D&D 5E Feats: What Are They For?

[Dausuul]

Several people have now pointed out that the downfall of feats--in 3E, in 4E, and now in D&DN--has been that the designers seem to have no clear picture of what they're trying to do with them. Feats become the big bucket, where they throw any widget that doesn't fit anywhere else. As a result, we end up with horribly bloated feat lists, "trap feats" like 3E Toughness, "feat taxes" like 4E Expertise, bleedover from the skill system (Skill Focus and the like), and class abilities like Weapon Specialization masquerading as feats for no good reason.

I think this is very apt, and so I put the question to you: What do you think feats should be for?

To me, the purpose of feats should be lateral development--fleshing out your character in interesting ways. Instead of getting better at your primary abilities (as defined by your class), you pick up secondary abilities in small packages. A wizard is already, by default, the best possible spellcaster for his/her level. No feat can ever make the wizard a more powerful spellcaster. That means no metamagic, no Spell Focus, etc. Instead, the wizard can use feats to gain basic competence with weapons; or learn new languages; or gain a familiar*; or what have you. Likewise, no feat can ever make the fighter better at fighting. But the fighter could learn some minor spells instead.

In short, each feat would do one of two things:

• Give you access to a weaker version of some other class's abilities--sort of a poor man's multiclassing.
• Give you access to an ability no class has, which doesn't "stack" with any class's abilities (e.g., learn a new language).

If feats worked this way, choosing between them would be fun instead of a chore. You don't have to worry about choosing the right feats to support your class role--that's all built into your class. Instead, you choose the feats that seem like they fit your character concept. Furthermore, for those who just don't want feats of any stripe, it would be easy to remove them from the game.

What's your opinion?

[SIZE=-2]*With the caveat that familiars are toned down a bit, since currently they can serve as a delivery mechanism for touch spells, and thus substantially improve the wizard's spellcasting prowess.[/SIZE]

 

[GX.Sigma]

Absolutely nothing.

Say it again, y'all.

(Basically what I'm saying is that I don't like feats.)

 

[Dausuul]

Absolutely nothing.

Say it again, y'all.

(Basically what I'm saying is that I don't like feats.)

I figured. No matter what feats end up being, having the option to play without them is essential.

 

[delericho]

Basically, the feats need split out into the three different silos. There's no reason they shouldn't all exist, but they shouldn't all be the same thing.

So, there should be one group that is the flat, numerical bonuses (I would call these 'feats'), there is a group that provide modifications for existing powers ('talents'), and a third group that gives access to entirely new subsystems, such as Leadership ('alternate class features').

 

[Alzrius]

I wonder if the problem with feats is their lack of clear in-game conceptualization (much like how prestige classes were trying to be several different things, all at once).

 

[Kinak]

I feel like they were mostly a response to the complaints that "every fighter/rogue/X is the same" from 2nd Edition. As such, I'm not sure they're needed at all between choices being added to those classes and stuff like backgrounds.

Your suggestion is a good idea, but doesn't really appeal to me. Every time I run a game, we end up with several characters that are story-wise very specialized. I'd rather not have the "there are no feats for you" conversation again, if I can help it.

Honestly, I'd prefer if they made them into an analogue for spells on the martial side. Don't make them once per day, but let people change their feat selection fairly easily. Make most of them actions so you don't have to worry about stacking and crazy combat math. Maybe a couple "stances" or whatever that provide static bonuses but explicitly don't stack.

Then dipping into other classes can be handled by multi-classing, stuff you learned in your youth can be handled by backgrounds (and race and subrace), and things outside everyone's specialty can be handled by skills or their own rules subsystems.

I just feel like feats are being forced on everyone when only a handful of classes really want them. And any of the half-dozen other character elements could pick up the slack.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[jadrax]

I wonder if the problem with feats is their lack of clear in-game conceptualization (much like how prestige classes were trying to be several different things, all at once).

I think that is certainly a big issue with them.

 

[Larrin]

Feats definitely suffer from the fact that they have been made to apply to every aspect of the game: race, class, spells/powers, items/weapons, skills, other feats, combat, exploration, purely roll playing (or nearly so), and what they due is equally spread out-make it better, make it better sometimes, make it different, make it unplayable in a balanced group, make it unplayable in an unbalanced group, make it sparkle but with no other real effect, make it worse except when it doesn't, make it make your DM cry, etc.

The bottom line is that if designers want to do anything, they make it a feat, regardless of what it is, with little to no sense of conformity in power or cost.

Its like if everything cost $1, but you only got $1 a day and couldn't save it for tomorrow. What would you buy? Food? Cars? Pay a parking meter? See a movie? Help out a person who spent there $1 on 3E toughness?

Or maybe it isn't....I don't think that metaphor actually holds up to scrutiny.

 

[billd91]

In short, each feat would do one of two things:

• Give you access to a weaker version of some other class's abilities--sort of a poor man's multiclassing.
• Give you access to an ability no class has, which doesn't "stack" with any class's abilities (e.g., learn a new language).

If feats worked this way, choosing between them would be fun instead of a chore. You don't have to worry about choosing the right feats to support your class role--that's all built into your class. Instead, you choose the feats that seem like they fit your character concept. Furthermore, for those who just don't want feats of any stripe, it would be easy to remove them from the game.

What's your opinion?

If this is what feats will become, I'd rather they not bother to include them.

 

[Dausuul]

If this is what feats will become, I'd rather they not bother to include them.

What would you prefer?