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

[Ourph]

I think feats were ported into 4e with basically the same schtick as they had in 3e and that was a huge mistake. Powers should have killed feats and taken their stuff. Then, feats should have been reincarnated with a different purpose. My problems with feats in 4e in no particular order:

1) WAY too many.
2) They give annoying, fiddly little bonuses that are hard to keep track of.
3) The "math fix" feats should have been errated into the actual math instead.
4) Many are way too specific. I don't want to buy page after page of feats my character doesn't qualify for because he's not a Halfling Artificer with 13.7 Charisma and a small raised mole on his left butt cheek.

Assuming feats don't just go away at some point (which I would be perfectly OK with), the things I'd like to see feats stick around for are opening up new options for characters on a broad scale rather than a fiddly scale. Examples of this are feats like Armor Proficiency, Weapon Proficiency, Ritual Caster, Skill Training and multiclassing. I also like the idea of having feats giving access to things like the ability to acquire henchmen, build or expand a stronghold and attract followers (i.e. benefits that occur on the campaign scale rather than the encounter scale). In fact, having feats drive the ability to drive things like social advancement or stronghold construction offers a convenient solution to the problem of characters choosing between spending money on those things and spending money on better equipment.

At any rate, I'm very happy to see someone at Wizards questioning the way feats were implemented in 4e and considering slaying that particular sacred cow.

 

[Klaus]

I love feats, and I think they are a great way to customize characters. I'm not usually interested in "Math" feats, though. I prefer feats that let your character do something he coudn't do before, or opens a new facet for the character.

 

[Aegeri]

I love feats, and I think they are a great way to customize characters. I'm not usually interested in "Math" feats, though. I prefer feats that let your character do something he coudn't do before, or opens a new facet for the character.

I still wish the math fixes had been errata'ed into the default leveling chart and feats were left for things like this myself.

 

[RangerWickett]

5e = point buy system!

Nah. Classes are a useful short-hand. What I could envision is a hybrid thing.

Each level you get a new power, ability, bonus, or whatever. Classes are pre-built combinations of powers, abilities, bonuses, and whatevers, but you can pick your own combination.

'Feats' (possibly renamed) would be thematic benefits. Take the "flail master" feat for some various flail benefits, or the "fire mage" to let you do fun things with fire, or "scrapper" feat to get some small perks when fighting unarmed.

 

[RangerWickett]

D&D's math could easily be fixed by taking the Gamma World approach. Eliminate enhancement bonuses and ability increases, and have everyone add their level to attack rolls, damage rolls, skills, and defenses.

If you want to keep the nomenclature of "+1 weapon," maybe let weapons have multiple powers. A +1 weapon has one power. A +5 weapon has five powers.

Those powers might be things like "it can do fire damage," or "you can throw it as far as a bow," or "does extra damage when you're bloodied," or "blinds enemy on a natural 20."

 

[hayek]

I'm with schwalb on this one, feats are ready to go - but i would argue for one additional key reason: they are sooooo much more difficult to balance. A game designer has to imagine how the feat could work with every possible combination of classes/multiclasses/hybrids with every possible selection of encounter/daily/at-will powers at every possible level with every selection of magic items in all the magic item slots available... To say that feat imbalance is due to "poor design work" is ludicrous. It is computationally impossible to correctly balance feats before introducing them into the game. And thus, having a huge selection of options that are available to all characters will ALWAYS result in imbalance - overpowered feats that become feat taxes and underpowered feats that become traps for casual players.

All the cool customization options that feats provide can be rolled into class powers. Just add additional utility powers for the appropriate classes at some new levels (levels where characters used to only get a feat, they can now get a new utility power). Rangers can get a speed boost, fighters can get training in a new weapon, mages can get the ability to overcome fire resistance... The point is, whatever cool feats should stay in the game can just be turned into class powers. Then they can be better balanced for the class they're being rolled into.

They can also be made more flavorful for their class/role - a defender that takes weapon focus (flail) can wrap the chain of the weapon around an enemy, immobilizing or slowing them. A striker that takes weapon focus (flail) can tangle up an opponent as well, but the effect is to lower their defenses for the next attack.

p.s. For the love of jeebus, SEPARATE NON-COMBAT AND COMBAT FEATS!

 

[Incenjucar]

I don't see the value of trading feat bloat (feats can apply to many or ALL classes) for power bloat (powers apply to one class).

It just seems like a way to take up lots of space while limiting options.

 

[Neverfate]

Feats are awesome!

Feat bloat isn't. But it is inevitable.

Invalidating Feats (IE removing them from the game/compendium, never to be updated or errata'd)? Well, the schism that would create in your average, paranoid WotC could cause revolts (or just endless whiny-### threads forever about how 4.75eE is murdering babies by removing those dozen Revenant feats no one ever takes).

Personally, I think 4E has a good balance. What the essay fails to realize is that feats are there to "make of them what you will". It's not the end of the universe to add +1 attack/damage per tier. Ask your DM (if you're playing LFR, you probably hate yourself/the game anyway, so does it matter?). If you don't care? They made enough "don't care" feats. They're called Toughness, Durable, Long Jumper, Sure Climber (any of the defense ones if you don't just add them as bonus feats w/ your DM)

If you want, there's a wealth of options. Yes, there is a good amount that are mediocre...if you're a power gamer. If not? Customize your character as you see fit (unless you're a changleing, seeker, artificer or runepriest... your options failz!)

 

[Jan van Leyden]

The current level progression - at least in the Heroic tier; I haven't run Paragon or Epic - gives characters a new attack power at odd-numbered levels and a bonus increase plus utility power plus feat on even numbered levels. Seeing that feats can broadly be divided in Cool Combat Feats and Non-Combat Feats, one could change the advancement model a bit:

On odd-numbered levels you pick a new Power or a CCF which modifies your Power(s) or grants you a combat-related bonus.

On even-numbered levels you pick an NCF which relates to your Race or Class, or to the character's background like gaining/maintaing contacts, gaining favours and so on. As NCFs are not combat-related in this model, having no great influence on the character's overall power, one could arrange them as paths, connected feats with a shared theme.

This probably reads a bit confused as I've just typed my thoughts as they came, but - hey! - at least it's feat-related.

 

[ppaladin123]

I think a lot of race feats could be done away with and replaced with racial themes. Basically you could take certain utility or attack abilities instead of class powers at certain levels. It seems like they are testing that approach out with some of the new races in Heroes of Shadow.

Themes seem to have a lot of potential. I could also see them used to create more flexible multi-classing than the current feat/power swap model.