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

[Walking Dad]

I purely dislike the idea of combat feats and one of the main Fighter abilities is "getting more". How often is it useful to be a master sword fighter AND a master whip fighter? If all martial classes can be masters in one style early in the career and there is no ingame reason to vary the weapon style, there is no reason to be mastering more styles instead of getting better in the one you follow since the beginning. This was the big fault in the edition that introduced feats and linked them to the Fighter class.

---

The dire wolves in GoT would be trained animals (anyone with money can purchase) or Animal Companions. They are not Familiars in any D&D sense.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would definitely like Feats to be completely optional, in every way.

Skills too.

Me too for sure... which is why I believe it's a mistake to have feats which are the only way to learn trap-finding and lock-opening, or to enable baseline combat actions.

I'm even starting to think that metamagic can be treated as an (optional, not in Basic) core mechanic, or alternatively confine it to a Wizard Tradition.

 

[Li Shenron]

The dire wolves in GoT would be trained animals (anyone with money can purchase) or Animal Companions. They are not Familiars in any D&D sense.

Isn't it so that one character has learned to see through his dire wolf's eyes? Definitely not something that you can train the pet to do!

 

[steeldragons]

Isn't it so that one character has learned to see through his dire wolf's eyes? Definitely not something that you can train the pet to do!

I believe that's a function of a power of the person...not connected to the animal, per se.

 

[Li Shenron]

I believe that's a function of a power of the person...not connected to the animal, per se.

In fact it's the person who takes the feat

 

[Dausuul]

What I don't understand is why some people have a problem with feats. Is it because those people don’t like the feat bloat and/or fiddly feats in 3rd and 4th edition? Is it that they feel homogenized because any player can take them to customize their character? Because they do not feel that way to me. They are one of the most defining customization options ever created, and they do the job very well. D&D Next Feats are proving to be less fiddly than previous editions, and are looking more like functional, concept-defining, and concept-supporting abilities. The designers are on the right path in my opinion.

I hate feats because, as a rule, the most effective feats are not concept-defining or concept-supporting in the least. They're things like Weapon Focus, Toughness, and Maximize Spell; they give you bonuses to things you are already, by virtue of your class, supposed to be good at. They add a lot of fiddling and tweaking to character generation for next to no benefit. I was hoping 5E would avoid this, but I can already see it's starting down the same road. In principle, feats can be what you describe, but in practice they never seem to achieve it.

Even when feats do support a concept, they're excessively finicky. Take dual wielding. I'm not convinced that should be a feat at all*, but if it is, it should be one single feat: You take Dual Wielding, and now you can fight with a weapon in each hand, at a power level comparable to a sword-and-boarder or a two-hander. Finis. Done. Instead, you have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops. 3E requires you to get multiple feats to dual wield effectively, and you still won't be as good as your buddy with a greatsword (who was investing those feats in Weapon Focus and Power Attack). 4E puts the onus of dual wielding on your class and power choices, but it also offers some dual wielding feats on top of that, just to see if you were paying attention. And in the current playtest packet, we have no fewer than three dual wielder feats. Presumably you are expected to take them all if you want to keep up as a two-weapon fighter. Ooops, so much for fleshing out your character concept with feats... if you want to dual wield, that's 3 of your 4 feats right there.

The real problem with feats is that WotC can't seem to make up their mind what they're for. Are they for fleshing out your concept, or for playing the optimization game? If they're for fleshing out a concept, then they should be designed with that in mind; a feat should not be able to make you better at fighting than a featless fighter, or better at spellcasting than a featless wizard. Conversely, if they're for optimization, they should be designed for that, and concept-building can go somewhere else.

(As for feats as the fighter build mechanic, they've already said that's going away. If they want to support old-school, BD&D-style gaming, then feats must be optional, which means bonus feats can't be a class feature for any class.)

[SIZE=-2]*The more I think about it, the more I think dual wielding should be something any PC can do. If you want to play a fighter who wields two weapons, you just pick up two weapons and go to town. We don't make you take a feat to know how to fight with sword and board, or to wield a two-handed weapon. Fighters are already proficient with all weapons, from a Renaissance rapier to a bronze khopesh from the Old Kingdom of Egypt. Why does it strain our disbelief so much to let them know how to dual wield as well? Conversely, a wizard is going to be just as crappy with two weapons as with one.[/SIZE]

 

[jadrax]

I think a big problem with Feats is a lot of the time justifying the existence of a feat involves placing restriction on the players that did not exist before the Feat existed.

