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

[Ratskinner]

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.

I think the point is...that you don't really have an awful lot of design space or function left remaining for the feats. At least, not and make them worth getting one so often as we are used to. I mean, if I were re-doing 3e, I'd definitely re-examine feat design and structure using thoughts very similar to yours (both from this post and previous.) However, with maneuvers for fighters and expertise-y stuff for rogues...5e simply doesn't need them as much. The primary purpose behind feats is to make Fighter A different from Fighter B. If you have maneuvers that's gone because you have a better way to do it.

I do not agree that feats are such a stunning mechanic that "...it really would be a pity to remove it as a whole from the game, it's the ultimate game mechanic for character customization..." While I think that a few relatively universal "themes" or the like could hang around, things like the Stark kids' wolves as familiars are better handled as a DM just giving them the familiars. Which, I think, would make a fine example for the DMG "making the game your own" chapter.

 

[Ratskinner]

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?

Tough to tell on that last question. Supposedly these playtests are combinations of "advanced" or "standard" options and the "basic" game was pretty well set. However that doesn't seem to square with some differences between this playtest and the last, IMO.

I do think that inherent complexity is the enemy. In a class-based system I think that means either very few classes with great piles of simple fiddly-bits or, even better, a zillion classes without the fiddly bits but with good multiclassing. The "middle road" seems a nightmare for everyone.

 

[Li Shenron]

The primary purpose behind feats is to make Fighter A different from Fighter B. If you have maneuvers that's gone because you have a better way to do it.

Well, this is why I said that the should take a break and re-discuss what should be the purpose of feats in 5e...

In 3ed feats had purpose #1 of allowing characters of specific classes to boost their unique features, which means make PC A different from PC B, not just fighters but all classes. For instance, metamagic and item creation feats allowing wizards to focus on different things, while others could just take spell focus and some even take generic feats. I agree with you that this purpose is served very well with flexible class abilities such as Maneuvers and Skill Tricks. However we don't have the same for other classes, which instead have "deities" and "traditions" which are equivalent to "fighting styles" and "schemes" but are lacking the option of free customization. OTOH introducing a mechanic of metamagic abilities to the wizard would "silo" every wizard into being a metamagician even if they can choose different metamagic tricks, so from this point of view having Traditions (or Druidic Circles and Cleric Deities) and then let the DM/group create their own achieves another type of flexibility, that of being free from silos.

But 3ed feats also had the purpose #2 of feats, of having access to special boosts that are not related to classes: proficiencies, extra HP, ST bonuses, Init bonus... This purpose can stay in 5e, and could be expanded quite a lot if we wanted to!

Then there was purpose #3 of combat stunts for all, i.e. allowing everyone to step on the Fighter's toes. I think this should really go away, but sadly it is the strongest single cliche in the game... The only way out IMHO is to make combat stunts part of the combat rules (which everybody can do) as long as those stunts aren't straight better than doing a regular attack for damage (basic two-weapon fighting rules are an example, 3e charge is another example). When an ability really works straight better than than, it could become a Fighter Maneuver and be exclusive to Fighters just like Rangers have their own spells and favored enemies plus unique abilities. Why should the Fighter be banned from Rangers' abilities (unless multiclassing) and Ranger's be allowed combat boosts? It's a mistake plain and simple.

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, this is why I said that the should take a break and re-discuss what should be the purpose of feats in 5e...

In 3ed feats had purpose #1 of allowing characters of specific classes to boost their unique features, which means make PC A different from PC B, not just fighters but all classes. For instance, metamagic and item creation feats allowing wizards to focus on different things, while others could just take spell focus and some even take generic feats. I agree with you that this purpose is served very well with flexible class abilities such as Maneuvers and Skill Tricks. However we don't have the same for other classes, which instead have "deities" and "traditions" which are equivalent to "fighting styles" and "schemes" but are lacking the option of free customization. OTOH introducing a mechanic of metamagic abilities to the wizard would "silo" every wizard into being a metamagician even if they can choose different metamagic tricks, so from this point of view having Traditions (or Druidic Circles and Cleric Deities) and then let the DM/group create their own achieves another type of flexibility, that of being free from silos.

