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

I can't answer for Uni, but I have asked the same question before and my reason is this: first level feats are specifically different. They are intended to be less powerful than general feats. Whether they can be taken later or not, they shouldn't be because they are intentionally not as good. They are specifically different. Enough so that I think the name "feat" is misleading for them and that they should be renamed. Unless they specifically prohibit 1st level feats from being taken at higher levels (which I doubt) it creates confusion because 1st lvl feat =/= feats.
Isn't Skilled one of the choices you can take? Skilled is a perfectly cromulent feat for most games, and quite powerful for any game that is more skill-focused than combat-focused. (I wouldn't want to use 5e for such a game, because it provides almost no support for such an approach, but it is something people do.) I don't see this hard-and-fast gap you're alleging here.

Especially because, based on the playtest documents, Lucky is a first-level feat. You know, the one feat everyone considers stupidly overpowered and which gets constant demands for it to be banned? (Even though it's nowhere near as powerful as Elven Accuracy.) Oh, and Magic Initiate, a feat quite frequently taken for its charop potential, and which has only gotten stronger in the playtest, because the unified spell list plus the decoupling of casting stats means a Druid can pick Arcane and still use Wis, or a Wizard can pick Divine and still use Int.

So...no. I'm not buying that "1st-level feat" means "weak, incomplete feat that isn't as good as proper, high-level feats." One of the best feats in the whole game is currently classified as a "1st-level feat" in "One D&D."
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
Isn't Skilled one of the choices you can take? Skilled is a perfectly cromulent feat for most games, and quite powerful for any game that is more skill-focused than combat-focused. (I wouldn't want to use 5e for such a game, because it provides almost no support for such an approach, but it is something people do.) I don't see this hard-and-fast gap you're alleging here.

Especially because, based on the playtest documents, Lucky is a first-level feat. You know, the one feat everyone considers stupidly overpowered and which gets constant demands for it to be banned? (Even though it's nowhere near as powerful as Elven Accuracy.) Oh, and Magic Initiate, a feat quite frequently taken for its charop potential, and which has only gotten stronger in the playtest, because the unified spell list plus the decoupling of casting stats means a Druid can pick Arcane and still use Wis, or a Wizard can pick Divine and still use Int.

So...no. I'm not buying that "1st-level feat" means "weak, incomplete feat that isn't as good as proper, high-level feats." One of the best feats in the whole game is currently classified as a "1st-level feat" in "One D&D."
I am not going to argue about the execution; however, they (the designers) specifically stated 1st level feats are supposed to be less powerful. Now, if the final product doesn't actually achieve that goal then my argument is of course complete rubbish. I am talking conceptually here.
 


Because they are intended to be different, the only thing that is not different is the name.
....but they aren't. Skilled is a "One D&D" "1st-level feat." Lucky is another. Magic Initiate is a third. These are feats. They are not "background traits" that have been somehow tuned up slightly. They are straight-up, explicitly, feats. Calling them not-feats with "One D&D" won't change the fact that they were feats for a decade beforehand.
 

....but they aren't. Skilled is a "One D&D" "1st-level feat." Lucky is another. Magic Initiate is a third. These are feats. They are not "background traits" that have been somehow tuned up slightly. They are straight-up, explicitly, feats. Calling them not-feats with "One D&D" won't change the fact that they were feats for a decade beforehand.
I get where you are coming from
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
....but they aren't. Skilled is a "One D&D" "1st-level feat." Lucky is another. Magic Initiate is a third. These are feats. They are not "background traits" that have been somehow tuned up slightly. They are straight-up, explicitly, feats. Calling them not-feats with "One D&D" won't change the fact that they were feats for a decade beforehand.
So is it really just about the word "feat" itself? Would removing that word actually change how you feel about whatever mechanics are given to players?

I mean right now they could write in the playtest that Backgrounds give you the following:

2 Ability Scores raised by +2 for one and +1 for the other; or three scores raised by +1
2 Skill proficiencies
1 Language
1 Feat

OR

2 Ability Scores raised by +2 for one and +1 for the other; or three scores raised by +1
5 Skill proficiencies
1 Language

These two descriptions can denote the exact same Background, except one doesn't use the word "feat". The second one merely incorporates the mechanics of one of the feats directly into the description. Do you consider these equally bad, or is the first once worse because it uses a word that is supposed to be optional? Would having the second description in the game be better in your eyes?
 

These two descriptions can denote the exact same Background, except one doesn't use the word "feat". The second one merely incorporates the mechanics of one of the feats directly into the description. Do you consider these equally bad, or is the first once worse because it uses a word that is supposed to be optional? Would having the second description in the game be better in your eyes?
Neither of them is "bad."* I personally want feats to be NOT optional. I want feats to be readily accessible.

What I do not like is people trying to have their cake and eat it too. The second example you gave would avoid making feats non-optional; but it would do so by enforcing one (and only one) benefit from backgrounds, which is not the point of the changes. The point of the changes is to enable a meaningful, solid mechanical benefit.

