Robert J. Schwalb Blog Discussion; Feats: Do We need them?
- Thread starter Aegeri
- Start date
The main thing I want to see happen with feats is meaningful choice. When I look at a feat, I don't ever want to think "Why would I ever want this?" (e.g. most Tribal feats) or "Why would I ever not want this?" (e.g. ___ Expertise, Resilient Focus). Remove the cruft, and either remove the must-haves or build them into the levelup progression.
Secondarily, I'd like not to have to sacrifice combat prowess for skill challenge/out-of-combat capability. I can ask a DM up-front how much of each is likely to be important in her game, but things don't always come out as planned. It'd be nice to have skill/breadth-of-character picks come from a different pool than the killing-things-and-taking-their-stuff pool.
To refine it further, I'd like "feats" to resemble the plain-English term they borrow. A feat is some spectacular display of strength or skill. A feat should give me some new, clever capability or upgrade an existing capability in a way that makes people sit up and take notice. "Ooh, you can do that?" Buying off penalties, situational bonuses, and new tricks are the sweet spot of feat design, for me. D&D4 feats as they stand, as Mr. Schwalb accurately describes, are all over the place as far as what they do and mean.
Secondarily, I'd like not to have to sacrifice combat prowess for skill challenge/out-of-combat capability. I can ask a DM up-front how much of each is likely to be important in her game, but things don't always come out as planned. It'd be nice to have skill/breadth-of-character picks come from a different pool than the killing-things-and-taking-their-stuff pool.
To refine it further, I'd like "feats" to resemble the plain-English term they borrow. A feat is some spectacular display of strength or skill. A feat should give me some new, clever capability or upgrade an existing capability in a way that makes people sit up and take notice. "Ooh, you can do that?" Buying off penalties, situational bonuses, and new tricks are the sweet spot of feat design, for me. D&D4 feats as they stand, as Mr. Schwalb accurately describes, are all over the place as far as what they do and mean.
. Your blog post brought up many of the ideas my co-DM and I have been discussing for house rules (and a couple more. It's like you get paid for this or something). I don't think you're wrong.lol. Cool! I can do that too!
"And, you've proven MY point. There are many fans of D&D that are screwed because they don't like feats, therefore, feats should be left optional!"
See how silly that sounds as an argument?
Imagine a group who finds themes far more interesting than feats. But, damnit, they keep coming out with feats! We're getting screwed!
Nah. I mean, why not build a solid foundation, that's simple, elegant and functional - and then build upon that with ideas that work (and maybe don't work). And, you're not left creating 4,000+ aspects of the game [feats] that are largely irrelevant.
Addendum: As RJS said, most of them are covered by other territories in the design now. Feats are just an imported artifact from an old design philosophy (and one I personally find makes the game far more "fiddly" than necessary to be compelling and complex).
Instead, devote resources and time to new ideas or fleshing out ideas you've published that fans are clamoring for more of.
Yah dig?
Last edited:
Barastrondo
First Post
I could say goodbye to feats as long as there were a sufficient tweak to the skill system that would obviate problems like "You have three skills. You will only ever have three skills, because you are a fighter. If you wanted more skills you should have wanted to play a rogue or a bard."
The trick about class-based systems is that they have an extra obstacle to overcome when it comes to providing character variety: optimally, a class should represent an archetype rather than a stereotype. Non-weapon proficiencies got players thinking about how "fighter" could mean "pirate" as well as "knight", in a meaningful fashion. You could probably scrap the feat system and retain this, but I'd want to see the versatile archetypes of a class kept as a design goal, both in and out of combat.
The trick about class-based systems is that they have an extra obstacle to overcome when it comes to providing character variety: optimally, a class should represent an archetype rather than a stereotype. Non-weapon proficiencies got players thinking about how "fighter" could mean "pirate" as well as "knight", in a meaningful fashion. You could probably scrap the feat system and retain this, but I'd want to see the versatile archetypes of a class kept as a design goal, both in and out of combat.
Incenjucar
Legend
Nah, doesn't work that way. Nobody forces you to take feats anymore than they force you to take paragon paths or epic destinies. 
Locutus Zero
First Post
My single biggest problem with feats is the sheer number of them. I think getting rid of the nigh-mandatory ones and the super lame ones would help, as would defining better what feats are meant to do. At level 1 I feel like a person should have 30-60 feats to choose from. Maybe there are more out there he doesn't qualify for, but he should only see 30-60 in the CB.
I also agree with getting rid of conditional things that can't be reflected on the character sheet.
I also agree with getting rid of conditional things that can't be reflected on the character sheet.
Last edited:
Incenjucar
Legend
I have no problem with numbers of options. Frankly, for WotC, the alternative to more options is starting over with a new edition or just writing fluff books.
The issue with feats is the lack of organization and balance between them. On the plus side, Essentials is actually working to fix this up. However, there's a lot of stuff from pre-E that needs some serious cleaning up, and sadly because of the feat tax issue, feats are always going to be a little messed up in this edition.
--
Edit:
Man I like the fiddly things, so long as they are easy to work with, like Headsman's Chop. I think the problem here is formatting more than anything else.
The issue with feats is the lack of organization and balance between them. On the plus side, Essentials is actually working to fix this up. However, there's a lot of stuff from pre-E that needs some serious cleaning up, and sadly because of the feat tax issue, feats are always going to be a little messed up in this edition.
--
Edit:
Man I like the fiddly things, so long as they are easy to work with, like Headsman's Chop. I think the problem here is formatting more than anything else.
Locutus Zero
First Post
I was talking from the standpoint of how to change things in a theoretical later edition. That wasn't super clear.
I've been thinking about limiting my own feat choices to Essentials feats, just so I don't have so many feats to read through. It seems silly, but I'd rather limit my selection than worry there is a better feat in this long list that I haven't read.
I've been thinking about limiting my own feat choices to Essentials feats, just so I don't have so many feats to read through. It seems silly, but I'd rather limit my selection than worry there is a better feat in this long list that I haven't read.
Nah, doesn't work that way. Nobody forces you to take feats anymore than they force you to take paragon paths or epic destinies.
I have half a mind to nix paragon paths, and give everyone the same single generic PP. I find them to be unfair compared to each other. How come one person gets to crit on 18-20 with a PP, and the other gets to be blinded when he crits?
Similar Threads
