D&D (2024) Feats still optional in 1D&D: and other notes from the survey results

dave2008

Legend
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!
Except that the 1st level feats are purposely not like other feats. They could be renamed "background traits" and then it would be 100% accurate to say feats are optional. I mean the 1st level feats =/= feats. They are lesser powered, will not have an ASI, and are only available at 1st level. They are feats in name only.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jasper

Rotten DM
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
383 Adventure league sessions as a DM. So yes, I have played with feats.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
I've never like it being associated with Backgrounds, but I hope they don't completely ditch them. They could provide a list of examples for various concepts for each, rather than trying to tie them to something else like they did previously with Backgrounds.
They sticking them to backgrounds because people were choosing a background and never using after the skills they got. So, it sounds like they are forcing people to take backgrounds.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
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?
No, because it is still a feat.

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.

Genuine question: why do you seem to think that literally just changing the name would alter the situation?
 


Dausuul

Legend
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.
I suspect the percentage of tables that allow feats has always been a substantial majority.

What Crawford said back in the day was that the majority of players did not use feats, which is quite different. In 5E, unless you're playing a variant human, feats are competing with maxing out your primary stat until at least 8th level (and 12th for most classes)... which is to say, if you want to max your primary stat, and your campaign ends at or before 12th level as most do, you will probably never take a feat, unless you a) roll stats or b) start with 17 in your primary stat and use a "half feat" that grants +1 to that stat.

Nowadays, that second option is quite appealing, as there are lots of amazing choices for "half feats." But at the time Crawford made that comment, the available "half feats" were mostly trash. If you were, say, a wizard looking to boost your Int, your options were... let's see... Keen Mind and Linguist. Whee. Moreover, you had to be playing a gnome or rolling stats to get that starting Int of 17 in the first place. The changes in Tasha's have made it possible for any class/race combo to start with a 17 in anything.

So, back in the day, I think it's not only possible but likely that most tables allowed feats and yet few players actually took any. You'll note that 1D&D is institutionalizing the "floating +2" from Tasha's, as well as making all feats above 1st level into half feats, both of which reduce the competition between feats and maxing your primary stat.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Because it works constantly for D&D?

Don't believe me, ask a balor or a halfling.
It works for legal things. Because in legal stuff, names really are that important.

I absolutely, positively guarantee you that changing only the name does not and will not work with most users. "Here's a list of Background Traits!" wouldn't convince anyone who dislikes feats, if the mechanics remain completely unchanged.
 

It works for legal things. Because in legal stuff, names really are that important.

I absolutely, positively guarantee you that changing only the name does not and will not work with most users. "Here's a list of Background Traits!" wouldn't convince anyone who dislikes feats, if the mechanics remain completely unchanged.

The old traits could als be seen as feats. Roleplaying feats, but feats. So if you agree, that the new backgrounds just give a feat, if you take a prebuilt one, thanen the difference is very small...
 

What does it mean "Feats are Optional"? Optional for who? Everything is optional, if you decide to not use it. I never really understood this distinction. If the party says "we're not using clerics in this campaign", then Clerics are optional, I guess?
 

Pauln6

Hero
If feats become 'compulsory' but the rules expressly state that for campaigns that wish to operate without them simply allow level 1 feats as a background benefit and the ASI feat going forward? Qualitatively, the difference is a level 1 feat. I was disappointed when they removed the level 1 feats after the playtest. They are almost the only way to make two level 1 characters of the same class feel different. Are some people mad because they think level 1 characters are so awesome they don't need anything else?
 

Remove ads

Top