Ratskinner
Adventurer
Count me in that category. If I have to deal with something, it had better be important.
Between the in-class specialities and backgrounds, I have difficulty seeing much place for feats.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Legends and Lore: Uber Feats eat Prestige classes and Paragon Paths or give +1 to ability
- Thread starter gyor
- Start date
Count me in that category. If I have to deal with something, it had better be important.
Between the in-class specialities and backgrounds, I have difficulty seeing much place for feats.
Caster save DCs are based on primary ability score.
On the other hand, casters tend to be SAD while noncasters are MAD, so there's a case for giving fighters more ability points. Still seems weird, though.
I get what WotC is going for, but there are some very inelegant bits as others have pointed out. At the end of the post I have some ideas about how to mitigate them, while keeping the spirit largely intact.
The inclination for feats to be optional per character (so characters with or without them can play together at the same table) does also inconvenience those who would rather not deal with them ever, and leaves open "temptation" for players who prefer to do without but feel compelled to look over any list of abilities that are, in principle, available to their character. I can't think of any solution where whether or not to use feats is a per-character choice that wouldn't involve this sort of tradeoff, though, so it isn't unique to the current proposal. (I personally feel this is a reasonable tradeoff to attempt because saying "no feats ever" is a much easier table rule than trying to balance feats with some default replacement, as this entire thread demonstrates. The goal of more players compatible with more tables is, over all, a noble pursuit. That said, I have plenty of sympathy for those who feel this does not serve them best even if the mechanical balance were sublime.)
I think there may be a way to smooth out some of the bullet point issues. What if we got rid of the stark choice between +1 vs. a feat? For example, suppose feats granted something cool, but also granted +1 to a related ability score if it is below a certain value.
Example feat:
Necromancer - You can raise some zombies, etc. When you take this feat raise your Constitution by +1 if it is 13 or less.
In lieu of a feat one might choose to increase any two different ability scores, but subject to similar limits, perhaps as a function of their sum. The notion being that characters are always training, but going from a 10->11 is relatively easier than going from a 15->16, so a feat with relatively weak impact might allow 15->16, while one with relatively strong impact might not. This encapsulates some of the feeling of a point buy without the book-keeping. A character that concentrates on brawny feats might organically increase Str or Con by choosing such feats, but only to a point. Eventually the awesome feats they want won't be able to raise that score any more, but there might be a slightly less awesome feat that does. Or they can choose an awesome feat that helps a different ability score. In short, the +1 xor feat choice turns on smoothly, and only if the character chooses to develop in that direction. This is also in keeping with the spirit of class or background influencing ability scores by telling how the character has chosen to develop.
This should also mitigate the sting of odd ability scores since they would probably be accompanied by a feat. It also provides opportunity for characters with weak ability scores to catch up (but never surpass) characters with strong ones if they concentrate on appropriate feats. I also think it may be possible to use this to remove the hard-cap on ability scores without losing bounded accuracy. As a design principle one simply does not write feats which permit increasing a 20->21, for example. However, a race or template might grant more flexibility here. For example, suppose that races didn't grant an ability score bonus but instead let the character treat a particular score as lower than it is for the purposes of whether it can be increased or not. That means they have a larger "cap", and it is easier for them to raise a score to any particular value, but unless they actually develop the character in that direction it doesn't necessarily come into play. This kind of approach may be especially helpful to navigate the thorny territory of bounded accuracy and monster PCs, which are pretty much inevitable at some point during any edition.
If feats aren't in use how does the ability score increase work? Perhaps it is as simple as "increase by +1 as many as two ability scores whose current total is k or less", where k might depend on the character's level. For example, if at first level k=16, then one might raise a single 16 to 17, or two 8s to 9s. The key is a good tradeoff between raising a single larger score or multiple smaller ones in a way which respects bounded accuracy. There are lots of potential variations, but I need to think about it more. I think it could, however, prevent at least some of the rush to the ability score cap while making it easier to estimate the relative value of feats vs. ability score increases in the context of bounded accuracy. Optimization is still possible, of course, but diminishing returns are built into the system. This idea does introduce path dependence into ability scores (since increases depend on what you have, and therefore on when you take it), and I admit I don't like that.
The weirdest shift I see in this idea is that the marginal utility for some feat can actually be lessened by having a better ability score. This certainly cuts against the grain, although I think it can be conceptually justified. In any case, starting with a lower ability score one can, at best, catch up, but never surpass.
- The even/odd nature of ability scores being useful really hurts the +1 ability xor feat choice.
- A +1 has diminishing usefulness once the ability score cap is reached in the most important or two scores.
- Feats increase in power with level, so defining a proper relative value between a +1 and a feat is practically a lost cause at any level.
