D&D 5E Removing feats as a universal class mechanic

[Wyckedemus]

Just got a thought... why should anyone be able to train stealth without becoming a rogue character or learn special combat moves without becoming a fighter character? Everyone accepts that you cannot learn magic in your spare time while pursuing a non spellcaster class.
3.0 introduction of rogue skills into the non-weapon proficiencies (old name of the skills) and the possibility for everyone to learn fighting styles with a common resource (feats) has weakened the niche protection for eery class but the spellcasters.

Walking Dad, there are most certainly a myriad of classes and archetypes that can be trained in Sneaking without having to multi-class into Rogue. Rangers, Special Forces, Illusionists, any squishy that wants to avoid physical combat, and of course there are Backgrounds with Sneak. Any class can take any Background and be Sneaky if that suits their concept.

...in my opinion.

 

[Dausuul]

Just got a thought... why should anyone be able to train stealth without becoming a rogue character or learn special combat moves without becoming a fighter character? Everyone accepts that you cannot learn magic in your spare time while pursuing a non spellcaster class.
3.0 introduction of rogue skills into the non-weapon proficiencies (old name of the skills) and the possibility for everyone to learn fighting styles with a common resource (feats) has weakened the niche protection for eery class but the spellcasters.

The current playtest packet has the "Arcane Dabbler" feat, which allows noncasters to pick up a couple of wizard cantrips. There were similar feats in 3E and 4E, though not in the core books.

Admittedly, these feats don't allow a noncaster to match the depth of a caster's ability; a 9th-level rogue can't pick up a feat and cast a 5th-level wizard spell, but a 9th-level wizard with a high Dexterity can pick up skill training and be as stealthy as the rogue. (Although I should note this was not the case in 3E, due to cross-class restrictions.) But stealth is only a small part of the rogue's bag of tricks. Evasion, sneak attack, and the like are a lot harder to acquire.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Feats definitely need to stay, AD&D feels archaic and quaint without them. And their proficiency system wasn't so good either. (though certainly better than the last iteration). I think the designers know that feat bloat was a huge problem, they've acknowledged as much and certainly the proof is in the pudding, there are only a handful of feats, and only Weapon Mastery seems like repeating those mistakes to me (at first glance). It's super OP and makes you want to pick it rather than something useful, just for moar damage!

As long as they keep certain guidelines in place, feats can be a very good thing. A lot of these can be termed "feat taxes" but for different reasons:
-No "must have" feats, whether it's combat or otherwise because they're so good / so much better than everything else.
-No "must have" feats for a given class, because the class design is poorly made and stand stand up on its own.
-No "class only" feats, pref feats with no explicit class prereqs
-No "must have" feats that are prereqs in a chain, but that you might never use or want to use E.g. the current dual wielding chain does not make sense if you intend to keep using shortswords, or a double weapon, up through the levels

-No endless list of cruddy feats.
-If a feat is broken relative to a game rule, or a game rule is broken, errata the feat or the rule or both, don't just pump out another feat to fix the first one or the core game. 4e Failed at this so many times, it was incredibly frustrating and lazy. Everyone complained all the time about feat-based fixes.

-Keep feats very limited in scope, and possibly only allowable as a specialty chain that the DM approves.
-Recommend DM approval of every feats chosen by the character, not just say, players can play whatever they want regardless of whether they are exploiting an OP combo that wasn't predicted by the rules. Generally a feat should be nerfed by the game designers, after massive community consensus is reached, but not often at all and certainly not arbitrarily. Wotc fixed and broke so many things repeatedly, and disrupted many PCs and campaigns unnecesserily, even those of us who weren't playing broken OP builds. Playtest each feat in the community thouroughly, run some stats on its effects, + get some of the char op veterans to critique stuff privately if you have to.

 

[Dausuul]

Feats definitely need to stay, AD&D feels archaic and quaint without them.

Says you. Personally, I think eliminating feats makes the game feel so much cleaner and cruft-free. I tried making a character using the latest playtest packet, and was blown away by how quick and fun it was, and how easy it was for me to focus on concept instead of mechanics. And then I sat down to pick feats, and found myself weighing "This fits my concept" against "This will be most useful in play," just like in 3E and 4E, and all the excitement was gone.

