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

[Blackwarder]

I want feats to be big and meaningfull, not something you pick so that you could later pick an awsome feat, I want them to be small rule packet that add awesomeness to your character, I don't want to pick several feats just so I could be a two weapon fighter, at most I only want to pick two feats for that and that's still one too much.

Warder

 

[airwalkrr]

Why do people seem to think tracking is such an easy thing to do? It is very difficult to track someone or something without special training or years of practice. I think the main problem with the Track feat lies in game balance, in that, if the DM does not make tracking an important thing in the campaign, then it will never see any use. Thus, it is very situational. It is also something that eventually outlives its usefulness. You can't exactly track something that flies, other than getting an idea of its general direction immediately after take-off. And flying foes before more common as you get higher in level. I never saw a big problem with it being a ranger-only ability in AD&D, given its degree of usefulness.

 

[Klaus]

Why do people seem to think tracking is such an easy thing to do? It is very difficult to track someone or something without special training or years of practice. I think the main problem with the Track feat lies in game balance, in that, if the DM does not make tracking an important thing in the campaign, then it will never see any use. Thus, it is very situational. It is also something that eventually outlives its usefulness. You can't exactly track something that flies, other than getting an idea of its general direction immediately after take-off. And flying foes before more common as you get higher in level. I never saw a big problem with it being a ranger-only ability in AD&D, given its degree of usefulness.

It's not that it's an easy thing to do. But if you make Track a part of the skill system, you can have it at 1st level by investing 25% of your skill allotment. If you make it part of the feat system, you can have it at 1st level by investing 100% of your feat allotment.

 

[Blackwarder]

I would like to give an example to what I talk about when I think about feats being Big and meaningful.

Lets take Cleave as an example; as it is right now it simply allow you to make an extra attack to a creature within reach if you killed a creature with your main attack.
I think that cleave should be something more like this:
On your turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP or lower, you may take a 5 foot step and attack another opponent, if you drop that opponent to 0 HP you may repeat the attack. the number of such attack you may do on your turn is equal to your level.

That way, Cleave become the feat that allow you to cleave your way trough a sea of opponents. and it's a feat that grow better as you level.

Warder

 

[Blackbrrd]

I would like to give an example to what I talk about when I think about feats being Big and meaningful.

Lets take Cleave as an example; as it is right now it simply allow you to make an extra attack to a creature within reach if you killed a creature with your main attack.
I think that cleave should be something more like this:
On your turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP or lower, you may take a 5 foot step and attack another opponent, if you drop that opponent to 0 HP you may repeat the attack. the number of such attack you may do on your turn is equal to your level.

That way, Cleave become the feat that allow you to cleave your way trough a sea of opponents. and it's a feat that grow better as you level.

Warder

Having fewer, more meaningful feats that don't build on each other sounds like a good idea. The issue with it and feats like your cleave is that it's so good, no melee character should be without it. I really do like your cleave feat though, it's cleave, greater cleave and supreme cleave from 3e all merged into one.

The cleave - greater cleave - supreme cleave feat chain isn't the worst type of feat chain. What I don't like is the old requirements for Whirlwind attack from 3e: dodge, mobility, spring attack, expertise. You needed 13 dex and int and it added a lot of complexity and planning needed when building your character.

Instead of feat chains like Whirlwind attack and lots of prerequisites, maybe you get feat points that you could use to boost your feats. You could get 2 feat points at level 1 and 1 feat point at every level.

Cleave:
2 points: On your turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP or lower, you may repeat the attack against another opponent adjacent to you (max once per round).
3 points: as above, but up to three times per round.
4 points: as above, but you can take a 5' step before repeating the attack.

Whirlwind attack:
2 points: On a natural 20 you can repeat the attack
3 points: instead of 20 you repeat the attack on 18 or above
4 points: instead of 18 you repeat the attack on 16 or above

Power attack:
2 points: take a -1 penalty to attack to get a +2 damage bonus
3 points: take a -2 penalty to attack to get a +5 damage bonus
4 points: take a -3 penalty to attack to get a +10 damage bonus

The benefit of these self-contained feats is that they make planning your character a lot easier. Not getting 13 int at level 1 won't stop you from getting Whirlwind attack, but not getting it at level 1 will make it take longer to get.

 

[Celebrim]

I would like to give an example to what I talk about when I think about feats being Big and meaningful.

Lets take Cleave as an example; as it is right now it simply allow you to make an extra attack to a creature within reach if you killed a creature with your main attack.
I think that cleave should be something more like this:
On your turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP or lower, you may take a 5 foot step and attack another opponent, if you drop that opponent to 0 HP you may repeat the attack. the number of such attack you may do on your turn is equal to your level.

That way, Cleave become the feat that allow you to cleave your way trough a sea of opponents. and it's a feat that grow better as you level.

Warder

In general, I'm not opposed to making 'Cleave' by default equal to 'Superior Cleave', but I think there is a real danger in power creep going that way especially when you start coupling it with the other assumption that seems to have taken hold over the course of 3e - that there should be "No dead levels." If you add together the idea that each level should bring with it something more than a minor increase in bonuses, but should unlock some new ability with, "All abilities should be large", you are going to end up with trouble. Either abilities increase incrementally over time, or they are not available at every incremental improvement.

I also think that you can end up with false expectations. If the purpose of the feat is to allow the palyer to 'cleave your way through a sea of opponents' there is a danger of equating 'I'm not cleaving through a sea of opponents' with 'The feat is failing'. It would be like stating that the purpose of Lightning Bolt is 'To dramatically destroy the players enemies'.