That's my problem. It is extremely clear that the new background rules:
  1. Intentionally want to make modular benefits that can be, in part, constructed by the player
  2. Want these benefits to be solid, something more than just a ribbon like existing background benefits
  3. Are in fact actually a change compared to the existing background rules.
These efforts to pretend that the new rules are somehow not using feats, or somehow using "lesser" feats that don't count as feats, and therefore don't actually count as a real change, are both confusing and frustrating. They seem to be openly denying either that feats are the thing being provided, or that providing feats in this way is a clear and obvious change compared to the way things used to be done.

Feats in "One D&D" are not optional. I, personally, think this is a step in the right direction. I think it's a pathetically small one, but it is a step in the right direction. I am confused and frustrated by posters pretending that it either somehow isn't an actual change because these aren't real feats, or that it couldn't be a change because feats are totally what backgrounds always provided all along. Both of these statements seem to be openly and intentionally denying something obviously true: either that "One D&D" first-level feats are, in fact, feats in every sense of the word, and run the gamut from golden to garbage); or that backgrounds in 5e currently already do provide (non-selectable) feats or the equivalent in addition to the baseline 2 skills, when they emphatically do not.

*Though if you're asking of my personal preference between the two, it would be the first. I like feats, so effectively forcing me to only choose the Skilled feat when I could have at least had the option to choose others is a clearly inferior offering, because, as I have said many times in this thread, I like feats.
 

I'm not sure why they think double speak is the best way to market the game... "it's not a new edition it's just new classes new feats and new species that replace the old classes feats and races" then "feats are still optional but you have to get a feature at 1st level that is a feat"
Why not just say 1D&D is and be straight forward.
 

Why not just say 1D&D is and be straight forward.
As is the case in almost all business/branding/marketing stuff:

Reputation and perception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Facts

It doesn't matter that the resulting product is going to almost certainly be the 5.5e (or "5.50" or whatever) that everyone's been expecting for the past 2-3 years. It doesn't matter that all this circumlocution looks horrible and sounds stupid and requires tortured logic.

Preserving the appearance and perception is paramount. Image is everything. Facts are inconvenient weights one must deftly navigate around.
 


As is the case in almost all business/branding/marketing stuff:

Reputation and perception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Facts

It doesn't matter that the resulting product is going to almost certainly be the 5.5e (or "5.50" or whatever) that everyone's been expecting for the past 2-3 years. It doesn't matter that all this circumlocution looks horrible and sounds stupid and requires tortured logic.

Preserving the appearance and perception is paramount. Image is everything. Facts are inconvenient weights one must deftly navigate around.

Or. You see it as it is: an upgrade that leaves the core functional and is mostly compatible.

Compared to 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e, the switch is small. In no way warranting calling it a new edition.
It is a half edition though (I count 1e to 2e half edition), going from the playtest. I just think they want to assure everyone, that it is no fundamental* shift in game design.

*I define what I mean with fundamental game design/mechanic:

(Matrix)ThAC0 -> BAB -> half level bonus -> proficiency bonus.
 

Or. You see it as it is: an upgrade that leaves the core functional and is mostly compatible.

Compared to 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e, the switch is small. In no way warranting calling it a new edition.
It is a half edition though (I count 1e to 2e half edition), going from the playtest. I just think they want to assure everyone, that it is no fundamental* shift in game design.

*I define what I mean with fundamental game design/mechanic:

(Matrix)ThAC0 -> BAB -> half level bonus -> proficiency bonus.
My issue is that there are a lot of people--seemingly including WotC themselves--who do not even want to admit that it is that much. They want "One D&D" to still be just 5e, no .5, no nothing. Pretending nothing at all has changed while, y'know, changing things.
 

It is a half edition though (I count 1e to 2e half edition), going from the playtest. I just think they want to assure everyone, that it is no fundamental* shift in game design.
an argument can be made it is 5.5e not 6e, and the exact place where you draw the line is just a bit of discussion..,. my issue is like
My issue is that there are a lot of people--seemingly including WotC themselves--who do not even want to admit that it is that much. They want "One D&D" to still be just 5e, no .5, no nothing. Pretending nothing at all has changed while, y'know, changing things.
yeah people are pretending there is no line it is just the 2014 book with slight errata
 

My issue is that there are a lot of people--seemingly including WotC themselves--who do not even want to admit that it is that much. They want "One D&D" to still be just 5e, no .5, no nothing. Pretending nothing at all has changed while, y'know, changing things.

Technically they are correct though. Right now nothing has changed. All rules are just being playtested. And if they fail the test, they could be reverted.
That's what they say on the OneDnD page, although after some feedback, that scenarios seems unlikely.
 
Last edited:

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
People are getting way way way too hung up on what everyone is calling everything. Every term, every name... none of it matters.

