Feats are fine as they are, at least for my tastes. Frankly, I'd prefer going back to the days when you didn't advance stats just by leveling, but having stat bumps as an alternative to feats is acceptable to me.
I must say I disagree with the OP. History shows that feats have been a major power creep in the two editions they have been included in. Not only that, they tend to get stuck with carrying any design weight that doesn't easily fit into the rest of the system, or 'fixes' wedged in after the fact (expertise feats anyone?). 5e needs some tweaking, but I think it is going in the right direction.
The problem I have with the "super feats" is that they make characters very same-y and cookie cutter. Everyone who wants to be an archer is going to take Archery Master, and that's that. I also dislike the feats like Loremaster, which I feel just give too much stuff at once. There isn't any way to gain one skill or language at a time, as you'd think people would, instead BAM! you suddenly get 3 langauges and skills instantly. That just doesn't sit right with me at all.
It also feels bad with so many feats granting proficiencies that the people the feats are "for" already have. Even if it's optimal, it still feels like you've screwed up somehow and are wasting resources.
But, really, I think the system could be redeemed very easily with a different list of feats.
Also along with a choice of a mini-feat or a +1 to an ability why don't you throw in the option of language or skill so all the options are on the table (a mini-Loremaster feat if you will)
I don't know, I think there's a much simpler solution than that.However, the proficiency problem cannot really be solved by a different list of feats IMO, unless you mean to have really a lot of feats, to create variants where e.g. Archery Master version 1 grants bow proficiency (so it's meant for those who don't already have it) and Archery Master version 2 doesn't grant bow proficiency but replaces it with something else (and is therefore meant for those who already have the proficiency). But you'd still get some players who would like that "something else" but also needed the proficiency.
-Remove all incidental proficiency gains from feats
-Optionally, add those proficiencies as requirements
-Put in feats to gain proficiency in those things
Well, that's certainly the best solution for this problem, but small feats cause problems as well. The trade out being only being +1 apparently bothers people, simple large abilities have to be subdivided into smaller more complex components, and the individual choices matter less.The best solution is always reducing the size of feats, at the end...
This is probably how I'd handle it. You get a broad weapon or armor group... or even just all armor or all weapons.perhaps weapons would still need groups in a similar way as armors, so technically you might still have someone who wants to be proficient only in Full Plate and is forced to take all heavy armors, but at least the scale of the problem is significantly reduced, compared to having to get something very different.
How does having smaller feats instead of bigger ones result in more power creep?
I really dislike the way they're doing feats now. While I like the idea of being able to trade in feats for ability score increases in principle, I dislike the current implementation. Since taking a feat means you miss out on ability score increases, many, if not most players will opt to at least max out their primary ability score first. That means most players won't even get a feat at all until level 8, if not even later. I also hate not getting a feat at 1st level. They seem to think that people will be overwhelmed by choices, but that is just not my experience (and I find it actually a bit insulting). Newer players can have a veteran player help them, or they can just opt to take an ability increase instead. That's not hard.
Here's how I think they should do feats:
* Characters get a +1 ability score increase at every 4 character levels (4, 8, 12, etc).
* Characters get a feat at 1st level, 3rd level and every 3 character levels thereafter, like 3e (1, 3, 6, 9, etc).
* A character can exhange a feat for a +1 ability score increase.
Breaking it down this way accomplishes several things:
* People aren't "punished" for taking feats. They still get precious ability score increases.
* By having smaller feats, players have a much greater ability to customize their characters compared to the bulk package feats they're using now.
* Feats are still entirely optional. People who hate feats can still trade them for ability score increases; feats are just worth 1 ability point instead of 2.
* A character who trades every feat for an ability increase would have +12 total ability points by level 20. That sounds like alot, but that's only a couple more than what most classes in the last playtest packet get. That's a +6 difference in ability modifiers (which is what actually matters) for the cost of taking no feats whatsoever. I think that's fair and not at all game breaking, especially with the ability score cap of 20.
That's something that's new to this edition, and one of the few things about it I don't like.
Feats are not what made characters overpowered at high level. A 2nd edition 20th level wizard is far more powerful than a 3e 20th level fighter, even with its 18 or so feats.
Crap feats are crap feats, and don't have to exist - period. Just because there were some bad feats in 3rd and 4th editions doesn't mean there would have to be any in Next.
The problem I have with the "super feats" is that they make characters very same-y and cookie cutter. Everyone who wants to be an archer is going to take Archery Master, and that's that.
There isn't any way to gain one skill or language at a time, as you'd think people would, instead BAM! you suddenly get 3 langauges and skills instantly. That just doesn't sit right with me at all.
I want them to flip that. I want class features to be big eventful choices, something where the choice of multi-classing means something. I want feats to be smaller and less important choice that add to your character (split up the triple feats) paired with a +1 stat pump.
So...You want 3.x and 4E? Then go ahead and play those; nobody is forcing you to move.
Make those features significant to both the class and the subclass (not every level mini abilities). Then offer feats at all other levels.
Yes I think right now there is not enough character variability.So you want to give less class features, yet then give 12 feats to every character? At this point, you're basically creating small variables between classes, with the majority of differential depending primarily on the feats that a character chooses.
There are a lot of interesting things in character customization with background and sub-class choices. But feats, to me, are looking like a blunder. A real missed opportunity.What WotC is doing with this edition is making the leveling easy for both the person who wants to simply get a template to level by and the person who likes crunching numbers.
The key here is that at its simplest form, the game needs to be like 2e: Choose a race and class, never pick anything again.There are a lot of interesting things in character customization with background and sub-class choices. But feats, to me, are looking like a blunder. A real missed opportunity.
There are a lot of interesting things in character customization with background and sub-class choices. But feats, to me, are looking like a blunder. A real missed opportunity.
2e also had weapon proficiencies, non-weapon proficiencies, and kits. 5e encompasses these under background and sub-class. 5e also has feats and/or stat boosts. Like I said before, players looking for the simple game would look no further than stat boosts. 8 class features and 12 stat boosts over all 20 levels, that is a lot simpler than they have right now.The key here is that at its simplest form, the game needs to be like 2e: Choose a race and class, never pick anything again.
I think creating builds is now a major piece of D&D, whether old timers like me like it or not. If the rug was pulled out, I think many would not see the game as something they would want to play and continue on with PF, 3.x or 4e even. Character customization should not be eschewed as a bug.Plus, I'm fairly certain they are trying to get rid of remembering "fiddly bits" and creating "builds". Small feats tend to encourage people to mix and match feats to create extremely niche characters with powerful mixes of abilities. For new players especially this can be daunting. Heck, I'm a rules lawyer who spends his time reading D&D message boards and the idea of picking feats in both 4e and 3.5e gives me nightmares. So many feats...so many combinations....have to read them all to make sure I'm not missing one that would fit my build better. I really like the major themed feats from 5e because it allows me to look at the feats and say "Do I want to be offensive or defensive? I'll take the offensive feat. That makes me good at two handed weapons and at doing damage." Which is much easier to remember and deal with than "Alright, I have this feat that gives me +5 damage against prone targets. This feat that knocks people prone when I do 15+ damage in a single hit and this feat that gives me +5 to save against fire spells."
That only fixes 1/2 the problem. You still wind up with a bunch of class features that are fiddly for players not interested in that.It is much easier to introduce though the playtest a simple game with a "fat feats" mechanic and then once the rule book comes out reflect a modular system which can be adopted, with a possible feat module which allows for the fragmentation of the "fat feats" to mini-feats, allowing the players who prefer detailed custom-made characters to design them through the feat module.