I much prefer an open structure where players can just attempt whatever they want.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I can certainly understand the sentiment of wanting the "customizeable" part of feats available for every character (as an option for those who actually use feats)-- basically a lot of the General category of feats fall into that bucket. But I believed and said many times during 3E *and* 4E that they REALLY needed to split those off from the combat related ones. "Feats and Traits" were the buzzwords of the day. And I STILL believe that should be the case.

Given my druthers... here is what I'd prefer to see for character generation:

1) Choose a Race. For your 'Basic' game, you have your Core Four (human, dwarf, elf, halfling). For Standard games, throw in the halfelf, halfork, gnome, and dragonborn.

2) Choose a Class. For your 'Basic' game, you have your Core Four (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard), all of which have a single pre-decided build. For Standard games, throw in the other classes (Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Barbarian, Bard et. al.), and open up the various builds (Styles, Schemes, Deities, Traditions, Favored Enemies, Oaths etc. etc.)

3) Choose a Background. For your 'Basic' game, you skip this step and instead the Core Four classes each get a bonus to a certain ability check (Fighter/STR, Rogue/DEX, Cleric/CHA, Wizard/INT). For Standard games, you have the long list to choose from each of which gives 4 skills and a special bonus feature.

4) Choose a Trait. This would be the replacement for the General category of Feats. At chargen for Standard games, you choose one (or two) Traits that are created precisely to be useful to almost ALL the classes in some form or fashion. You don't get more over time, instead they just give you a hint of what kind of person you are to begin with. Some Traits might include:

Alert - you cannot be Surprised.
Durable - when you roll Hit Dice to regain HP, roll two and take the higher
Fit - you gain extra HP equal to your level
Fleet - you gain a +4 bonus to Initiative checks
Magical - you gain two cantrips from either Cleric, Wizard, or Druid lists
Reflexive - on your first turn of combat you have Advantage against any enemies not yet acted
Thick-Skinned - you gain a +1 bonus to AC

And you can come up with a bunch others. Basically... Traits should be those abilities that are innate (and thus unlearned) to a person, affecting those parts of the character that do not fall under the purview of the skill system. The same sort of abilities we see assigned as Racial features. But because Traits are an add-on to give an extra bennies (or two) to characters, they do not have to be used in the Basic game.

***

And now that you have these four pillars of chargen taken care of... you can move all the "Expert Feats" into a silo for the Rogue as his Class Features (lets call them Knacks the hell of it). All of these Knacks make use of the Skill die, exchanging it for other skill-based abilities. Just like Spells, Knacks are assigned a level of power... and just like spellcasters, Rogues receive 1 or more 1st level Knacks at 1st Level, 2nd level Knacks at 3rd Level, 3rd level Knacks at 5th Level and so on. And for ease-of-use... the game might bundle a set progression of Knacks together into a Rogue Scheme. This Scheme would grant your Knack bundle, plus give a couple extra features-- the same way selecting Deities and Traditions does for the Cleric and Wizard. Your Acrobat, your Assassin, your Thug, your Charlatan etc.

For the Fighters? All the Martial Feats are also silo'd off to become its own group of class features which we call Maneuvers. Like the other Core Four classes... Maneuvers are divided into levels of power, and the Fighter acquires them using the same table of every-other-level. If we keep the idea of Expertise dice, the Fighter spends them to trigger his Maneuvers. And just like the others... the Fighter has several different Styles to select from that bundle a set progression of maneuvers together, plus grants a few additional features for that Style. Your Reaper, Defender, Skirmisher, Sharpshooter etc.

In terms of the Basic game? The Basic Fighter receives a Class Feature every-other-level which is one of the Maneuvers pre-selected (usually the easiest-to-grasp and easiest-to-adjudicate ones). Same thing for the Basic Rogue and pre-selected Knacks.

And finally as I mentioned before... because Fighters, Rogue, Clerics, and Wizards all use the same table for when they acquire a new level of Maneuver, Knack or Spell (and truth be told, the Druid would also fall in here as a full caster as well)... you can mix and match for multi-classing much easier. Plus... you now also have these three silos of Maneuvers, Knacks, and Spells that the other classes can possibly gain access into at a reduced rate of acquisition. So the Monk might be able to gain Maneuvers at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th, rather than at the Fighter's 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, and 17th. The Monk won't gain full access to ALL of the Maneuvers list obviously (and probably might only have a small select few to choose from if they're not outright pre-selected for him)... but at least the Monk can get some additional martial abilities from an individual combat-focused silo. And the same would hold true for the Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger.

 

[Walking Dad]

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.