 

[Blackwarder]

I would much rather end up with few big feats than have a multitude of smaller ones on every level. And as you can see from my example this feat grow more potent with level so a level 20 fighter got the potential of killing 21 orcs in a round while a level 2 fighter could only kill 3.

I want feats to allow me to do things I couldn't do before, to be exception of the rules. I agree that it might lead to power bloat though and it's something WotC will have to take into consideration but power bloat is still a risk no matter what we will end up with.

Warder

 

[Celebrim]

I would much rather end up with few big feats than have a multitude of smaller ones on every level. And as you can see from my example this feat grow more potent with level so a level 20 fighter got the potential of killing 21 orcs in a round while a level 2 fighter could only kill 3.

Alternately, the standard 'Cleave' feat (just one extra cleave per round) can be seen as growing more potent with level because the 20th level fighter is more likely to drop a ordc with each attack than the level 2 fighter is. Likewise, in the standard 3e progression of Cleave => Great Cleave => Superior Cleave, the power as a whole can be seen as being a single power which improves every n levels. The fact that we've turned the three selections of incremental power, into a small number of larger incremental steps doesn't really mean that one involves "growing more potent with every level" and the other doesn't. The only real difference is in how small we've made the incremental steps. Fewer big choices versus many smaller choices differs perhaps in a trade off between freedom and complexity, but it doesn't necessarily differ in the end result when it comes to capability.

I want feats to allow me to do things I couldn't do before, to be exception of the rules.

I generally agree except where the feat ends up creating rules that restrict everyone who doesn't have the feat from even attempting something. Cleave isn't really an 'exception to the rules'. It merely states the idea that "For this character, you are better against a horde of foes than normal." It does that by something like an exception to the rules, but that doesn't mean that I think a feat like, "You jump twice as far as normal" is a bad feat merely because it amounts to a numeric mechanical bonus.

 

[Blackwarder]

Alternately, the standard 'Cleave' feat (just one extra cleave per round) can be seen as growing more potent with level because the 20th level fighter is more likely to drop a ordc with each attack than the level 2 fighter is. Likewise, in the standard 3e progression of Cleave => Great Cleave => Superior Cleave, the power as a whole can be seen as being a single power which improves every n levels. The fact that we've turned the three selections of incremental power, into a small number of larger incremental steps doesn't really mean that one involves "growing more potent with every level" and the other doesn't. The only real difference is in how small we've made the incremental steps. Fewer big choices versus many smaller choices differs perhaps in a trade off between freedom and complexity, but it doesn't necessarily differ in the end result when it comes to capability.

Two points, first, barring magic items the damage potential of a lvl 20 fighter single attack and that of a level 2 fighter single attack is roughly the same.
Second, I don't see why we should have complicated feat chains, it's a. confusing and b. leads to huge bloat with tons of tiny little feats blah...

I generally agree except where the feat ends up creating rules that restrict everyone who doesn't have the feat from even attempting something. Cleave isn't really an 'exception to the rules'. It merely states the idea that "For this character, you are better against a horde of foes than normal." It does that by something like an exception to the rules, but that doesn't mean that I think a feat like, "You jump twice as far as normal" is a bad feat merely because it amounts to a numeric mechanical bonus.

The example feat I gave is an exception simply because you can't normally do what it describe, I totally agree that feats should restrict you in doing stuff but I think that they should add to all the things you can normally do.

Warder

 

[Celebrim]

Two points, first, barring magic items the damage potential of a lvl 20 fighter single attack and that of a level 2 fighter single attack is roughly the same.

First, that's not the case. At the very least, the 3e 20th level fighter is likely to +5 Str relative to the 2nd level first, but also, the fighter's access to feats like Weapon Specialization, Improved Critical, Power Attack and many many others means that he's been incrementally improviing his expected damage per attack over time. I certainly know that this is true of my own 3e inspired game. But secondly, it's irrelevant because restricting this discussion to 'per attack' is not that meaningful. The primary purpose of the 3e incremental itterative attacks is to ensure a steady smooth increase in the expected damage of a fighter as he levels up. They could have justed as easily said at 6th level the fighter does double damage on attacks and at 11th triple damage, but then this wouldn't have produced a smooth curve in steadily increasing expected damage. There is a trade off.

Second, I don't see why we should have complicated feat chains, it's a. confusing and b. leads to huge bloat with tons of tiny little feats blah...

Yes, it does.

However, while I'm not firmly on one side of this debate or the other because I don't care what they do with DNDNext and have no hopes for it (and frankly will be surprised at this point if it isn't vaporware), there is as I said a trade off. If you reduce the complexity, then you give the player a smaller number of choices. Sure, at some level each choice is more meaningful, but its still fewer choices. If I get 5 feats over the course of 20 levels rather than 27, then if those feats are roughly 5 times as powerful then the end result in the same and the 5 feat system is at one level simpler (there are fewer feats to track and describe). However, I've reduced player freedom. Suppose a player spends 4 feats, but for that 5th feat they'd like to take a half feat in 'archery' and another half feat in 'cleave'. In the simpler system that's impossible. You can't take a 'minor interest' in something. But if I had 25 or 30 smaller choices, then I can take the 5 or 6 choices and spread them among two ideas.

The other potential pitfall is that your system of making one feat as powerful as 3 or 5 small feats is that you might end up not reducing complexity, because its not clear that your 'big feats' aren't more complex than small feats or indeed aren't as complex in many cases as 3 or 5 small feats bundled together. You may end up with a lot of feats that look like specialities or 'tactical' type feats, where each feat involves multiple related things you can do.