I was just using fighters as an example. I think it makes more sense (the way things seem to be going, anyway) to wrap that customization into those sub-class specialties. Spells serve as the primary method of character differentiation with Wizards and Clerics (and presumably some other classes, too.) I think the real question is with classes like Barbarian and Assassin. Those classes seem to be rather narrow to me, and I can't see a whole lot of room/need for differentiation.

But 3ed feats also had the purpose #2 of feats, of having access to special boosts that are not related to classes: proficiencies, extra HP, ST bonuses, Init bonus... This purpose can stay in 5e, and could be expanded quite a lot if we wanted to!

Honestly, though, those category 2 feats....I'm not impressed with their necessity for the game. The "proficiencies" part seems unnecessary, and the others don't really do anything to differentiate characters, IMO. Plus, folks will start calling them "feat taxes".

Then there was purpose #3 of combat stunts for all, i.e. allowing everyone to step on the Fighter's toes. I think this should really go away, but sadly it is the strongest single cliche in the game... The only way out IMHO is to make combat stunts part of the combat rules (which everybody can do) as long as those stunts aren't straight better than doing a regular attack for damage (basic two-weapon fighting rules are an example, 3e charge is another example). When an ability really works straight better than than, it could become a Fighter Maneuver and be exclusive to Fighters just like Rangers have their own spells and favored enemies plus unique abilities. Why should the Fighter be banned from Rangers' abilities (unless multiclassing) and Ranger's be allowed combat boosts? It's a mistake plain and simple.

I disagree a bit. If the universal combat stunts aren't better, I wouldn't expect to see them used. They'd be wasted ink and people would complain that they are too complicated for what you get because they have to resort to the books on the rare occasion someone pulls something out of the air. What I would instead prefer to see would be each "combatant" class given some maneuver-y things. Fighters would certainly get the most varied and most powerful, but the other classes could enjoy some thematically specific maneuvers as well.

 

[jadrax]

Personally I would just like to see the Fighter get a bonus* when performing any 'Combat Stunt', essentially removing all the feats like 'Improved Bull Rush' and the like.



*possibly level based, maybe like a Skill Die.

 

[Weather Report]

Personally I would just like to see the Fighter get a bonus* when performing any 'Combat Stunt', essentially removing all the feats like 'Improved Bull Rush' and the like.



*possibly level based, maybe like a Skill Die.

I recall them mentioning something along those lines awhile back, like a Fighter would get a bonus die to Str check related actions.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It seems like the fighter maneuvery should not overlap with those feats. As of the last update, you could not trivially make a guardian and take the feat and the maneuver which you can use to defend as bot use up your reaction. Also, it is a mathematical exercise, which one is better to use. In the new packet it is the same...

I find it unsatisfying, that you can´t make thematic choices as they overlap. On top of it, they are resolved differently.
Why not give the fighter extra reactions, aor as mentioned above, bonuses when performing maneuvers.

It could be easily resolved as:

everyone: maneuver with disadvantage
feat or fighter: maneuver normal
both: maneuver with advantage or twice per turn (as long as he has expertise dice to spend)

So a fighter can chose the same maneuver to be really good at it or use it more often or tkae different ones to be more versatile.

 

[Meatboy]

First off gonna say that I love feats. Probably my favorite mechanic that was added in 3e. That being said I agree with Ratskinner. With the class proliferation that has happened over the last few editions there seems to be a "base class" for every occasion. Feats are becoming redundant because their is no need to use them to differentiate between fighter A and fighter B or Wizard A and B. If I want to be a fighter of a different stripe I could be a ranger, barbarian, warlord, warden, avenger etc. The list is quite extensive. I don't think that as long as there is this contiuation of niche classing that feats do anything other than add another layer lists to the game.

On a personal note I'd much rather have the 4 core classes and rather robust list of feats for customization. But thats just me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It could be easily resolved as:

everyone: maneuver with disadvantage
feat or fighter: maneuver normal
both: maneuver with advantage or twice per turn (as long as he has expertise dice to spend)

So a fighter can chose the same maneuver to be really good at it or use it more often or tkae different ones to be more versatile.

In terms of the "Combat Stunts" concept... this is precisely the way I had thought they probably should be handled, and I'm glad to see I'm not alone.

