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

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe, there is no harm in allowing a cleric to get those maneuvers with feats... in my opinion just a normal trip is usually a 60-40 chance it works... which is still not so good. And if the cleric can gain advantage due to roleplaying, more power to him. I really want the figter to be able to take the healer feat and heal a bit. So I believe, it is fair.

In my opinion the expertise dice mechanic should be the fighters stick... it is not: hmmm... how do I get advantage on the roll, but instead he says "I di get advantage (and maybe even add the d6 to the higher roll). It is his expertise, that allows him to do those tricks with advantage, whenever he needs it (a limited times per encounter) and then have a reasonable chance to achieve his goal... advantage +d6 should be nearly guaranteed to win the opposed check... even against a giant his odds are reasonable.

So yeah:

normal guy: disadvantage -> fighter (2/encounter) normal + 1d6
normal guy with feat: normal -> fighter with feat (2/encounter) advantage +1d6

I believe adding 1d6 to a roll and gain advantage on top is a powerful ability, that does not reach too far out of bounds, but increases the odds so much, that it can be seen as an extraordinary ability.

 

[Sadrik]

I think it is extremely simple. Feats are just like spells. Meaning, spells can be defense boosts, they can be offensive punches, and most importantly they can be utility effects. Feats are just like that. They fill each of those niches, just like a spell can. I do not buy the feats should not give bonuses argument. What are they for then? Just like a wizard, when he levels up they have to choose between all three of those choices, offense, defense, and utility. So should the feat selection go as well.

My interpretation of how spells and feat go. Feats auto-scale, spells you have to memorize at a higher level to get a scaling effect. Feats auto-scale? Yes, the martial die type increases. Granted I would implement it differently than they have it but the core is sound. I think an effective way to think of feats is as powerful cantrips. At low level a feat only can add +1dX and at higher level it adds bigger bonus. It naturally scales. Spells on the other hand, other than cantrips which appear to auto-scale, need to be slotted into a higher level spell slot to get a bonus. This flip, from 3e spells auto-scaling and feats being static, will go a long way to balancing the martial/spellcaster divide.

I am fine with everyone having access to martial feats too. So long as the scaling mechanic for feats is reserved to martial characters (fighter and rogue types). Suppose everyone got a martial die to use their feat effects and fighters and rogues had much bigger effects because they have many more martial dice. This does not exclude a cleric from taking a martial feat but it does limit the effectiveness of the feat due to their less than stellar martial dice. Instead they may look elsewhere, to magic feats or utility feats. So scaling feats have to be there to match the scalability of spells.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As a result... up until this past packet, you could be a Fighter with the Marksman fighting style, and the Sharpshooter specialty. Two packages trying to accomplish the exact same thing.

Feature, not a bug.

Because here's what I see-- most of the Specialties already are mimicking the idea of Fighting Styles-- the Defender, Skirmisher, Reaper, Polearm Master, Ambusher, Swashbuckler, Sharpshooter etc. You basically are seeing the Fighter's equivalent to the Rogue's Scheme, the Cleric's Deity, and the Wizard's Tradition right there.

Interesting train of thought, and fairly true. But this is also a feature: you could conceive of a feat chain that would give ANY character the features of a cleric's deity or a wizard's tradition or a rogue's sceme.

Should not perhaps we go back to the idea that Feats (or Maneuvers or Exploits or whatever you want to call them) ARE the province of Fighters only?

I come right out the other side of that.

My thing is that class exclusivity isn't a Good Thing, generally speaking, because it hard-codes certain classes into the game. I don't want to see a game where you HAVE to take Class X to do Thing Y.

At the same time, I think classes should do something bigger than feats. Bigger than advantage/disadvantage. If a class is just "I do the same thing as everyone else, but X better by 10%!" that's a little weak sauce. Classes need to be more character-defining.

I'm a little aware that those are contradictory stances. Trying to think through them a bit...

But I think the idea would work fine as a module, just like the flip-side of that would work fine as a module (ie: classless D&D! ).

what should be the purpose of feats in 5e...

I find the idea of feats as subordinate to other game mechanics interesting and worth exploring.

So, being a Fighter grants you a Fighting Style, and you can use Feats to customize that style.

So, being a Wizard grants you a Tradition, and you can use Feats to customize within that tradition.

Feats, then, change some other game mechanic in a subtle way. Your Specialty doesn't let you do anything new or shiny, it just lets you spin what you can already do in a slightly different way.

That's also kind of a half-formed idea, though...hmm..

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I can accept the breakdown of what feats provide. Subclasses or Archtypes do a better job of providing variety and inspiration in a class than feats, and serve to make character creation simpler and more interesting at the same time.

Feats that represent general abilities that anyone can take should be considered individually. Some, such as Toughness, probably should simply be removed. Having a high Con score is what determines if you are tough. Others might be rolled into ability checks as general maneuvers. In the end, there may not be enough to justify the feat mechanic. But, then again, there might be. I'd have to do the work to know.

Feats could be used like spells to represent options shared across classes, but I would say this only makes sense if there are a lot of these shared abilities.

Finally, feats can be used to create unusual characters by allowing the class to do the heavy lifting, leaving feats free. But I think that Themes do this far better.

All in all, I think there is a strong case that feats, as we know them, are not the best tool for the job in D&D Next.

I should also point out that this reasoning does not necessarily apply to all d20 games. SWSE uses a class structure that makes feats an entirely natural extension of the system.

 

[Li Shenron]

I find the idea of feats as subordinate to other game mechanics interesting and worth exploring.

So, being a Fighter grants you a Fighting Style, and you can use Feats to customize that style.

So, being a Wizard grants you a Tradition, and you can use Feats to customize within that tradition.

Feats, then, change some other game mechanic in a subtle way. Your Specialty doesn't let you do anything new or shiny, it just lets you spin what you can already do in a slightly different way.

