D&D 5E Full feats from Tasha's: are they worth a "full feat slot"?

[Don Durito]

I'm not really sure what the best solution to Feats is:

5e: tries to make them big and make them exchangable for ability score bonues: issue it somewhat works - but the ability score bonuses themselves distort the game somewhat and a lot of the feats aren't good enough.
13th Age: Makes feats mostly small things you gain every level that explicitly improve class features - this mostly works, and it's easy to homebrew to let a pc do something slightly off base, but some of them end up feeling like they add stuff that should have been part of the class features orginally (but at least you don't have the big interchangeable list anymore).
Castles and Crusades: Makes even more explicitly optional - sticks them in the back of the DMG and makes them something you can exchange class features for. - In some ways I like this best - it's basically a conversation with your DM about how to customise you character.

 

[Horwath]

I'm not really sure what the best solution to Feats is:

5e: tries to make them big and make them exchangable for ability score bonues: issue it somewhat works - but the ability score bonuses themselves distort the game somewhat and a lot of the feats aren't good enough.
13th Age: Makes feats mostly small things you gain every level that explicitly improve class features - this mostly works, and it's easy to homebrew to let a pc do something slightly off base, but some of them end up feeling like they add stuff that should have been part of the class features orginally (but at least you don't have the big interchangeable list anymore).
Castles and Crusades: Makes even more explicitly optional - sticks them in the back of the DMG and makes them something you can exchange class features for. - In some ways I like this best - it's basically a conversation with your DM about how to customise you character.

few suggestions:

1. remake all feats to current "half-feat" power level.
2. split them in combat and exploration/social category.
3. give combat feat, exploration/social feat and ASI separate pools.

I.E.

level	bonus
1​
2​	soc/exp feat
3​	comb feat
4​	ASI +1
5​
6​	soc/exp feat
7​	comb feat
8​	ASI +1
9​
10​	soc/exp feat
11​	comb feat
12​	ASI +1
13​
14​	soc/exp feat
15​	comb feat
16​	ASI +1
17​
18​	soc/exp feat
19​	comb feat
20​	ASI +1

if the sum of your ability scores is even at level 1, you can trade lvl11 combat feat slot for a +1 ASI or trade lvl12 ASI slot for any feat.
So you end up with all even scores.

levels 1,5,9,13 and 17 are empty as this is PB increase level.

then you can make separate classes have extra combat and/or exploration/social bonus feat slots wherever you think they need to be for balance sake.

 

[Don Durito]

Splitting a budget between combat and non-combat doesn't really feel lto me like it works for 5e. 13th Age or 4E yes, where big set piece battles are a feature but 5E isn't about fighting battles, it's about overcoming environments and you can do that by fighting or avoiding fighting.

 

[Horwath]

Splitting a budget between combat and non-combat doesn't really feel lto me like it works for 5e. 13th Age or 4E yes, where big set piece battles are a feature but 5E isn't about fighting battles, it's about overcoming environments and you can do that by fighting or avoiding fighting.

I would add that you can always trade combat feat for non-combat

 

[Don Durito]

I would add that you can always trade combat feat for non-combat

Oh I see. That makes sense. It's putting a limiter on combat features to maintain balance.

 

[Horwath]

Oh I see. That makes sense. It's putting a limiter on combat features to maintain balance.

this way you get 5 combat feats(or 6 if you trade lvl12 ASI if your starting abilities are even in sum).
that is current 2,5(or 3) excellent combat feats over 20 levels.

And it still leaves lots of room for ability improvements(well half of what it is now) and 5 or more non-combat "half-feats".
Yes, some exploration faets can be used in combat, I.E. proficiency+expertise in stealth or athletics, but that is less impact than -5/+10 feats or extra attack with polearms or armor damage reduction.

 

[GlassJaw]

It’s generally considered bad form to ascribe logic that isn’t being used, and then criticism that false logic.

