotC is properly more interested in the latter than the former.


There's a trend with these surveys to narrow the field of questioning to rating very specific features/feats/spells/races without asking the bigger question: do we even want this?

Yes, well, doing the entire design by massive committee is probably not a practical approach to the work.
 


SkidAce

Legend
Supporter
I just...then they aren't optional.

"Feats past first level are optional" is like saying "meat after breakfast is optional." That still means meat isn't optional!
Functionally, if you ignore feats past first level, then the 1st level feat is just an extra ability.

Technically, you are correct though.

Personally, I'm cool with it.
 

Functionally, if you ignore feats past first level, then the 1st level feat is just an extra ability.

Technically, you are correct though.

Personally, I'm cool with it.
I mean, so am I. I think feats shouldn't be optional at all, that players should be free to choose them at any ASI level (and, indeed, that they should get more opportunities to do so.) Feats are one of the few parts of 5e design I'm generally cool with, despite some of the balance wrinkles. The usual suspects are already known, though Elven Accuracy takes the cake for being stupidly broken, on top of also being a "half feat" when it absolutely should not have been one.

It's just really confusing to see the claim that "no guys they're totally still optional!" when...they aren't. All first-level characters will have a feat now. This is a clear change. I think it's, overall, a good change. Trying to pretend it isn't a change is really, really weird, and makes me ponder questions I really would rather not ponder.
 


Lanefan

Victoria Rules
The bigger question might be whether the designers are going to start assuming feats-yes as 5.1's default when balancing the game's math. If yes, the game will become somewhat more challenging for no-feat parties/players. (original 5e math assumed no feats)
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Yes. That is what I understood as well. Feats pst level one will continue to be optional in 1D&D.
Yes as optional as AL DM dealing with feats. Yea optional. Market speak for you will take the feat at first level or be behind the power curve. I wonder if they are going back to the old AL modules and paying the authors to update them to the new power creep.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
I'd be interested to know what percentage of tables use feats in 2022. I suspect that it would no longer be a minority, but I would love to see data. Certainly every group that I know uses them, as does every actual play show that I've seen. Often extensively (Critical Role), and I imagine that would influence quite a few people.
Gee, if the cool dudes are doing it. It must be true.
 


DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
Shouldn't the threads about One D&D be in that forum and not the Dungeons and Dragons forum? I thought that was the point of having a second forum for it...
 

Yes as optional as AL DM dealing with feats. Yea optional. Market speak for you will take the feat at first level or be behind the power curve. I wonder if they are going back to the old AL modules and paying the authors to update them to the new power creep.
The power creep of a first level (its a nerfed feat) feat in your background?

I don’t think any update is needed for that. I mean have you played 5e? That makes next to no difference. Less than choosing the “right” class at least
 
Last edited:


The bigger question might be whether the designers are going to start assuming feats-yes as 5.1's default when balancing the game's math. If yes, the game will become somewhat more challenging for no-feat parties/players. (original 5e math assumed no feats)
In the video the specifically mention trying to rebalance the feats so that they are not required. An ASI should be just as good. That was the goal with O5e as well, they just didn’t quite get there.
 


overgeeked

B/X Known World
It's not optional if everyone gets a feat at 1st level. Optional means you can use it or not use it, your choice. If there's no choice, it's not optional. Must be from whoever thought adding power creep, changing the mechanics, tweaking level progressions, reworking how classes work, and how subclasses work is still somehow magically "backwards compatible."
 

I mean, so am I. I think feats shouldn't be optional at all, that players should be free to choose them at any ASI level (and, indeed, that they should get more opportunities to do so.) Feats are one of the few parts of 5e design I'm generally cool with, despite some of the balance wrinkles. The usual suspects are already known, though Elven Accuracy takes the cake for being stupidly broken, on top of also being a "half feat" when it absolutely should not have been one.

It's just really confusing to see the claim that "no guys they're totally still optional!" when...they aren't. All first-level characters will have a feat now. This is a clear change. I think it's, overall, a good change. Trying to pretend it isn't a change is really, really weird, and makes me ponder questions I really would rather not ponder.
It's not optional if everyone gets a feat at 1st level. Optional means you can use it or not use it, your choice. If there's no choice, it's not optional. Must be from whoever thought adding power creep, changing the mechanics, tweaking level progressions, reworking how classes work, and how subclasses work is still somehow magically "backwards compatible."
Question: if they didn’t call the 1st level feat a “Feat” and called it a background trait, would that qualify as feats being optional?
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
That's why I posted it. I figured eventually they will read it and make that decision.

Mod Note:
We do not read every post on the boards. So, what you did was unlikely to catch our notice.

Indeed, the only reason I know about it is that someone else reported your post.

Edit to add: Morrus owns the place. He gets to put threads wherever he wants. If you have a problem with that, you can take it up with him.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top