Robert J. Schwalb Blog Discussion; Feats: Do We need them?

[Nemesis Destiny]

My preference would be to go the route of d20 Modern and split things up into "Feats" and "Talents". Feats would remain the combat-centric bonuses you could get, while Talents would become the non-combat bonuses that people tend to skip because they aren't as useful. So all the current skill related feats like Skill Focus or Long Jumper etc. as well as things like Linguist, Ritual Caster, Alchemist and the like, would all be Talents instead. This way there is a clear demarcation between the two types, and players would get the chance to select these more "roleplaying" styled abilities every couple of levels without feeling like they're gypping their character.

This would also cut down on the number of combat-related, fiddly-bit Feats that a player would have, solving that problem as well.

This is basically how I feel about it, too.

Combat feats (or ones that add to your power selection, etc) have no business competing with flavour and skill boosts, but I still see a place for both in the game.

 

[Magil]

I don't really agree with the idea of nixing feats, and actually, I like even the straight-up "math fix" fixed bonus feats. When I am growing a character organically (that is to say, actually playing it and leveling it up over the course of a campaign rather than generating an already mid-to-high level character), feats present me with interesting options of "what to take when," even if it's a minor bonus.

But I'm pretty easy to please. I could definitely see splitting off the more non-combat, skill-based feats into another sort of progression system entirely.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I've decided that I know what feats should do for me.

They should add breadth, not depth.

That is, they shouldn't give you any MORE power than you have now.

They should just give you different ways to use that power.

"Power" feats are in. They need to be balanced by level like other powers, but they're in.

"Multiclass" feats are in. They clearly need to be better than 4e's current version, but they're in.

"Racial" feats are in. They need to give you an actual ability you didn't have before, but they're in.

"Math" feats are out. +1's are for levels.

"Niche" or "Skill" feats are out. They're not going to be as good as the other choices.

Feats increase the amount of things you can do, but they don't let you do BETTER things than you can currently do.

Broadly speaking I agree with this but I would retain Skill feats, just silo the combat and non combat feats in to separeate things.

Their should be a place for the skill monkey character and a place for the skill focused campaign.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm in agreement with the general drift of Kamikazi's argument, but not the implementation details.

Powers would be about combat and nothing but combat. Feats would be about non-combat capabilities, and likewise nothing else.

Most feats (and powers) would be available to most classes. But if something flavorful needed to be limited to certain power sources or even classes--don't let the general rule of thumb keep the feat out of the game.

Characters get 1 feat per level in the heroic tier. Some feats would have effectiveness boosts that scaled automatically in the later tiers. Others might not. These you could keep if you chose, but could also retrain into something more appropriate in the later tiers. Basically, you get a feat every level, but you max out at 10. This makes higher level characters easy to manage, and is done for the same reason that powers are likewise limited in total numbers. It also contributes to keeping feat bloat down.

Feats can provide generalization or specialization, but the ones that contribute to a specialization are always substandard in power. Specializing is already its own reward, and inherently very powerful.

Feats would be another orthogonal dimension to skills, unlocking capabilities that were not already there, instead of implied or assumed. This would work similar to the 3E Track feat tacking onto Wilderness Survival skill, but much wider scope. For example, you take the "Merchant" feat, you get bonuses to your Diplomacy, Bluff, History, etc. when dealing in business. None of these bonuses stack with other feats, ever, because they are already substantial, if circumstantial.

 

[P1NBACK]

Get rid of feats for the core game. Add them as optional additions in splat books. This keeps the core game from getting mucked up by "feat taxes" and allows users who wish advanced complexity and options to add it onto their game. Specifying "optional" much like themes from Dark Sun, allows the DM to allow or disallow said options.

Best of both worlds. End of story.

 

[Incenjucar]

Dividing the game into sections just results in things being neglected and eventually falling to the wayside. The "Essentials" divide is bad enough.

 

[P1NBACK]

Dividing the game into sections just results in things being neglected and eventually falling to the wayside. The "Essentials" divide is bad enough.

So, you don't like Dark Sun's themes?

Nah, D&D has always had "sections" of the game. What do you think Unearthed Arcana is? It's an entire book dedicated to this kind of material.

What fails is trying to cram everything into a "core" game experience (like 4E tried to do with their PHB1,2,3,4,5,6,7,etc...).

Some of the best stuff to come out of 4E lately are these sort of "optional" tidbits, like Henchmen and Hirelings.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's taken us how long to get new themes?

Feats belong as part of the core game just as skills and damage types and at-wills do.

 

[P1NBACK]

Feats belong as part of the core game just as skills and damage types and at-wills do.

Clearly, they don't. Hence, this blog and discussion. Why don't you tell us why you think they belong?

It's taken us how long to get new themes?

New themes? Themes are optional Dark Sun campaign material. Write your own new themes for your game world.

 

[Incenjucar]

Clearly, they don't. Hence, this blog and discussion. Why don't you tell us why you think they belong?

Sure they do. Schwab may be excellent, but he can still be wrong. Obviously this is a subjective matter along with anything else in a game.

I already had a rather large post explaining why his assessment was flawed, so feel free to go read that as my response.

New themes? Themes are optional Dark Sun campaign material. Write your own new themes for your game world.

And this is exactly what happens if you don't have something as part of the core rules structure. You've rather directly proven my point. If feats aren't part of the structure of the game, they're at risk of becoming a memory, which will leave the many many many fans of feats quite screwed.