And if it's getting you all worked up that someone is calling the game '6E' or a "new edition"... or that someone is saying that feats aren't real feats... or that what the WotC designers are saying is just "marketing doublespeak"... or any other thing of that regard... you probably just need to take a deep breath, step back, and remember the actual truth here:

In 2024 WotC will publish a set of books. And you will either choose to buy them or not buy them. And all that matters is how that game works for you, regardless of what it or its various pieces are called. If you don't like it, then you won't buy it. If you do, then you will. Simple as that. And nothing any of us schmucks on EN World have said up to that point will change it.
 

And if it's getting you all worked up that someone is calling the game '6E' or a "new edition"... or that someone is saying that feats aren't real feats... or that what the WotC designers are saying is just "marketing doublespeak"... or any other thing of that regard... you probably just need to take a deep breath, step back, and remember the actual truth here:

I find it funny and sad at the same time how a few people generally distrust the designers or corporate people in general.

I think out of responsibility for people who just want to play D&D and happen to google about OneD&D and land here, we should at least try to make sure that they know, the sky is not falling and 5e is not going away. That feats, although a subset of them are replacing background traits are still mostly optional.

So I am not hung up or anything. I just dislile the negativity spread by a few people who disliked 5e in the first place.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
No, because it is still a feat.
This is only a name. "Feats" in 5e are something you can opt into in place of your ASI. In 5.5 the first level "feat" is a feat in name only. It replaces no ASI and is just the same as any other first level class or racial ability. It's something you just get. Getting the 1st level "feat" in no way means that the 4th, 8th, etc. ASIs will allow players to choose feats. Feats are still optional.
If they designed a completely new set of mechanics for it, which were clearly distinct from feats and could not be substituted for feats, and which could not be acquired any other way (except perhaps as a feat, loosely similar to 13th Age's "Further Backgrounding" feat), then yes, it could be that. But they aren't doing that, and it is extremely unlikely that they will take the time to draft a completely new system that clearly and specifically differentiates itself from feats in order to achieve that end.
If someone is having a hissy fit because the 1st level ability is called a "feat" instead of a Goomer Stomper or something, I don't really have much sympathy for them. Nobody is forcing them to add feats to the game. Those are still optional.
Genuine question: why do you seem to think that literally just changing the name would alter the situation?
Because the "feat" is literally no different than Rage, Wild Shape, Channel Divinity or Relentless Endurance. It's just an ability you get for free at 1st level. People are getting upset at quite literally only the name and nothing else. That's why a name change would alter the situation.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Isn't Skilled one of the choices you can take? Skilled is a perfectly cromulent feat for most games, and quite powerful for any game that is more skill-focused than combat-focused. (I wouldn't want to use 5e for such a game, because it provides almost no support for such an approach, but it is something people do.) I don't see this hard-and-fast gap you're alleging here.
There's a feat to give you proficiency with saves. So we have to remove all free feat proficiencies from classes so that your characters aren't using feats. We also have to get rid of halfling luck, since lucky is a feat and we can't have characters getting free feats. And of course nobody can be proficient in free skills at 1st level, since there's a feat that does that, too.

The 1st level feat is a feat in name only. It's just another ability like you get from race or class.
 

Horwath

Hero
just write 1st level feats as background features.

and keep them simple.

have a 4th level feat:
+1 ASI
gain additional background feature.
you can take this feat multiple times.

balance out "background features" to go in hand with half-feats without ASI.

Though:
+2 HP at 1st level, +1 HP for every level after.
when you spend a HD to heal, you heal +1 HP extra.
This background feature can be taken twice

Skilled:
+2 skill proficiencies
This background feature can be taken twice

Lucky:
just keep the advantage part.
it's strong enough without giving enemies disadvantage

Magic initiate:
learn any two cantrips.
You casting stat is highest of int, wis or cha

Fighting style:
learn any fighting style

Tavern brawler:
1d6 unarmed damage,
can make single unarmed attack as Bonus action
Furniture as weapons

Savage attacker:
removed from history!

Crafter and Musician:

add; gain expertise in one tool/music instrument. Expertise in tool/instruments are mostly ineffective for gameplay, but adds that special flavor that you are best at your chosen craft.

Healer:
remove rerolls(it's too much of them), just add that you improve your targets HD healing by your prof bonus. Target adds it's Con mod as normal.

Armor training reworked as Martial training:
you improve your 1st level class armor category by two steps:
none->medium
light->heavy
you an exchange two armor categores for Martial weapons proficiency or one armor category for extra Class skill.

Speedster, moved to 1st level background features,
You increase your speed by 10ft. The end.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Technically they are correct though. Right now nothing has changed. All rules are just being playtested. And if they fail the test, they could be reverted.
That's what they say on the OneDnD page, although after some feedback, that scenarios seems unlikely.
This is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct. Of course, we know for a fact that quite a bit will change, even if we don't know exactly what or how. WotC absolutely must make significant changes or they are wasting ink and a ton of money on books that nobody will buy. We are going to be getting 5.5 at the very least.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top