D&D 5E Feats

[Dausuul]

There should be one absolute rule for feat design: Feats do not stack bonuses on top of your primary abilities. For example, no feat should ever improve a fighter's standard weapon attacks*. Weapon attacks are the fighter's bread and butter; it should be assumed that the fighter's weapon attacks are already as good as they can be. However, weapon attacks are decidedly secondary for a wizard, so a wizard could take a feat that improved her weapon attacks to somewhere near the fighter's level. Likewise, while the fighter might have a feat that grants some basic arcane spellcasting, the same feat should provide no benefit to the wizard.

[SIZE=-2]*That said, a feat that grants alternatives to the standard weapon attack is fine.[/SIZE]

 

[nightwalker450]

I think the standard maneuvers (trip/disarm/sunder/push) should work similar to sneak attack:

Can only be used when you don't have disadvantage
Have Disadvantage on the Strength/Dex Check

The Feats then would allow you make an attack before hand if you hit, you deal damage and don't suffer disadvantage on the maneuver (otherwise you still attempt the maneuver as normal). Basically your initial attack is to put them off enough that you don't suffer disadvantage for trying such a maneuver.

 

[jadrax]

Also, I am totally baffled by the fact that they are now giving bonus feats to some classes. WTF?? Aren't feats supposed to be optional? And so far they totally were... but if they give each class bonus feats, and the number is uneven across classes, then if you ignore feats in your game you have once again like 3e different effects on different classes, ergo they are not optional anymore. What are they thinking? :/

This I think is the biggest problem with this playtest packet. If you cannot play the game without using feats, there is a sizable portion of the player base that is never going to pick up the game.

 

[Dausuul]

This I think is the biggest problem with this playtest packet. If you cannot play the game without using feats, there is a sizable portion of the player base that is never going to pick up the game.

Agreed. I just created a character using the playtest packet. It was fun and exciting right up until I got to feat selection... and then all the joy went out of it and I was back in Character Build Mode, weighing "flavorful but seldom useful" against "boring but effective." Sure, Find Familiar is cool, but does it really compare to being able to fireball for a guaranteed 36 damage?

Feats have the potential to be really great, allowing players to customize their character concepts in lots of cool ways. But as soon as feats like Maximize Spell and Iron Hide creep in, all that goes out the window, because "boring but effective" usually edges out "flavorful but seldom useful." If feats are going to be like they were in 3E and 4E, then I want no part of them.

 

[Szatany]

This I think is the biggest problem with this playtest packet. If you cannot play the game without using feats, there is a sizable portion of the player base that is never going to pick up the game.

Playtest doesn't necessarily reflect final game in this respect. Maybe this packet looks like it does because they want us to playtest the feats. Maybe that's why feats are a must in this version.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Also, I am totally baffled by the fact that they are now giving bonus feats to some classes. WTF?? Aren't feats supposed to be optional? And so far they totally were... but if they give each class bonus feats, and the number is uneven across classes, then if you ignore feats in your game you have once again like 3e different effects on different classes, ergo they are not optional anymore. What are they thinking? :/

Actually... I think what you are seeing is the reason why some of those fighter maneuvers and some of the rogue skill uses have become feats. They are there to be used in the Basic game (the one without selectable feats.)

Here's the situation as I see it:

The Basic game Core Four will have little to no options. Everything that might've been an option will instead be a Class Feature-- basically a "pre-selected option". The reason for this is because they have stated that the intent is that you should be able to use a Basic Core Four class in the same game as a Standard class. In order to do that... a Basic Core Four class has to give almost the same exact amount of power as a Standard version for balance reasons. The only difference between the two being the complexity of those Class Feature options that the Core Four class gets-- the less complex to understand but equally as powerful option as one selectable by a Standard class.

So let's take the Rogue for example. To balance a Basic Rogue (a version that seemingly will not have Backgrounds/Skills nor Specialties/Feats) against a Standard Rogue-- while at the same time making the Basic Rogue recognizeable to a BECMI/AD&D player-- you need several things:

1) A Basic game equivalent to the bonuses a Standard rogue gets for having trained skills and the Skill Die. They have mentioned that at this juncture, their idea is just giving a flat bonus to any DEX checks a Basic Rogue might get (same way a Basic Fighter gets a flat bonus to STR checks, Cleric to CHA checks, and Wizards a bonus to INT checks.) Theoretically... that still keeps the Basic and Standard Rogues in balance when it comes to removing the idea of backgrounds and skills.

2) You also need a Basic game equivalent to the Standard rogue when it comes to Feats. A Standard rogue is getting a Feat at 1st level due to its Specialty PLUS it is getting three free feats as part of its Rogue Scheme. Which means the Basic Rogue also needs to get FOUR "Class Features" of an equal amount of power so that the two remain in balance.

Now here's where it gets interesting...

