D&D 5E Feats

[Li Shenron]

So, for instance, combat feats now open up maneuvers - should these be feats, or should maneuvers just be available to learn and use freely? Expertise feats replace skill tricks - should they be accessed via the skill system instead?

I think the fundamental unresolved question is how much should be allowed to any class for customization, and how much should be exclusive for making each class unique and a different experience in play.

I am afraid the design team has not yet been able to make any decision on this.

Personally I am for more uniqueness of each class, and then let multiclassing take care of cross-breeding, because it is easier for a DM to control multiclassing (allowed, allowed with restrictions, disallowed) rather than controlling many separate things.

The biggest problem with feats, in both 3e and 4e, was that they became the dumping ground for anything that didn't really fit anywhere else.

...

IMO, for 5e they should explicitly separate out these various types of feats into different categories, and then give advancement rates for each category individually. There's no particular need to actually eliminate anything - just keep them separate.

I agree with the starting point, but I don't think that is a bad thing for all gaming styles. It certainly was never a bad thing for the groups I played in.

And this is why OTOH I disagree with the conclusion When you separate things, you improve balance but you also force every single character into having something belonging to each of those categories.

If you keep things together like "one size fits all" 3ed-style feats, you certainly risk unbalanced character once you have allowed 1000 feats from supplements. But then you can have one character that totally focuses on combat feats, and another character who isn't interested so much in those and instead wants some additions that can unlock cool non-combat options, such as getting a Familiar or crafting magical items.

As you can see, it depends on the gaming style...

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

My problem with feats as presented is that they are at odds with the very concept of a class based system. The advantage of classes is that they channel the decision making process. Race and class provide a broad character concept. Subclasses provide a narrower decision. Then you get more granular with spells, maneuvers, and gear.

Feats are exactly the opposite of this. They're just a large list of abilities, which is more befitting a skill based system with is all about granular choice at all levels.

That why, in a class based system, the concept of themes or specialties was so good. It was another broad choice that allowed for a wide variety of characters without resorting to granularity. In the first couple packets, they were basically mini-classes. I really liked this approach.

 

[Li Shenron]

Then you get more granular with spells, maneuvers, and gear.

Feats are exactly the opposite of this. They're just a large list of abilities, which is more befitting a skill based system with is all about granular choice at all levels.

That why, in a class based system, the concept of themes or specialties was so good. It was another broad choice that allowed for a wide variety of characters without resorting to granularity. In the first couple packets, they were basically mini-classes. I really liked this approach.

I think feats are at the same level of granularity as spells, maneuvers and gear...

Some of them are different, for example Herbalism, which in fact IMHO should be so much better as a whole specialty with several feats.

I also miss the early themes/specialties anyway... I haven't liked them nearly as much after they changed those ones from pick-one-cantrip to choose-two-from-these-five.

 

[Bow_Seat]

I miss themes...

 

[DEFCON 1]

I personally dislike feats that imply that you cannot attempt something without the feat, because this disuades players from using the skill check system that 5e is trying to emphasize.

I was going to reply to your post stating why I didn't think you were right with this line of thinking (basically because it would reduce what was special about the Fighter, when every class could pull off the same maneuvers that the Fighter should probably reign supreme in without destroying the concepts of bounded accuracy)... and I got about halfway through my response before realizing my own flawed thinking.

It *is* possible to have both. Manuevers that everyone could attempt *and* that Fighters were best suited to accomplish them.

Use Advantage.

Charge, Bull Rush, Disarm, Trip... all of these could easily go back to being normal actions in the Actions In Combat table. Everyone can try them, and since they are basically just skill checks... you have as good a chance as anyone of pulling them off.

But Fighters? They get feats or class features that give them Advantage when they attempt these maneuvers. Voila! You don't destroy the bounded accuracy (like you would if you gave them a +4 bonus to STR like they got in 3E)... but the Fighter is also much better at them than everyone else.