Bull Rush
Charge
Disarm
Grapple
Knock Down

All of these are stunts that many people believe everyone should be able to attempt, because they are theoretically not so difficult that they require precise combat training to do (whether or not that is actually true is a different story.) However, the issue always came up that if anyone could do these kinds of things, then what did the Fighter have to call their own, since they WERE the class that had that precise combat training?

But like UngeheuerLich suggests... I think we can get the best of both worlds once again via the fabulous Disadvantage mechanic.

Everyone can attempt these stunts. Most people, however, aren't very good at it... thus, they suffer Disadvantage when they try. BUT... what is good about using Disadvantage instead of just a penalty... is that this Disadvantage can be offset. If a person is able to find a way to gain Advantage during the fight, they can then use one of these stunts with no issue. It becomes just a regular action to accomplish, and thus even those without really strong combat training might still be able to find that one time when things open up for them and they can pull off that Trip attack at no penalty.

This is a marked difference to 3E... where most of these actions were so heinous in their penalties to the untrained that no one ever bothered to try them unless they had acquired the improved feat, because they were almost assured to fail. But using Disadvantage (which could be offset by gaining Advantage) means that while most PCs probably won't bother to try these actions normally... in those times when they can get Advantage, they might actually give it a go *and* be successful at it.

Now we move onto the Fighter. He *is* combat trained. He can learn how to do these actions all the time. To my mind... this is where having Maneuvers works well-- options a Fighter can take that removes the Disadvantage on the action automatically. A Fighter who has been trained to Disarm people can use the Disarm action without penalty all day long. And in those rare occasions when the Fighter can gain Advantage (like when he attacks from hiding)... he gets to be really good at it, because he actually does now have Advantage on this attack. This, to me, makes the most sense, and also truly gives the Fighter something to call his own.

Now yes... I know people who love the idea of "feats for everyone!" are going to say that these maneuvers should be feats that everyone can take-- so that for instance, a Cleric could take the feat that allows him to Bull Rush without Disadvantage. But to me... I really have to ask "Why?" If a Cleric is already putting all of his efforts into getting a full suite of Spellcasting... why should he also get to take combat abilities that should be the hallmark of the Fighter? After all... we don't have feats out there that allow a Fighter to grab a random 3rd level spell... so why should we let the Cleric intrude on the Fighter's schtick? If the Cleric WANTS to intrude in that way... then I think either he should multiclass into a level of Fighter (and thus get the combat training necessary to learn that feat/maneuver), or else there should be some more combat-centric SPELLS that the Cleric can prepare and then cast and use to accomplish the deed.

The Cleric is a Spellcaster. If we want him to have the opportunity to Grapple, Trip, or Disarm people without Disadvantage (like the Fighter)... let there be spells for him to choose from that might help him do that! Isn't that the point of being a Cleric? You use Magic to accomplish what you want to do. And giving him feats on top of that is overkill and intrudes on what the Fighter should be, in my opinion.

 

[Gorgoroth]

But like UngeheuerLich suggests... I think we can get the best of both worlds once again via the fabulous Disadvantage mechanic.

Everyone can attempt these stunts. Most people, however, aren't very good at it... thus, they suffer Disadvantage when they try. BUT... what is good about using Disadvantage instead of just a penalty... is that this Disadvantage can be offset. If a person is able to find a way to gain Advantage during the fight, they can then use one of these stunts with no issue. It becomes just a regular action to accomplish, and thus even those without really strong combat training might still be able to find that one time when things open up for them and they can pull off that Trip attack at no penalty.

This is a marked difference to 3E... where most of these actions were so heinous in their penalties to the untrained that no one ever bothered to try them unless they had acquired the improved feat, because they were almost assured to fail. But using Disadvantage (which could be offset by gaining Advantage) means that while most PCs probably won't bother to try these actions normally... in those times when they can get Advantage, they might actually give it a go *and* be successful at it.

Great post. I do think other classes though should be able to bypass disadvantage (i.e. gain better training) on a particular maneuver at the cost of the feat.

But yeah, the disadvantage is a great way to allow anyone to do stuff. Opens the game wide up! Wotc, do this, please!! Allow anyone to try to do stuff but with disadvantage.

I'd say that's the way it should work for Tracking too. Most people can try, but they really suck at it. And the skills could have different effects whether you have advantage or disadvantage or normal. Actually, same thing with maneuvers. Sort of the equivalent of spontaneous metamagic for melee / nonmagical stuff.