- This means the marginal utility of a +1 is greatest at low levels, so everyone from rational optimizers to those with the common cognitive bias for avoiding risk (even when non-optimal) will tend to pump ability scores early, delaying cool stuff until later.
- Maintaining bounded accuracy with a hard-cap is IMHO inelegant in general, but conspicuously inelegant when almost everyone is bound to bump up against it for at least one score.
The inclination for feats to be optional per character (so characters with or without them can play together at the same table) does also inconvenience those who would rather not deal with them ever, and leaves open "temptation" for players who prefer to do without but feel compelled to look over any list of abilities that are, in principle, available to their character. I can't think of any solution where whether or not to use feats is a per-character choice that wouldn't involve this sort of tradeoff, though, so it isn't unique to the current proposal. (I personally feel this is a reasonable tradeoff to attempt because saying "no feats ever" is a much easier table rule than trying to balance feats with some default replacement, as this entire thread demonstrates. The goal of more players compatible with more tables is, over all, a noble pursuit. That said, I have plenty of sympathy for those who feel this does not serve them best even if the mechanical balance were sublime.)
I think there may be a way to smooth out some of the bullet point issues. What if we got rid of the stark choice between +1 vs. a feat? For example, suppose feats granted something cool, but also granted +1 to a related ability score if it is below a certain value.
Example feat:
Necromancer - You can raise some zombies, etc. When you take this feat raise your Constitution by +1 if it is 13 or less.
In lieu of a feat one might choose to increase any two different ability scores, but subject to similar limits, perhaps as a function of their sum. The notion being that characters are always training, but going from a 10->11 is relatively easier than going from a 15->16, so a feat with relatively weak impact might allow 15->16, while one with relatively strong impact might not. This encapsulates some of the feeling of a point buy without the book-keeping. A character that concentrates on brawny feats might organically increase Str or Con by choosing such feats, but only to a point. Eventually the awesome feats they want won't be able to raise that score any more, but there might be a slightly less awesome feat that does. Or they can choose an awesome feat that helps a different ability score. In short, the +1 xor feat choice turns on smoothly, and only if the character chooses to develop in that direction. This is also in keeping with the spirit of class or background influencing ability scores by telling how the character has chosen to develop.
This should also mitigate the sting of odd ability scores since they would probably be accompanied by a feat. It also provides opportunity for characters with weak ability scores to catch up (but never surpass) characters with strong ones if they concentrate on appropriate feats. I also think it may be possible to use this to remove the hard-cap on ability scores without losing bounded accuracy. As a design principle one simply does not write feats which permit increasing a 20->21, for example. However, a race or template might grant more flexibility here. For example, suppose that races didn't grant an ability score bonus but instead let the character treat a particular score as lower than it is for the purposes of whether it can be increased or not. That means they have a larger "cap", and it is easier for them to raise a score to any particular value, but unless they actually develop the character in that direction it doesn't necessarily come into play. This kind of approach may be especially helpful to navigate the thorny territory of bounded accuracy and monster PCs, which are pretty much inevitable at some point during any edition.
If feats aren't in use how does the ability score increase work? Perhaps it is as simple as "increase by +1 as many as two ability scores whose current total is k or less", where k might depend on the character's level. For example, if at first level k=16, then one might raise a single 16 to 17, or two 8s to 9s. The key is a good tradeoff between raising a single larger score or multiple smaller ones in a way which respects bounded accuracy. There are lots of potential variations, but I need to think about it more. I think it could, however, prevent at least some of the rush to the ability score cap while making it easier to estimate the relative value of feats vs. ability score increases in the context of bounded accuracy. Optimization is still possible, of course, but diminishing returns are built into the system. This idea does introduce path dependence into ability scores (since increases depend on what you have, and therefore on when you take it), and I admit I don't like that.
The weirdest shift I see in this idea is that the marginal utility for some feat can actually be lessened by having a better ability score. This certainly cuts against the grain, although I think it can be conceptually justified. In any case, starting with a lower ability score one can, at best, catch up, but never surpass.
Last edited:
variant
Adventurer
You apparently have not read this thread.
dd.stevenson
Super KY
Man, I've just never seen a feat that makes me glad feats were invented. I'm not sure whether that's the content writers' fault, or whether feats are just a lousy design space. (Or whether feats just scratch an itch that I've never felt.)
But I *am* pretty sure that stat bonus feats aren't going to change my POV on this.
But I *am* pretty sure that stat bonus feats aren't going to change my POV on this.
Rune
Once A Fool
These ideas seem like reasonable improvements. They look just about as simple as the system talked about in the article, but do look like they would smooth over the problems. I particularly like that they would help out MAD characters more than SAD ones without completely shutting down the possibility of focusing on a single stat, if desired, nor making selecting a feat necessarily less appealing.
