D&D 5E Which feats shouldn't be feats

[Jeff Carlsen]

I guess I can understand a desire for simplicity at least as far as it relates to speed of play, reduced bookkeeping, and other desirable attributes. I guess fundamentally I don't understand is how specialities are any less complex than feats. The only possible advantage I can see is if you are doing lots of one offs and starting at high level you don't have to think hard about a build, but its mainly the GM that benefits from that and the GM can just rely on a library of stock characters or 'close enough' skeletal NPCs or generic for the level NPCs.

If you're the kind of player that sits and reads the entire book before ever making a character, then it doesn't make much difference. But many of the people I play with only look at the base concept of a class and say, "I want to play that." They don't want to read the rules. They just want to make a character and play.

Feats require that you read through all your options and what they do before you can choose one. Specialties, like classes, only require that you understand their core concepts. It allows you to read and learn only a subset of of the rules that relate to your character.

In fact, in the whole of D&D, feats are the worst for this. Spells and Equipment, while chosen independently from a list, tend to be rather self descriptive.

But feats have to be learned before they can be chosen. They tend to have vague names and inconsistent mechanics. Knowing what one feat does isn't a reliable way to know what another feat does.

So, sure. If you are willing to put the work in, feats can be a great tool for character customization. I can see why some people like them. But even with years of experience playing third edition, I still dread choosing feats, especially when introducing a new player to the game.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Pick Pockets - Unlike other roguelike feats (open locks, disarm traps), wording of this feat suggests that it is not possible to pick someone's pocket without this feat. This is bad.

Why?

Have you ever tried to pick a pocket?

 

[Szatany]

Why? Because it should be a skill.

 

[hbarsquared]

Just wanted to say that I dislike the presentation, number, and composition of feats in the playtest, as well.

But with that said, I think it's important to keep in mind that this is a playtest that experiments with things that we may not see completely clearly.

I have a suspicion that the design team separated out all of these abilities into feats for two reasons.

1) as placeholders for what will become class abilities

2) see how particular abilities synergize and interact with each class.

I strongly doubt that this presentation of feats is anywhere close, or in any way expected, to make it into the final game. It's a useful format to test.

 

[Klaus]

Why?

Have you ever tried to pick a pocket?

Why? Because it should be a skill.

I agree with Szatany. A feat is too great an investment for something like Pick Pockets, Disarm Traps or Track. To the point where a single feat gives you training in *two* skills.

More of these feats should be skill uses, and the actual feats could be of the "if your d20 roll is lower than 9, treat it as 9" type. This makes trivial and easy tasks automatic successes for those who choose to invest in these tasks.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Why?

Have you ever tried to pick a pocket?

I've done it to my friends a lot. I used to do it all the time. And place things in their pocket, too. They noticed about one in three times, on average.

But, your question doesn't really help us, I don't think. In real life, that could mean I have the feat. Or that I have the skill trained. Or that my friends suck at detecting me, no matter which one I had. From a game point of view, I'd rather see as few "you can't do this unless you have the feat" as possible, unless it's augmenting a specific ability or skill. I don't want a feat to say "you can use shields (and you can't without the feat)", I want it to say "when you use shields, you get X". The same applies to picking pockets, in my mind. As always, play what you like

 

[Szatany]

I've done it to my friends a lot. I used to do it all the time. And place things in their pocket, too. They noticed about one in three times, on average.

Haha! Yeah I totally forgot but I did that too a few times when I was a kid. And also I managed to succeed more than once, without being caught.

 

[Dausuul]

The way I see it, there are currently two types of feats. There are "flavorful" feats, such as Find Familiar and Dual Wielding, that flesh out your character concept. And then there are "build" feats, such as Maximize Spell and Iron Hide, that boost your power level while adding little or nothing to your concept.

PICK ONE.

These two things do not belong together. I do not want to play the "flavor versus effectiveness" game. If we're going to have Maximize Spell/Iron Hide, then make it so that all feats are the same way, and those of us who detest "builds" can simply not use feats. Find someplace else to put wizard familiars and fighter dual wielding. On the other hand, if Find Familiar and Dual Wielding are going to be feats (and there's a good case for making it so), then they should not be competing with Maximize Spell and Iron Hide. Focus on the concept, not the mechanic.

(Specialties might offer a way for the two to coexist, if they were designed to maintain a consistent mix of flavor and build. But--surprise, surprise--they're not organized that way. For instance, the Metamagician is loaded with "build" feats while the Hedge Magician is almost entirely flavor.)

 

[Falling Icicle]

Feats that Should be Things Everyone Should be Able to do:
Bull Rush
Called Shot
Charge
Dual Wielding
Shove Away

Feats that Should be Skills or Background Features Instead:
Disarm Traps
Herbalism
Open Locks
Pick Pockets
Track

Feats that Shouldn't Exist Because they Grant Boring Bonuses:
Durable
Improved Initiative
Iron Hide
Resilience
Toughness
Weapon Mastery

Other Feats I Don't Like:
Arcane Dabbler and Healing Initiate: why am I limited in which cantrips I can choose? Would it really wreck the game if my rogue could use ray of frost instead of a bow? And what if my cleric wants to take the feat to get a couple more cantrips, but already has one or both of those two? Why should I be so limited in my choices?

Magical Rejuvination, Purge Magic, Restore Life: I don't like feats that grant spells (other than cantrips). IMO, if you want daily spells, then multiclass.

Find Familiar: Why isn't this just a wizard class feature or a spell? Even the feat says it's a ritual, so why is it not just a spell, as it used to be in older editions? Familiars are extremely easy to kill and cost 100 gp to summon. If that's not enough of a drawback, make it cost 100 gp to resummon them every time they die, or maybe cause some kind of psychic shock to the caster when they die. I just don't see this as being appropriate as, or worth the cost of, a feat.

All of this is, of course, IMHO.

 

[Gargoyle]

Find Familiar: Why isn't this just a wizard class feature or a spell? Even the feat says it's a ritual, so why is it not just a spell, as it used to be in older editions? Familiars are extremely easy to kill and cost 100 gp to summon. If that's not enough of a drawback, make it cost 100 gp to resummon them every time they die, or maybe cause some kind of psychic shock to the caster when they die. I just don't see this as being appropriate as, or worth the cost of, a feat.

All of this is, of course, IMHO.

I agree with everything you said, except for this part. I can see the logic of making it a feat, because not all wizards want a familiar. "Don't cast the spell" you say? Well, there is a certain pressure to do so, if it is a wizard spell that doesn't cost a feat. Why wouldn't you cast the spell once the 100gp cost is minor? So you end up a with a familiar you may not really want. It happened plenty of times in earlier editions. Furthermore, since the familiar is permanent, it's not like other spell effects, so WotC will likely feel the need to balance this "free feat" by making wizards slightly less powerful in some other way...even if they don't players will feel they have.

In addition, by making this a feat, non-wizards can have a familiar. It's an interesting option, and I could see why a rogue or fighter with the Arcane Dabbler feat might also take this one. And it's perfectly suitable for a druid or cleric.