Obviously there is a large contingent of people who want feats, and so there will be feats. But they must be an optional mechanic. It needs to be possible to play 5E without them.

 

[1of3]

I agree that Combat Maneuvers were a good idea. With the current framework, I'd do something like this. It's mostly a matter of presentation:

Combat Maneuvers
Combat Maneuvers add certain special stunts to your attacks. You can only use a single combat maneuver per turn (and you can only use it once). Fighters gain maneuvers at certain levels. Other characters can gain up to two maneuvers with the Combat Move and Combat Contest feats. (You can choose each feat once.)

Maneuvers are grouped into two groups. Movement Maneuvers grant extra movement as part of an attack. This extra movement is in addition to the standard movement all characters have. A character who hasn't learned a movement maneuver cannot attempt it.

Contest maneuvers allow a character to initiate a contest after a succesful attack. Roll to attack normally, apply damage, then resolve the contest. For example, the Disarm maneuver allows to initiate a strength contest to disarm an opponent. Characters who lack a contest maneuver can still attempt the contest, but they cannot do so as part of an attack. They must expend their complete action. Fighters can spend a single Expertise Die and add it to their contest total.[/i]

There are several advantages to this approach:
- Unified mechanics, and clear rules for interactions of different maneuvers (Use only one).
- Fighters have specific benifits (Expertise Dice)
- Other characters can gain a single Move and a single Contest via feats. This is similar to the limited number of spell accessible via feats.
- Contests can still be attempted untrained, allowing for improvisation.
- Weapon specific feats and specialties can stay as they are, confirming that the Fighter doesn't focus on single weapons but is trained in all of them.

 

[Blackwarder]

I hate the name feats, there I said it!
I prefer the name traits.

With that out of the way I would like also to say that I don't want traits to be a. a list of small discreet abilities and bonuses and b. be combat centered.

I want big character defining traits, for example a leadership trait that will allow the character to command a small NPC army or a cleave feat that allow a weapon using character to kill as many enemies in a round as she have levels, I would like a hunter trait that will roll up both tracking in the wilderness and basic survival skills etc.

Warder

 

[DEFCON 1]

First, Backgrounds are one of the best things that have been implemented for new players. It gives RP identity as to their character's origins and often gives them purpose, or hooks. They need to stay.

Oh no, I'm not suggesting getting rid of Backgrounds at all. They're an important part of the Standard game. It's only the Basic game where they won't get used.

Secondly, I disagree that "Maneuvers" and "Knacks" should be accessible only as separately-siloed class features, and if your class does not have that feature, you can never choose it unless you multiclass, weakening your preferred archetype by dipping.

By agreeing that multiple classes should have access to these knacks and maneuvers you've siloed, in my opinion you are proving that feats should exist. Who are the designers to say that a Fighter shouldn't be able to choose Open Locks over yet another Shield feat? There needs to be customizable options outside of class abilities.

I would suggest that if you are a Fighter that wants to be good an opening locks... being a Fighter/Rogue multiclass isn't "weakening" your preferred archtype, but is in fact emblematic of your preferred archetype.

The moment you start opening ALL "non-spell" abilities to every single class... you weaken the base classes. We've had this argument before-- what makes a rogue a rogue? Doesn't being a Rogue have to give you something that is unlike what any other class can do? And the same thing goes for Fighter.

Specialties inform *how* a character does their job. If a paladin wants to be a master shield user to defend the innocent, he should be able to choose abilities (not fiddly modifiers) that support that.

I agree that feats should not be fiddly modifiers. They should be character-defining abilities/options. Development can tighten up on the current Design.

Which is why I have no problems with the Paladin gaining access to the Maneuvers silo, because in this example, you're right. After all... they current have access to the Spells silo in the most recent packet, and I know many people would like to see a non-magical version of the Paladin exist. And being able to exchange Spells for Maneuvers would probably make many people happy.