Jeez... you know the more I think about it and the more I see this mechanic get applied to all kinds of abilities across the entirety of the game... I freaking LOVE the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic!

 

[mlund]

Yeah, I already broke this down on the main playtest packet thread, but I'll reiterate it here: Using Feats as a way to avoid overlapping rules is bad in this case.

@"DEFCON 1" is right on the money in terms of concept in both regards: Tiers of Ability and using the Advantage mechanics.

Instead of putting the rules into Feats, put them into a "Sample Stunts" section, then Tier usage as follows:

Tier 1 should be something anyone can do as an Improvised Stunt Action. They'll normally take Disadvantage on the attempt, so they'd better hold out for an opportunity where their stunt description / context gives them Advantage to cancel it out (like tripping the bugbear by pulling the tattered rug in the room description out from under him) or the risk-reward pay-out is just high enough to justify making the attempt with disadvantage (like using Push to topple the Orc Chieftain off a cliff).

Tier 2 removes the Disadvantage but the cost (your action), effect, and restrictions (contested rolls, size restrictions, etc.) are still such that you'd never just spam this every round instead of attacking with a spell or weapon. There's a time and a place for it and when that time comes (need this guy knocked down for a sneak attack, to throw a net on him, etc.) you are prepared for it.

Tier 3 is reserved for Expert mechanics in a martial class like the Thief or Fighter using a Skill Trick or Combat Expertise. The opportunity cost is reduced by making the Stunt a rider to their normal attacks (or maybe just a Swift Action? Trip that guy; punch his friend). There may also be synergies with other class mechanics like the ability to gain Advantage on certain types of contests / checks or add a Skill / Expertise Die to your roll.

Frankly, I think the Fighter should have a general class feature at Level 1 that says he has Advantage on all physical Stunts he performs in and out of combat. That way he doesn't need a Feat to have an even chance at any particular type of stunt, but if he does spend the Feat he gets to roll the Advantage die. Likewise it scales up: With just Expertise you make a normal contest roll. With Expertise + Feat you make the contest roll with Advantage. Since Expertise Dice are limited this still prevents spamming at all levels.

- Marty Lund

 

[1of3]

I'm actually OK with most of the Combat Feats. Trip, Disarm and Shove say: Make an attack, on a hit also try a contest. That doesn't preclude other characters from making contests as a full action. The feat makes you better insofar that you also deal your usual damage. It's basically the same set up as in 4e: You can try anything per page 42, but a power allows you to make the stunt as part of an attack.

They text could be more clear in that regard.

The only offenders I see are Bull Rush and Taunt. The first one is redundant with Shove, the second one could be changed to also include an attack.


Also ability and spell-casting prerequisites could go.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

It *is* possible to have both. Manuevers that everyone could attempt *and* that Fighters were best suited to accomplish them.

Use Advantage.

Your idea is sound, but instead of advantage, I would apply either the Fighter's attack bonus or the skill die. That leaves the opportunity for advantage to come from outside sources.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think feats are at the same level of granularity as spells, maneuvers and gear...

Spells use levels to help with the granularity by slowly opening up options. Maneuvers could use a similar structure.

In theory, specialties could do the same thing. If all feats were organized into broad specialties, say with five to seven feats each, then your choice of specialty would determine which feats you have to choose from.

 

[mlund]

I'm actually OK with most of the Combat Feats. Trip, Disarm and Shove say: Make an attack, on a hit also try a contest.

Ah, I see. Well, that still works pretty well.

Rule 42 Stunt: Costs your action
Feat Stunt: Adds the appropriate Stunt onto your attack at no cost.
Class Feature: Can give Advantage or Bonus Die to the appropriate check whether you have the Feat or not.

This creates a nice discretionary space for the DM to roll out chances to add on a free Stunt opportunity with Disadvantage when appropriate, and the Class Feature stuff would help there too.

- Marty Lund