Another thing that I think hasn't really been looked at is how classes that get more feats (non-casters, likely) will also have better saves in the long run than other classes. Personally, I don't think that's a problem--casters will be more powerful than non-casters by virtue of their casting--it's only fair that non-casters get more ability boosts and/or potent feats. (Kind of like how in Trailblazer, the non-casters tend to have more action points to use for cool stuff because casters have to use them to regain spells.)
Sadrik
First Post
Feats are synonymous with class features, or at least upper level ones coming from PrCs are. I really like that. I am playing in a 3e game right now and I was recently going back and perusing the feats and PrCs and thinking to myself wow this is crazy. What was crazy? PrCs are way to finicky with the requirements to get into them, that cuts out creativity, trying to finagle cross-class skill points and feat combinations and get things to come out right is really hard. PrC's class features are what you are looking for. Now if you pick a PrC feat you get the feature without the jumping through the calculations hoops. You want that power from the abjurant champion? Boom you got it, no need to multi-class into a whole new class to get it. This in my mind is a very positive thing.
Level requirements on feats. No, I do not like this. I would rather have the feat scale automatically like cantrips do. Take power attack at low level and it gives you more punch as you level up. That said I can see some more powerful effects requiring a certain level, do you want your assassin to do a studied death attack? That is not a first level ability. Although it could be though and just scaled up as you leveled up.
Another thing to requirements for feats has been way too high for 3e and 4e feats. 5e has lowered them somewhat but I say lower them more, eliminate the requirements. I mean do you really care if your 10 Strength wizard takes power attack? No one would do that. The thing is that character design becomes so much easier when requirements go away almost entirely.
I am completely unsold on the +1 ability application of feats. I will have to see it in play. The idea is to make those who do not want to use feats still competitive with players who are using feats. I feel like this is a false dichotomy. My say for those who do not want feats, simply do not use them. DM campaign decision... done. No one would have an issue with this. Or have them auto-picked for you.
I also want more of the class features stripped out of the character classes. Take them and make them selectable within the class or open them to the general feat pool, either way. Basically my thought is classes would have just enough to show their core competencies and then open the can o worms for the rest of it. Clearly a class system with a subsystem of interchangeable parts that allows for customization and accounts for the core competencies.
One other thing, bloat. What was said in one of the other articles. You only get one shot to do it right. So do it right. We dont want to see 15 feats that are trying to cover the same ground all with slightly different takes. If it is an archery feat or tree of feats. I want those archery feats to be great and applicable. No garbage feats or waste of space chaff feats. If thought of as class features, the design space can be well developed and cared for.
Level requirements on feats. No, I do not like this. I would rather have the feat scale automatically like cantrips do. Take power attack at low level and it gives you more punch as you level up. That said I can see some more powerful effects requiring a certain level, do you want your assassin to do a studied death attack? That is not a first level ability. Although it could be though and just scaled up as you leveled up.
Another thing to requirements for feats has been way too high for 3e and 4e feats. 5e has lowered them somewhat but I say lower them more, eliminate the requirements. I mean do you really care if your 10 Strength wizard takes power attack? No one would do that. The thing is that character design becomes so much easier when requirements go away almost entirely.
I am completely unsold on the +1 ability application of feats. I will have to see it in play. The idea is to make those who do not want to use feats still competitive with players who are using feats. I feel like this is a false dichotomy. My say for those who do not want feats, simply do not use them. DM campaign decision... done. No one would have an issue with this. Or have them auto-picked for you.
I also want more of the class features stripped out of the character classes. Take them and make them selectable within the class or open them to the general feat pool, either way. Basically my thought is classes would have just enough to show their core competencies and then open the can o worms for the rest of it. Clearly a class system with a subsystem of interchangeable parts that allows for customization and accounts for the core competencies.
One other thing, bloat. What was said in one of the other articles. You only get one shot to do it right. So do it right. We dont want to see 15 feats that are trying to cover the same ground all with slightly different takes. If it is an archery feat or tree of feats. I want those archery feats to be great and applicable. No garbage feats or waste of space chaff feats. If thought of as class features, the design space can be well developed and cared for.
Originally I didn't like the ideaof tying feat acquisition to classes, but the more I've thought about it the more potential I see. Rather than getting rid of specialties, they could be wrapped up with your "subclass" choice.
As an example, lets say that the wizard gets two feats, one at 1st level and another at 8th (not saying this is the right amount, this is just an example). John decides to make a wizard, and is looking through the wizard traditions. School of evocation catches his eye, and it reads:
CANTRIPS: Blah, Blah, Blah
SPELL TACTICIAN: Blah, Blah, Blah
SCION OF THE INNER PLANES: Blah, Blah, Blah
SUGGESTED FEATS: 1st level-Maximize spell, 8th level-Heighten Spell
The rogue would gain a similar entry in his rogue scheme, perhaps gaining feats at 1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th (again, just making up numbers for the sake of the example).