But that doesn't really work if every class is getting a Speciality and a bunch of feats already. What can Paladins right now get besides Spells to create a non-casting version? The four or five "extra damage" and "damage mitigation" abilities the current Fighter has that they spend their Expertise Dice on? I think we're hearing from many people that those abilities are very underwhelming.

And the reason those abilities are underwhelming is because the really cool stuff are coming via the Feats.

 

[Ratskinner]

Ditching universal feats is a great idea that wish I'd thought of.

I am totally down with getting rid of feats. I think with the increasing development of class specialities (or subclasses, whatever) that feats are kinda pointless. Leaving pointless mechanics around is a bad idea...it makes designers think they need to "improve" them later to show that it wasn't a mistake to include them.

I also think its advantageous to have the subclass/theme/specialty tied directly to classes and folding feats into that makes a bunch of sense. That let's them deal directly with the other class features in more meaningful ways. Also, I hate reading through a long list and then having to filter out all the feats that "don't apply" to my class.

For cross-class specialization...I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a few "universal" specialties like "Arcane Dabbler" that let you put a splash of mage in your rogue or fighter.

 

[Li Shenron]

Also, I hate reading through a long list and then having to filter out all the feats that "don't apply" to my class.

Yes, and as I mentioned in my previous post, I'd even remove prerequisites so that you won't have to filter out any feat because they would all apply.

Prerequisites makes sense (a) for feats that obviously improve a specific ability, so that if you don't have it at all then the feat doesn't apply [ex. a metamagic feat requires you to be a spellcaster], (b) when the feat has a variable effect depending on a bonus but you might have a penalty [ex. a feat granting your Wis bonus to AC requires you to have minimum +1 Wis], (c) in feat chains.

(a) and (b) are actually implicit prerequisites, and if we want to make all feats for everyone then case (a) goes away. Requisites for (c) should really be there only when a feat is a direct improvement of a previous feat, but they are not needed at all if the 2 feats in a chain follow a general theme but are effectively separate abilities, such as
Power Attack - Cleave (and many others) in 3ed. Why can't a PC learn Cleave without PA, since she's not using PA while using Cleave? This just becomes a "feat tax" and restricts character design flexibility.

What I am skeptic of is feats that have prerequisites that are arbitrary and non-essential. For instance, requiring a minimum score in Dex to get a certain archery feat. What exactly does this kind of requirement add to the game? Why would it be unacceptable a PC having that feat without having high Dex, if we're not in case (b)?

These are just stuff thrown in for flavor, as "only the tough can take Durable", but truth is that the tough are probably less interested than the frail in taking that feat, and this just results in some restriction to creativity. Most archers already have high Dex so the prerequisite for most archery feats will be moot, thus it will only penalize characters who aren't min-maxed, and the most original character concepts/builds.

 

[Walking Dad]

The current playtest packet has the "Arcane Dabbler" feat, which allows noncasters to pick up a couple of wizard cantrips. There were similar feats in 3E and 4E, though not in the core books.

Admittedly, these feats don't allow a noncaster to match the depth of a caster's ability; a 9th-level rogue can't pick up a feat and cast a 5th-level wizard spell, but a 9th-level wizard with a high Dexterity can pick up skill training and be as stealthy as the rogue. (Although I should note this was not the case in 3E, due to cross-class restrictions.) But stealth is only a small part of the rogue's bag of tricks. Evasion, sneak attack, and the like are a lot harder to acquire.

I know skills and feats are in the playtest. But should they be a core part or part of some advanced ruleset? For my understanding, multiclassing should be a core concept instead, with taking levels in a class representing training in the individual "methods" (skill, combat, magic).
If a player wants to be able to sneak, he should take levels in a class that can (like AD&D 2nd rogue & ranger in the core rules - currently not sure if the bard could, too).
If they absolutely want to make totally customizable characters, they have to abandon the Class system altogether.

Please mind you that I like all the fiddly feat and skill stuff, I just don't see the need to have it at the simplest form of the game, like feats being a class feature. I sometimes run games for my kids or total rpg novices and feats and skills are only making the game more complicated for them.
Or have they abandoned the plan of a tiered complexity?