Feats

[paladinm]

Does anyone have ideas how feats should work in 5.0? I know that they are a great way of customizing a character (especially a non-spellcasting character); but I personally think that 3.5/ Pathfinder went way overboard with them, especially in all the splatbooks. What is a good balance between the customizing features of feats and all the craziness?

I loved the BECMI era, even without all the feats; but even then we had weapon mastery. I wonder if (combat) feats can be renamed tactics, and mostly limited to fighters (and maybe rogues)?

OD&D started with fighters, clerics, and MU's.. Maybe the distinction between fighters and thieves/ rogues is just which feats they choose?

 

[ferratus]

I'm generally someone who thinks that 3e and 4e were better than the editions that came before them.

But feats? Stack that huge waste of time and character creation complexity in a huge pile and set them on fire.

You know what feats are? An exception to a rule that should have never been created in the first place.

Take melee weapon combat style for example. You could simply make shields worth +5 AC, two blades allow you to attack twice, and large two-handed weapons do double damage. That's all fairly balanced.

Instead, you have to spend 5 or 6 feats to get there. Bleh.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think it's time to go the Fallout 3 route and give everyone a feat every level. Simple and easy. If not that, then every odd level. I think feats are generally better when they're a positive-some kind of bonus-as opposed to a negative (without X feat you can't do X). That said, they're a venue for customization that, along with skills, really defines the d20 system.

Take melee weapon combat style for example. You could simply make shields worth +5 AC, two blades allow you to attack twice, and large two-handed weapons do double damage. That's all fairly balanced.

In general, I'm not wild about feat taxes. In the case of TWF though, it seems intuitive that it should take some real special training to do it.

 

[Daern]

I think feats should be non-combat related. The powers system (or whatever they end up with) should be for customizing combat option.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'll agree with those people who want to see Feats burn. They end up being too much of small, fiddly bonuses that take too long to pick out for too little effect. Not even counting the fact that I tend to forget to take their effects into account during battle half the time. And of course, far too often they are used as a kind of customization tax you must pay in order to to things that should be available through easier or better methods. The entire Feat system really needs to either go away or get reformed from the ground up.

 

[Number48]

Feats are great. People want to feel like their character is different than everybody else's. Feats are a simple way to do that. If you give all the benefits, all the time then you get 2 problems. First, the fighter isn't very differentiated. You're special ability is... nothing! The second is the golf bag problem. Different fighting styles hand different monsters and encounters better or worse. If you don't excel at one style, you'll naturally want to keep every weapon type and weapon combo on hand to maximize your capabilities. Golf bag bad!

The other simple fact is that it would be easier for a DM to play without feats than for a DM to shoehorn in feats after the fact.

Feats also need to suit different campaign styles. Mostly combat? Take combat feats. Mostly stealth? Take stealth feats. Mostly talking? Etc.

I can't imagine a new edition of the game with LESS customizable, personalized characters.

That said, we can make feats a bit broader and thus make the lists smaller and simpler. A skill feat: +3 to one skill or +2 to two related skills. The player comes up the the rationale for the related skills and what he chooses to call it for his use. Weapon feat: Choose from a choice of weapon enhancements, add one of them, can take the feat as much as you like. You really don't need to specify all possible feats, just the generalized form they take.

 

[Stormonu]

With a skill system where you can invest points as you choose, any feat system should not grant +X bonuses. Instead, feats should open up new options or methods of using skills or abilities.

Improved Grapple (which removes the AoA when attempting to grapple) is a good example.

Alertness (which just provides a +2 bonus to Spot and Listen or Perception checks) is a bad example.

 

[Number48]

I can see your point. I wouldn't kick a game to the curb if it didn't have straight numerical bonuses. But, I don't see the numerical bonuses as being WRONG. I don't mind a D&D game that can cater to people who want to just throw dice as well as accommodate those who want a nuanced story full of intrigue and wonder.

 

[FireLance]

In a powers-based system like 4e, you don't need feats to differentiate characters of the same class.

I think there might be a role for feats in 5e, though - not as a separate source of bonuses, but as generic abilities that any PC could swap out a class ability for.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The solution is.. Bifurcating Trees! That is, ability trees where each grants access to new ones next time you get an ability (plausibly with interconnections, like Pascal's triangle.

If you want to make a high level character, pick the highest level ability first and work your way backwards. Eliminate broken combinations by making them far apart on the tree.