This method has some advantages.
1) It is easier to eliminate dead levels that might be created as a result of multiclassing.
2) There has been a tension in previous packets between giving the rogue and fighter iconic abilities and not restricting other characters from getting them. This system could have iconic abilities listed in a rogue scheme or fighter fighting style. This would ease character creation and help to insure that your specialty doesn't have any useless feats for you. However, people who wanted to make a fighter who grew up on the streets and worked as a thief when younger, or who has some magic talent, or just want to do there own thing can still "dumpster dive" if they want. Tables that want only "iconic" characters can simply rule suggested feats only.
3) This one isn't so much a perk as it is dispelling a myth. I've read some people claiming that the wizard would be less customizable than the fighter. Wizards have been MORE customizable than the fighter in the last two editions of dnd. There is a huge amount of customization in selecting your spell list. Even 4th gave the wizard access to more daily powers "known" than any of the other core classes. Certainly, some classes may end up with less customization, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you still have enough customization to make a "living, breathing" character as opposed to a cookie cutter one, you're still good.
As an example, lets say that the wizard gets two feats, one at 1st level and another at 8th (not saying this is the right amount, this is just an example). John decides to make a wizard, and is looking through the wizard traditions. School of evocation catches his eye, and it reads:
CANTRIPS: Blah, Blah, Blah
SPELL TACTICIAN: Blah, Blah, Blah
SCION OF THE INNER PLANES: Blah, Blah, Blah
SUGGESTED FEATS: 1st level-Maximize spell, 8th level-Heighten Spell
The rogue would gain a similar entry in his rogue scheme, perhaps gaining feats at 1st, 4th, 7th, and 10th (again, just making up numbers for the sake of the example).
This method has some advantages.
1) It is easier to eliminate dead levels that might be created as a result of multiclassing.
2) There has been a tension in previous packets between giving the rogue and fighter iconic abilities and not restricting other characters from getting them. This system could have iconic abilities listed in a rogue scheme or fighter fighting style. This would ease character creation and help to insure that your specialty doesn't have any useless feats for you. However, people who wanted to make a fighter who grew up on the streets and worked as a thief when younger, or who has some magic talent, or just want to do there own thing can still "dumpster dive" if they want. Tables that want only "iconic" characters can simply rule suggested feats only.
3) This one isn't so much a perk as it is dispelling a myth. I've read some people claiming that the wizard would be less customizable than the fighter. Wizards have been MORE customizable than the fighter in the last two editions of dnd. There is a huge amount of customization in selecting your spell list. Even 4th gave the wizard access to more daily powers "known" than any of the other core classes. Certainly, some classes may end up with less customization, but that is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you still have enough customization to make a "living, breathing" character as opposed to a cookie cutter one, you're still good.
I favor a single progression overall, despite my personal enjoyment of bonus feats and non-uniform character advancement generally. As I see it, the major table options for any game where feats can be traded for ability score increases (or really any mechanical benefit) are as follows:
1) The table chooses not to have feats or ability score increases. The game should run well this way.
2) The table lets people choose to use feats or not, but players who dislike them can use their lightweight default. The game should run well this way.
Tables using option 2 can make class-dependent feat progression work in terms of balance, at least in principle, because the fundamental unit of balance is the sum of class features plus feats (i.e. they go into a single "silo"), while the exact weight given to each isn't that critical. For tables using option 1, however, the only unit of balance defined is class features and a class-dependent progression actually disrupts balance.
In fact, a 3e-style system (shared progression plus class-dependent bonus feats) is less disruptive to option 1 than giving each class its own feat progression with no shared baseline. With bonus feats at least it is clear which feats are supposed to contribute to class power, so one can ignore the baseline feats and just have a few bonus feats to deal with. If every class has its own unique progression no such clear separation exists, especially once multiclassing gets involved.
The realization I've had writing this post is that if WotC avoids class specific feat progressions then the game completely free of feats that many posters in this thread want is absolutely possible if the table is willing to give up ability score increases at the same time. One could then have the following different takes:
1) No feats or abilities scores increases for anyone.
2) Feats or ability score increases, each player can decide and they can decide each time they get a feat.
3) Feats or ability score increases, each player can decide when they first make the character, and must stick to it.
4) Feats only.
5) Ability score increases only.
As long as the feat/+1 tradeoff is made smartly the game should run well at all of those tables. The first table is at a globally different level of character power than the last 4, but some standard tweaks to encounter design could keep it easily playable with "standard" adventures.
That might make design of some classes harder (as you noted casters vs. non-casters, but also the elements kerleth talks about above) but it could go a long way to making more people happy about the overall structure of the game. I like feats a lot, so maybe I'm wrong, but I think if WotC had presented things such that feat and ability score increases taken as a unit are explicitly optional, and in a controlled way, the overall reception might have been sunnier.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