That's also kind of a half-formed idea, though...hmm..

Well, this was pretty much feats in 3e In that edition, feats were designed for a lot of different purposes, and am actually fine with that.

What I was suggesting here however, is that the designer first should decide what they want the purpose of feats in 5e to be, because it doesn't have to be the same as in 3e, and then "populate" the core game with a good number of feats.

I was totally ok with 3e feats which build on existing class mechanics, because the player could choose e.g. to boost her wizard's own features in a few different ways (metamagic, spell focus, item creation) OR instead boosts her generic features as a character (toughness, imp.initiative, ST boosts...). It was fine, it was like choosing between "improve your wizardness" vs improve something else. I actually would have also liked racial feats in core to "improve your elvennes" for instance.

But OTOH I would also be fine with a different approach limited to only generic feats.

What I am not so fine with, is going back to a Fighter class that just gets a few more feats numerically, but basically nothing of its own, and everybody else can easily cherry-pick the combat feats they want which basically means to get potentially the same goodies of the Fighter. This would be the same as a non-spellcaster who could cherry-pick spells from the Wizard, Druid, and Cleric list freely, getting just what they want but without taking levels in those classes (which among other things means not having to get a small HD and low attack bonuses).

This cherrypicking is not wrong per se... but it should be either for all or for no one! A game where everyone can cherrypick features from other classes is GOOD. A game where nobody can is GOOD. A game where everyone can cherrypick the Fighter but the Fighter cannot cherrypick the others is BAD. I don't think they have any plan to allow Ranger's favored enemy, Ranger/Paladin's spells or Cleric/Paladin's energy channeling to be available to anybody through feats.

This is why I suggested to go back to Fighter's exclusive Maneuvers, and then making "multiclassing feats" (e.g. "You gain one Fighter's Maneuver", "You gain one Rogue's Skill Trick", "You gain one Wizard's spells usable 1/day"), put them under a separate heading that says "allow these feats in your game if you want everybody to cherrypick on other classes' features".

This incidentally allows 4e-style multiclassing IIRC.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, this was pretty much feats in 3e In that edition, feats were designed for a lot of different purposes, and am actually fine with that.

My idea was more that a feat is specfically designed only to alter some other class mechanic.

Like a metamagic feat is designed only to alter spells; a combat feat should only alter manuevers, a skill feat should alter tricks, etc.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My thing is that class exclusivity isn't a Good Thing, generally speaking, because it hard-codes certain classes into the game. I don't want to see a game where you HAVE to take Class X to do Thing Y.

If we were talking about all of the classes other than the Core Four, I'd agree. But I do believe when it comes to the Core Four... each of them should have abilities that none of the other Core Four can do. And we already have this with the Cleric and the Wizard-- they both have spells that none of the other Core Four can do or replicate.

So if we want a way to Turn Undead... then yes, we HAVE to have a Cleric. If we want to be able to Stop Time... then yes, we HAVE to have a Wizard.

But if we want a way for someone to be able to be so skilled and trained as to go into hiding using only Lightly Obscuring terrain (rather than Heavily Obscuring)... why does this now need to be open to all the Core Four (not including a potential spell that could replicate it)? Why SHOULDN'T it be the province of the Rogue? Or if we want a way to be so well-trained in melee combat that they can Cleave through one enemy into another... why does this also need to be open to all the Core Four? If we are saying the Fighter is the best at fighting, shouldn't he have abilities that only he can do?

We keep saying we want to make the classes distinctive... but yet no one is willing to give any ground on anything OTHER than spells as to the abilities that allow classes to be so.

I find it kind of ridiculous.

And besides... aren't people always clamoring for really good multiclassing? If everyone can do anything else any other class can do, then what's the point of multiclassing then? Why is the idea that as a Wizard you aren't able to use Martial Arts until you've taken a level in a class that has said Maneuver available to them, an anathema to some people? I really just don't get it. If you're a wizard but want to be better at a martial attack style... isn't that EXACTLY what the multiclassing rules are for? Why on earth would we instead make it a feat that a Wizard can take for no rhyme nor reason other than he had a feat slot available?

I just don't get it.

 

[1of3]

My idea was more that a feat is specfically designed only to alter some other class mechanic.

Like a metamagic feat is designed only to alter spells; a combat feat should only alter manuevers, a skill feat should alter tricks, etc.

There is a profound difference between class features and spells. The majority of classes have spells, while other class features are reserved for one or two classes.

 

[Ratskinner]

All in all, I think there is a strong case that feats, as we know them, are not the best tool for the job in D&D Next.

I'm coming to agree.

Heck, I'm starting to feel the same way about a skill system.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So if we want a way to Turn Undead... then yes, we HAVE to have a Cleric. If we want to be able to Stop Time... then yes, we HAVE to have a Wizard.

I see that as potentially problematic, though. "Okay, the main antagonists in this adventure are undead, someone's going to HAVE to play the cleric!"

I think there's probably a continuum, but I really don't ever want any player at my table to feel like they're required to take Class X just because the game is like Y. Kinda lame, IMO.

We keep saying we want to make the classes distinctive... but yet no one is willing to give any ground on anything OTHER than spells as to the abilities that allow classes to be so.

I find it kind of ridiculous.

Part of this depends on how you view the function of a class in D&D. If only someone were to write, say, 1800 words or so on that topic....

I think a big part of the desire for exclusivity in a class is to ensure that the player gets to contribute in a unique way in play. If you play the fighter because you want to be the best at fighting, and the rogue comes along and is just as good, you might not feel like you're getting what you want out of your selection -- you want your character to be special at something that others can't do as well.

That doesn't necessarily mandate that a class be almost-entirely exclusive, though. You can get character distinction in a classless game.