What I’m saying is that people would opt out of feats even more if they involved more individual choices, for less benefit, in a much more granular system.

Not to mention that one of the major problems with feats in 4e and 5e, that some are just clearly more powerful than others, would be worsened by (at least) doubling the number of them. And they would more than double, in a system where you get more of them per character and the designers what every character to have plenty to chose from every time.

No thank you. I’d rather stick with the system where optimizers don’t look at feats until their third opportunity to take one because they can’t pass up +2 in their main stat, but a sizable minority use them eagerly and enjoy them as they are.

It's also bad form to reply with the equivalent of "that sucks" and offer no explanation.

As a game designer mentor would tell me over and over: "Don't do it the bad way." What you've described is the bad way.

Every game system with options will always have options that are "more powerful" than others. It's impossible to avoid. But it's clear that the "power" of a once-every-four-level feat has proven incredibly difficult for the designers to balance. I'd argue that of all the feats WotC has created, less than 10% of them even get considered by players.

The solutions I've seen almost always involve a massive overhaul of the feat system, and invariably, the discussion of "half-feats" comes up.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I envision a system where a player feels empowered to take a "fluff" feat that enhances their character concept instead of feeling paralyzed by the decision between an ASI or a "power" feat because of the rarity and importance of the choice.

 

[GlassJaw]

few suggestions:

1. remake all feats to current "half-feat" power level.
2. split them in combat and exploration/social category.
3. give combat feat, exploration/social feat and ASI separate pools.

Overall I like your foundation. I've been working on something similar.

I do think it can be accomplished without categorizing feats. The categories give you design rails but as @Don Durito said, it doesn't feel as 5E to me.

 

[Guest User]

With Actor, in many D&D games you'll be like "well that was a waste". Meanwhile, you'll use "Inspiring Actor" in every D&D game. Inspiring Actor is still not commensurable with +2 to an attack stat.

Except the feat wouldn't be used in every game, because many players are simply not interested in selecting Feats. A player that does not envision their character as giving the Crispin's Day speech from Henry da V, every hour on the hour...is never going to choose Inspiring Actor, no matter how mechanically beneficial it is.

I think your post is an excellent example of the PowerGamer perspective.
Power-gaming is not a pejorative term, in my lexicon. Power-gaming, striving to be at "Max Power", is a fun and entirely valid way to play.

Most Feats are not intended for, nor written for, Power Gamers.
This was true for 3e and it is true for 5e.
A small handful of Feats, are intended for Power Gamers.

The problem is 5e, instead of using sidebars, or just flat out explaining this in the book,
just presents the rules, and presumes readers will just understand this.

Monte Cook wrote an essay about this in 3e, in which he dubbed this design style as "Ivory Tower Design". Monte lamented that the D&D design team in 3e, missed an opportunity in 3e by, in essence, being coy in expressing rules intent.

5e continues the bad habit of playing coy, with rules intent.
The Cypher system does not, have this same habit. I have never read a Cypher system rules product and come away confused or unsure of the design intent.

That is the perpetual state of being for 5e.

 

[Blue]

well, I can only speak from my point of view. I am not in anybody else's head.

Sure, but I've seen your posts and you have good points - I'm sure you can imagine a single classed rogue, not try to dismiss a point because a multiclassed character with multiple prime abilities scores has a higher need for ASIs and therefore assume ASIs are the best for all characters.

problem is, that if you do not make new feats at the top of the power curve, they will be glanced over and ignored by 90% of the players.
And if you are designing a feat for 10% of the player base, you are wasting your time.

Luckily, we have feat breakdown from DnDBeyond, and it holds up feats beyond that list are commonly picked as well. So we have facts showing that isn't true. Even feats farily down the chart are picked half as often - a lot more than 10%. And there are plenty of feats not on your power list that are picked as often or more then the once theorized that 90% of the players take.

I think we have all the facts to say that a much wider selection of feats are picked by actual players than the narrow band you are comparing against.