Feats

[Jeff Carlsen]

Feats in Third Edition were great, so long as we only used the Player's Handbook and a Setting.

But, I could easily see feats turned into talent trees attached to classes and races.

Still, there were areas where one feat was appropriate for multiple classes, and that was handy.

If feats remain, as I'm sure they will in some form, I'd prefer to have fewer feats, each having greater impact. If I only get five feats in 20 levels, but each one is really cool and character defining, I think I'd be pretty happy with it.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

After thinking about my last comment, I've come up with an interesting idea.

What if we merged feats and prestige classes. Feats would then be considered specializations (similar to paragon paths in 4E), and would grant you a couple new abilities. They'd be given world flavor, have roleplaying requirements before you could take them, but not have the level of complexity that a prestige class has.

For example, the feat "Order of the Flaming Sword" requires that you gain membership to the order, that you be proficient with a sword, and that you have an attack bonus of +3. In return, you can engulf any sword in flame, gain resistance to fire, and can get help, information, and work from the order.

 

[GM Dave]

In PF and 3.5e I used feats but I had more problems with them in 4e. Even in PF or 3.5e they get to be a bit much at higher level.

1> One problem is that they cover the same territory as skills, powers, utility powers, spells, magical items, class features, and class bonuses. You usually end up with too much as a result of five different sets of rules basically doing the same thing. PF even has half feats called Traits which trade on a 2 to 1 ratio with feats.

2> Personally, instead of having all these different sets of systems and bonuses that they went with a more unified approach. I doubt this will happen as the 'history' of the game is to have magical items, spells, skills, class features, class bonuses, powers, and spells but it could certainly clean up some of the complaints of toes being stepped on and multiplications of bonuses as people stacked things into mounds of attack and damage bonuses.

3> There is a market reason to have these things from a game company point of view as it gives more 'content' that can be sold in various splat books and magazine articles. I just think that if feats did not appear in the next edition that any of the other sources would not step forward to fill the 'void'.

4> Many of the feats that modify combat choices could easily be built into option choices within certain classes like the Saga Talent trees. This would keep bonuses more connected to their intended users and avoid some of the muddle of choosing the feats/talents as the groupings would be more distinct. This would require a better form of multiclass then 4e for those that want to be able to work as fighter while wielding eldrich fire instead of having to build a new class to perform this duty.

 

[Aldarc]

Much of what has been said about feats have already been said. Feats are a mixed blessing. But as they are presently designed, I am not sure if their ability as to allow for character customization is worth the negatives. There is the feat tax. Feats as (unofficial) errata. Feats offering slight numerical bonuses (e.g. +1 to attack with X or versus Y). Feats that simply raised two skills +2. (Did we really need every permeation of +2 Skill X and +2 Skill Y as separate feats? )

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

(Did we really need every permeation of +2 Skill X and +2 Skill Y as separate feats? )

Definitely not. All of those could have been replaced with one feat that said, "The character receives 4 skill points."

 

[GM Dave]

Here is an idea to improve Feats and keep them interesting in 5e instead stepping on the toes of things like skills, powers, class features, and magical items.

I think it would be good to borrow from FATE systems that Feats are changed into a +2 situational benefit that players design as part of their character's story.

This would follow the standard FATE approach that the Feats would be expressed by players in both a positive and negative situational benefit. This would result in players being able to use the Feats to help them out or tap to return points back to the player to use for future Feat activation.

Benefits

1> This avoids having to print the list of a thousand or more feats to cover every possible case a designer could think up.

2> It avoids the Feats being created that never get used or rarely used because they fall into some small nook that most players will never get to use.

3> The Feats become story elements that players and GMs can use to activate storylines or modify situations. They would follow the 'economy' idea of FATE so player's can not create unlimited Feats that give constant +2 bonus but need to be selective on when to use. They will also need to activate some negative story elements in play if they wish to get the points back to activate their feat bonuses.

4> Feats will likely be a more complicated option; so, this would be a good option for players wanting more than pre-built options for their character.

 

[Tallifer]

(This is written from the perspective of the Fourth Edition.)

I like Feats, but I hope that Powers, Class Features, Themes and Forgotten Realms style Backgrounds remain: that way Feats do not have to do so many different things. The new edition must keep these other things as modules, and must support them as an alternate to a bloat of feats.

Some Feats were merely created because the designers refused to modify the system. Why should you buy a feat just to be part of a sub-race? Why should weapon expertise be so good compared to almost all other feats? Why should exotic weapons require so many feats to learn to use well? Is there another way to learn Weapon Styles other than feats?

Because although I like choice, there are sometimes over a hundred feats to choose from in one particular level for any one class. Racial, class, armour, weapons, metamagic, skills, multi-class, surges, damage type, sub-race, rituals, et cetera. Now most of those might be unavoidably feats, but I hope something cleaner can be managed in Fifth Edition.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I like the idea of feats as a way to customize your character and make him unique. It also offers a balanced way of including special techniques, metamagics, and that sort of thing. The problem is feats were poorly implemented in 3rd and 4th edition. There were always some "must have" feats or feats which were clearly superior to others. Players of a particular class or even general character type (i.e. melee fighter, archer, spellcaster, etc). would just take most of the same feats anyway, while the roleplaying and customization type feats would go unused. In 4e, most feats just gave a bunch of tiny, highly situational, and extremely annoying to keep track of bonuses. So feats then just became a nuisance to keep track of. If they have feats in 5e, I hope they learn from these lessons.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I really want feats gone.

I ahve no problems with chains of abilities like two-weapon fighter, sword-and-board and so on, but make htem inteh class (or an advanced module of the class) and offer a couple of picks each level an ability kicks in to allow for asomem customization between two sword-and-vbboard.

Add in a sword chain and an axe one so your sword and board and aqxe and board are different fighters.

I would be happy with that

But not general feats. Or iuf so, not numberical and not combat at all.

 

[Number48]

I like feats as way that, say, my fighter can pick up a minor magical trick. He isn't a wizard, but there's no reason he can't learn a little magic. That is good background, good storytelling. They could certainly make the system work with flavor rather than against it. 3E with feats and prestige classes encouraged someone to design a total character from level 1 based on numbers, not story. If they didn't, the group would advance to prestige class level and the story-based characters would get penalized.

Keep feats, but make them work with the system.