D&D 5E Sage Advice is back!

[Staffan]

A feat chain where feat 2 builds logically from feat 1 sounds like a cool idea. For example, we already have Magic Initiate, which gives you two cantrips and a 1/day 1st level spell, all from the same class. I could see a feat that builds on that, perhaps "Magic Adept", which would give you another 1st level spell and a 2nd level spell, also 1/day. A level 1 + level 2 spell feat is objectively more powerful than a 2 cantrips + level 1 spell feat, but it's a fair expansion.

 

[Jer]

*Seriously, why are they called "feats" when "talents" or "abilities" would be a better fit?

As someone who has been irritated by this choice of terminology since 1999 I know the answer to this, understand how it happened, and I still hate it.

The reason for is is that "feats" were originally conceived as active things that fighters could do much like spellcasters had spells. They were originally things like power attack and whirlwind attack - active maneuvers that fighters had they they could use in battle. As the development process went on the idea of who would be using feats expanded outside of the martial classes and to everyone - and they started including more general things that would be considered "perks" or "advantages" in another game. But when it did, they never changed the name to be something that would make sense and it slipped into publication with that same term despite it not fitting the actual game mechanic they'd created.

Every time I see the word in a d20 game I think of the path not taken where they realized the name didn't make sense anymore and changed it to "perk" or "talent" or something that makes a bit more sense.

 

[Li Shenron]

A feat chain where feat 2 builds logically from feat 1 sounds like a cool idea. For example, we already have Magic Initiate, which gives you two cantrips and a 1/day 1st level spell, all from the same class. I could see a feat that builds on that, perhaps "Magic Adept", which would give you another 1st level spell and a 2nd level spell, also 1/day. A level 1 + level 2 spell feat is objectively more powerful than a 2 cantrips + level 1 spell feat, but it's a fair expansion.

That is absolutely a good way to explore the feat chain concept, and I actually think feats similar to these existed at some point during the playtest.

I think a good approach in general, is if they make each feat in a chain build upon the previous. Then it's clearly the representation of a progress, and it makes all sense you need to get the feats in order.

The bad way to do it, is have completely unrelated mechanics tied together only by theme, where the early feats in a chain are "weak" and the late feats are "strong", ending up with a character who has to pay a tax early in order to be more than average later. That doesn't do justice to characters balance, neither early nor late.

 

[deganawida]

As someone who has been irritated by this choice of terminology since 1999 I know the answer to this, understand how it happened, and I still hate it.

The reason for is is that "feats" were originally conceived as active things that fighters could do much like spellcasters had spells. They were originally things like power attack and whirlwind attack - active maneuvers that fighters had they they could use in battle. As the development process went on the idea of who would be using feats expanded outside of the martial classes and to everyone - and they started including more general things that would be considered "perks" or "advantages" in another game. But when it did, they never changed the name to be something that would make sense and it slipped into publication with that same term despite it not fitting the actual game mechanic they'd created.

Every time I see the word in a d20 game I think of the path not taken where they realized the name didn't make sense anymore and changed it to "perk" or "talent" or something that makes a bit more sense.

Thank you! It's also driven me mad for 20 years now.

Now, do you have an explanation for why it's Cure Wounds, as well? If so, PM me, because that's another word choice that isn't quite correct.

 

[Li Shenron]

As someone who isn't partial to feats*, I'm not digging this change. Might be that this upcoming update is one I'm better sitting out.

*Seriously, why are they called "feats" when "talents" or "abilities" would be a better fit?

I am not digging this change either, even though I am strongly partial in favor of feats since 3.0

As a player, I almost never pass up the opportunity to take a feat, but as a DM I had some players who absolutely didn't like feats (I never understood why), and in 5e they had a choice... but now if background with feats become the norm, they don't have the choice anymore unless you consider a choice to stick with an older background and see the rest of the group laugh at you.

 

[Remathilis]

Thank you! It's also driven me mad for 20 years now.

Now, do you have an explanation for why it's Cure Wounds, as well? If so, PM me, because that's another word choice that isn't quite correct.

Because Gary named the hit point spells Cure Light Wounds, Cure Serious Wounds and Cure Critical Wounds, and the naming convention was sealed. (Cure Moderate Wounds came at the end of 2e).

 

[Weiley31]

I wouldn't mind Feat Chains as long as they start off as part of a background/Faction, and become Faction rewards based on renown earned with said faction.

 

[GreyLord]

As I said in the Dragonlance thread - having Backgrounds carry a Feat with them by default would break mathematical compatibility with the current game in a way that none of the other changes they have made so far do. So I hope that these experiments are being kept to optional books and setting specific Backgrounds and not something they're thinking of putting into the Anniversary Edition.

The one way I could see this work mechanically is if they allow you to swap your +2 ASI at 1st level for a Feat, and you have to do that to take any Background with a Feat attached. Which I think would be a good idea to be honest, so I could see how they could make this mechanically compatible with the current edition if they do it that way.

That could work. I think it could work better than what they presented in Tasha's as Options or Mordekainen's races.

 

[TwoSix]

So, that doesn't really help. It means that a chain of two feats will be more powerful than a pair of non-chain feats, and the crap/trap option is to not be part of a chain.

We already have Lucky or Sharpshooter supposedly at the same power level as Charger and Dungeon Delver. That ship has sailed.

 

[Weiley31]

I don't think a Background coming with a Feat would break the system: We had Variant Humans, House Rules, Supernatural Gifts, Dark Gifts, Dragonic Gifts, and UA that pretty much twirled this idea, of having a Feat at Level 1, around throughout 5E in different forms.