What if feats had no direction combat application?

[Crazy Jerome]

Musing, what would 4E (or 5E) be like, if feats never directly affected combat numbers?

This has come up several times, tangentially, in other conversations, but I'm really starting to consider it strongly as a design "principle" (for lack of a better term).

Leaving aside for a moment the issue of the math. (Assume that it doesn't matter in a given game because the DM will compensate, or that inherent bonuses or other such tweaks will be used to make it a non-issue entirely.)

So clearly, feats are still fun to pick, and broaden the character. But there aren't that many of them that have no direct combat effects. I suppose we can still keep the ones that allow armor and weapon proficiencies, as these aren't that killer in most circumstances. Maybe superior weapons just go away. New implement choices are fine.

Linguist is still there. The skill training, skill focus, and multiclass feats are available. There are niche things like the wizard's expanded spell book option.

What would be necessary, or at least useful, to make this a plausible design?

 

[Herschel]

The CharOp people would scream to high heaven, attack bonuses and damage would have to be readjusted somewhat (proficiency bonuses OR damage dice, for example), the cries of "sameness" would be heard web-wide and numerous people wouldn't notice.

 

[[OMENRPG]Ben]

I too have become disenfranchised with the mathematical bloat that feats that apply to a game; and realized that in the end they don't matter much.

I much prefer feats that allow some kind of actionable difference. For example, a feat that would allow one to make a ranged attack anywhere during one's move action while still burning one's standard. So, I prefer conditional action feats that can open up new character avenues.

But, one of the design elements of D&D is that there will be bajillions of feats across all of the supplemental books, and is one of the biggest sellers for players buying new splats and what not. I could see this becoming a sales/marketing issue if 5e relinquished the "obligatory" math feats.

 

[Herschel]

A quick example of my post: Fullblades, Greatbows, Mordenkrads, Urgrosh's and Executioners axes would be gone. Greatswords would be +3/d10, Great Axes +2/d12, Triple-Headed Flails would be +2/3d4, two-handed melee weapons would be high crit. Throwing weapons wouldn't be so overshadowed.

 

[BlueBlackRed]

If feats effectively only affected non-combat situations then a large portion of the gaming community wouldn't bother even picking them while others would scream their PC's personalities are being confined to what feats they picked.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I much prefer feats that allow some kind of actionable difference. For example, a feat that would allow one to make a ranged attack anywhere during one's move action while still burning one's standard. So, I prefer conditional action feats that can open up new character avenues.

If feats effectively only affected non-combat situations then a large portion of the gaming community wouldn't bother even picking them while others would scream their PC's personalities are being confined to what feats they picked.

I realize that the ranged attack during a move action example is combat, but it edges right up to what I was talking about. It affects combat, but not the direct numbers. But that is probably the limit of what would be allowed in such a design. So the larger question is the one BlueBlackRed brings up--namely, is it possible to design options that broaden character appeal for the non-combat side, while still allowing the core functions to happen with the core characters?

Also keep in mind that the other parts of action adventure are wide open for development--exploration, negotiation, etc. Just no direct changes to the combat numbers.

Example: Is there a design space for a "Fast Talker" feat that doesn't simply add to the Diplomacy or Bluff numbers, that leaves open the core functions of those skills to all characters, but still allows a fast talker to noticable shine in certain situations? Do the skill check faster? Do it with less to work with? What?

That also open up a larger question of is their a design space to allow at least two specialized diplomats in a group? One is slower but more effective when given time. The other is the "fast talking" con man.

 

[mneme]

That also open up a larger question of is their a design space to allow at least two specialized diplomats in a group? One is slower but more effective when given time. The other is the "fast talking" con man.

That distinction already exists. Bluff vs Diplomacy. Bluff should be better when you're just trying to "fast talk" someone and fool them for a brief time; Diplomacy should be better when you're trying to spend more time and develop a lasting rapport, but not really useful for the "I need a story to tell the guards" situation. This distinction would be more emphasized (in terms of siloing) if the optimization paths for the two skills were more distinct, such that you couldn't easily be the specialist in lying -and- making friends.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Let me rephrase then, since my example was poor. Can you set up this kind of situation within a single skill, and make it make sense?

That's often the problem with boiling everything (in a given scope) down to a number, such as with a d20 + mod versus DC system, BTW.

I suppose one obvious mechanical solution, within the given skill framework, is to have tasks/skill challenges/whatever that require multiple skills to do. If you have to make a Bluff and a Diplomacy check to succeed for X, but a Diplomacy and Insight check to succeed for Y, then obviously different characters will shine, though a character with a good score in one of the necessary skills, and the 1/2 level + attribute adjustment in the other can at least have a shot. That would mean the DCs would have to be easier (all other things being equal), but that's just numbers. Pick a method, and DCs can be derived that will work.

 

[CoarseDragon]

I think a good example of a feat not affecting numbers would be the ability to use an extra action in a surprise round, or perhaps not being surprised at all (I believe these exist already in some form). Maybe the ability to ignore rough terrain under certain conditions. Swim, fly, climb and other forms of movement could be feat driven.

Is this the kind of thing you are thinking about?

 

[keterys]

How about the ability to shift after being forced move from PH3, or Skill Power? The ability to save against certain conditions (Disciple of Freedom, Martial Resolve, etc)?

All the multiclass feats (novice power, adept power, etc) start looking a lot nicer when they're not comparing to "+4 to this and that", I will say that.

Personally, I'm all for it in concept, but the execution needs to leave feats still interesting enough to take.