*IF* you take things like Open Locks, Disarm Traps, Pickpocketing, and Climb Shear Surfaces and KEEP them in the purview of the just Skill System... so that you have a "Thievery" skill and a "Climb" skill that covers shear surfaces, and "Conceal At Object" that can be used to pickpocket... the Basic game's Rogue will never see them. They are now a part of the game system that the Basic Rogue does not use.

BUT-- by making them Feats... you are basically creating a version of the "Trained Only" use from 3rd edition. Only those "trained" in the skills listed and (in this case, "trained" = "has the feat") would be allowed to open locks, disarm traps etc. Those special uses of certain skills that not everybody can do. The only difference being that rather them being listed as a segment of a skill-- which again, Basic Rogues are never going to have-- they are listed as a Feat... which a Basic Rogue is going to receive FOUR of listed as Class Features in order to remain balanced with the Standard Rogue.

So when you look at a class description of a Basic Rogue, it's going to list as its Class Features the following (which comes from the game pre-selecting for you the Thief Scheme and one further feat choice):

Open Locks
Pickpocketing
Climb Shear Surfaces
Find/Disarm Traps

Wouldn't you know it! Your Basic Rogue now lists as class features four of the primary "Thief Skills" a BECMI or AD&D character would also list... without actually needing the 5E skill system to use. And on top of that... this Basic Rogue is also balanced against the Standard Rogue, who ALSO has three free feats from his Rogue Scheme, plus one other feat as per his Specialty.

It's actually a rather clever way of getting recognizeable "Thief Skills" into the Basic game without actually needing to use the Background and Skills system.

Is it perfect? Eh. But it does solve the two biggest issues when designing the Basic Rogue-- how to get him the traditional Thief Skills listed right there in the class description without using the Skill system, and how to give him Feats just like the Standard Rogue without giving him additional and complex abilities that are not mimicking those abilities a BECMI / AD&D player is expecting out of the Basic game.

 

[Cyberen]

Clearly explained, Defcon1

 

[Falling Icicle]

It would be easier if they just made those things that fighters and rogues can pick with their bonus feats maneuvers or skill tricks (or whatever you want to call them), and then just have feats that let you pick those things. It's effectively the same exact thing, but then people won't see bonus feats in their classes and be turned off by it.

 

[GX.Sigma]

My problem isn't that there's increased dependence on feats. Well yes, feats suck, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is that the specialty system has failed to do its job. The point of specialties was that you shouldn't have to choose feats if you don't want to; just pick whichever specialty is flavorful for your character. Thing is, you'll often get a feat that is redundant or useless for your character (Distant Spell? That'll go great with my zero touch spells! Mystical Healer? I already have those cantrips from my class!). That means you have to go look through the giant list.

Yes, the fact that there is a giant list is a problem (I wish they'd ask "do you want to have feats in the game at all?" in the survey). But if there were a way to avoid looking through the giant list, we could sidestep the problem.

Edit: The other part of the problem is the lack of a simple, universally good option. Remember the toughness feat from a few packets ago? I'd kill to have that back in the game.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's actually a rather clever way of getting recognizeable "Thief Skills" into the Basic game without actually needing to use the Background and Skills system.

Sincerely the current implementation doesn't strike me as clever. I understand your idea, but let's check the current rules (IIRC, please correct if wrong):

- proficiency with thieves' tools is required to disable traps (DT) and open locks (OL) (necessary and sufficient condition), but doesn't automatically grant the skill die bonus on them

- all Rogues are proficient in thieves' tools, no other class is by default

- there are no DT and OL in the skill list, i.e. both Rogues and non-Rogues cannot get these skills via background or skill selection

- some but not all Rogue also have these bonuses via bonus feats: "Thief" grants OL,
"Treasure Hunter" grants DT, no scheme grants both

- the only other way to get your skill die bonus on DT and OL is through feats, this is needed by every Rogue who wants to be good at both (at best your scheme gives one or the other)

- every non-Rogue who wants to cover one or the other needs to take the relative feat, which grants both the thieves' tool proficiency and the skill die bonus

Granted, they admit the Rogue is "in transition" so we can bet the schemes won't remain like these.

This IMHO is a very complicated way that seems to seek the purpose of making skills optional, by making feats mandatory in the standard game. AFAIK (but I might be wrong) most people like skills and are going to have them in the game anyway, but not so many people like feats, that's at least my impression from our forums, but WotC might have better info from playtest feedback.

If the real purpose of this system is "remove skills from the basic game", all they would need to do for the Basic Rogue is keep the thieves' tool proficiency in the class description. It's already there! It grants the ability to DT and OL. It doesn't grant the bonus, but if skills aren't used, then the skill dice bonus isn't used either.

And for the standard game this only makes feats mandatory. At least they should also put DT and OL back to the skill list (and also add thieves' tools proficiency with these skills!), because otherwise there is no way for a group that doesn't use feats to have non-Rogues pick up these abilities.