 

[Wyckedemus]

I can certainly understand the sentiment of wanting the "customizeable" part of feats available for every character (as an option for those who actually use feats)-- basically a lot of the General category of feats fall into that bucket. But I believed and said many times during 3E *and* 4E that they REALLY needed to split those off from the combat related ones. "Feats and Traits" were the buzzwords of the day. And I STILL believe that should be the case.

Given my druthers... here is what I'd prefer to see for character generation:

1) Choose a Race. For your 'Basic' game, you have your Core Four (human, dwarf, elf, halfling). For Standard games, throw in the halfelf, halfork, gnome, and dragonborn.

2) Choose a Class. For your 'Basic' game, you have your Core Four (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard), all of which have a single pre-decided build. For Standard games, throw in the other classes (Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Barbarian, Bard et. al.), and open up the various builds (Styles, Schemes, Deities, Traditions, Favored Enemies, Oaths etc. etc.)

3) Choose a Background. For your 'Basic' game, you skip this step and instead the Core Four classes each get a bonus to a certain ability check (Fighter/STR, Rogue/DEX, Cleric/CHA, Wizard/INT). For Standard games, you have the long list to choose from each of which gives 4 skills and a special bonus feature.

4) Choose a Trait. This would be the replacement for the General category of Feats. At chargen for Standard games, you choose one (or two) Traits that are created precisely to be useful to almost ALL the classes in some form or fashion. You don't get more over time, instead they just give you a hint of what kind of person you are to begin with. Some Traits might include:

Alert - you cannot be Surprised.
Durable - when you roll Hit Dice to regain HP, roll two and take the higher
Fit - you gain extra HP equal to your level
Fleet - you gain a +4 bonus to Initiative checks
Magical - you gain two cantrips from either Cleric, Wizard, or Druid lists
Reflexive - on your first turn of combat you have Advantage against any enemies not yet acted
Thick-Skinned - you gain a +1 bonus to AC

And you can come up with a bunch others. Basically... Traits should be those abilities that are innate (and thus unlearned) to a person, affecting those parts of the character that do not fall under the purview of the skill system. The same sort of abilities we see assigned as Racial features. But because Traits are an add-on to give an extra bennies (or two) to characters, they do not have to be used in the Basic game.

***

And now that you have these four pillars of chargen taken care of... you can move all the "Expert Feats" into a silo for the Rogue as his Class Features (lets call them Knacks the hell of it). All of these Knacks make use of the Skill die, exchanging it for other skill-based abilities. Just like Spells, Knacks are assigned a level of power... and just like spellcasters, Rogues receive 1 or more 1st level Knacks at 1st Level, 2nd level Knacks at 3rd Level, 3rd level Knacks at 5th Level and so on. And for ease-of-use... the game might bundle a set progression of Knacks together into a Rogue Scheme. This Scheme would grant your Knack bundle, plus give a couple extra features-- the same way selecting Deities and Traditions does for the Cleric and Wizard. Your Acrobat, your Assassin, your Thug, your Charlatan etc.

For the Fighters? All the Martial Feats are also silo'd off to become its own group of class features which we call Maneuvers. Like the other Core Four classes... Maneuvers are divided into levels of power, and the Fighter acquires them using the same table of every-other-level. If we keep the idea of Expertise dice, the Fighter spends them to trigger his Maneuvers. And just like the others... the Fighter has several different Styles to select from that bundle a set progression of maneuvers together, plus grants a few additional features for that Style. Your Reaper, Defender, Skirmisher, Sharpshooter etc.

In terms of the Basic game? The Basic Fighter receives a Class Feature every-other-level which is one of the Maneuvers pre-selected (usually the easiest-to-grasp and easiest-to-adjudicate ones). Same thing for the Basic Rogue and pre-selected Knacks.

And finally as I mentioned before... because Fighters, Rogue, Clerics, and Wizards all use the same table for when they acquire a new level of Maneuver, Knack or Spell (and truth be told, the Druid would also fall in here as a full caster as well)... you can mix and match for multi-classing much easier. Plus... you now also have these three silos of Maneuvers, Knacks, and Spells that the other classes can possibly gain access into at a reduced rate of acquisition. So the Monk might be able to gain Maneuvers at 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th, and 18th, rather than at the Fighter's 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 13th, 15th, and 17th. The Monk won't gain full access to ALL of the Maneuvers list obviously (and probably might only have a small select few to choose from if they're not outright pre-selected for him)... but at least the Monk can get some additional martial abilities from an individual combat-focused silo. And the same would hold true for the Barbarian, Paladin, and Ranger.

I disagree with some of your points.

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.

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. In your example, Traits, Knacks, and Maneuvers are all customizing options outside of class abilities. Those are feats.

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.

...in my opinion.