|
Post by hamurai on Jun 9, 2018 23:39:01 GMT -6
My old online group is reforming and the DM and I were talking about feats, which are, by the book, an optional rule. So far I haven't had a group who played without feats, though. I was re-reading the rules this weekend and thinking a lot about the impact of feats in the game.
Disclaimer 1: The following thoughts are purely mechanical in nature. Of course one should play the character most desired and not care about game mechanics. To me, mechanical balance is an issue, though. Disclaimer 2: I don't think the "basic" human is a good choice. +1 to every ability sounds good, but the effect is weak. Classes rely on 3 abilities at most and you only get a +1 to a modifier every two ability points, which means that most of the time at least 50% of these bonus points are wasted. This may be a more valuable option if you roll for ability scores and manage to get a bad result. 4d6 drop lowest tends to produce results above what you can point-buy, though.
So here are my thoughts:
TL;DR: My conclusion was that feats should be pretty much mandatory at least at first level as the variant human's bonus feat, and for fighters.
Why is that? 1) Let's have a look at the variant Human race and compare it to some other races from the PHB.
| variant Human
| Mountain Dwarf
| High Elf
| Halfling | Half-Elf | Half-Orc | Ability Points
| 2x +1
| CON +2 STR +2
| DEX +2 INT +1
| DEX +2 CON/CHA +1
| 2x +1 CHA +2
| STR +2 CON +1
| Skills | 1 | 1 Tool
| 1 | -- | 2 | 1 | Languages | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | (Notable) Special Abilities
| Feat
| Darkvision Resilience Combat Training Stone Cunning Armor Training
| Darkvision Cantrip Fey Ancestry Weapon Training
| Lucky Brave Nimbleness Stealthy / Resilience
| Darkvision Fey Ancestry
| Darkvision Relentless Savage Attacks
|
We can see that the variant Human gets at least 1 ability point less than every other race. The number of skill proficiencies and languages is pretty much the minimum for other races. Looking at the other races' special abilities and reading through the feat descriptions it's clear that no single feat could ever reproduce the bonuses the other races get. For example, to get the effect of the Dwarf's Combat and Armor Training, a human would have to get 2 feats (and therefore forego +4 stat points when leveling). The Savage Attacks feature of the Half-Orc is exactly what a feat does. Plus they get Darkvision and Relentless. The Elf's Weapon Training equals the Weapon Master feat, but they get 3 more abilities at the beginning.
Therefore I argue that at least at first level, humans should get a feat to balance their abilities a little.
2.) Fighters get an Ability Score Improvement (ASI) on 4th, 6th, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th and 19th level. Assuming they brutally maxed their abilities with point-buy at the beginning, they might start with STR 16, DEX 16, CON16, INT 9, WIS 9, CHA 9 if basic Human, or STR 16, DEX 15, CON 16, INT 8, WIS 8, CHA 8 if variant Human. They'd need to get to level 12 to max out STR and CON which is what their class relies on. What to do with the rest of the ASIs? Assuming they rolled their stats, they begin with even better scores and are in less need of ASIs. Feats would help to make the Fighter more interesting and varied. (I rolled a 17 when rolling my stats. With a +1 from Human I start with a score of 18, meaning I could get to 20 by 4th level already. A feat might tempt me away from that. Just an example. I'm not playing a fighter, I think.)
That second argument is less important, though, in my opinion. ASIs are never wasted and being able to max out 2 abilities by 12th level is in itself a merit.
So... What are your thoughts? Does your group include feats in the game? All? Only a few? And what about the additional feats added by other books? (Our DM only allows PHB and SCAG)
Edit: typo fixed
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 10, 2018 4:32:54 GMT -6
I never liked Feats in my D&D, of any edition, until I tried them in 5E and even then my first characters all picked the "stat bonus" instead of a Feat every chance they got. I'm not sure when I decided to give them a try, but I assume it was the result of seeing someone at the table do something cool and realize how they were able to do it. Now my 5E characters take Feats more often than they do the stat bonus.
So ... would I allow Feats in my early edition games? Maybe. I would want to come up with a list, but honestly the 5E list is pretty good.
EDIT to add: as to the rolling a 17 thing, I've become a believer of the point-buy method for stats and have never gotten a 20 in any stat for any character so far. (I play a lot of Adventurer's League and it's the only way to be pretty certain that the other guys at the table didn't fudge stat rolls, and now I've grown to like it for all of my games.)
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jun 10, 2018 6:18:32 GMT -6
I'd be perfectly fine to use the point-buy method, but our DM gave us the option to roll the stats, so I went for it.
Apart from a few feats I like the 5e list, too. I've never played 3rd edition so I can't comment on that feat list. What I've seen while skimming Xanathar's I also liked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2018 14:32:05 GMT -6
In my OD&D world, feats are under anathema and may be hunted down and killed as desired.
Seriously, one of the wonderful things about OD&D is its simplicity. Feats are just pissing into the fountain of simplicity.
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on Jun 10, 2018 15:52:15 GMT -6
If a Player Character has 15+ Charisma, he can choose 1 "feat" for each point above 15. Those "feats" must be unique, totally made up, and have no mechanical benefit : it can be such things as : "heavy drinker, never gets dizzy after consuming alcool" , "best chess player in the district", "great succes with the ladies", etc.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jun 10, 2018 23:42:27 GMT -6
This thread is about 5th edition D&D. Also, as I've stated in the first post, it's about the game-mechanical aspects of feats and not so much about how they're tied into the story of the individual groups.
5e is more complex than OD&D. My online group likes that. I've tried to convince them to play OD&D but they don't like the simplicity. I don't use such feats in OD&D either, unless you call those abilities "feats" which characters may have learned through game-play. A player could certainly be a "Linguist" and learn new languages, similar to the 5e feat (no INT bonus though).
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Jun 11, 2018 7:23:05 GMT -6
It's basically a special ability. That ranges from "can use ranged weapons in melee without disadvantage" to "gets a few ritual spells but no other spell-casting". Other feats are "+2 HP per level" or "can't be surprised" or "learn to use other armor" etc. Some feats expand the character options (and are a nice alternative to multi-classing), some narrow the focus of some classes and build on class abilities.
|
|
|
Post by barrataria on Oct 15, 2018 7:52:16 GMT -6
I'm just dipping into 5E and my gut reaction to feats is about like Gronan's.
But I agree completely (and sadly) with your reasoning.
And I've always felt dwarves were overpowered, at least from B/X on, so they've managed to preserve that "tradition" quite well. I'm tempted to give halflings some kind of missile bonus. But I haven't even played yet so I'll keep an eye on that.
Anyway, it's a clean idea and can colorize variant humans some without kludging up the game forever after.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Nov 15, 2018 17:23:31 GMT -6
"'Proudfeet!' shouted an elderly hobbit from the back of the pavilion. His name, of course, was Proudfoot, and well merited; his feet were large, . It appears feats are something you might add when you've already got the goods. Or, are elderly, in good health, and relaxing at a long expected party...
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 16, 2018 0:01:06 GMT -6
I've come to houserule feats in a way I'm rather happy with.
At 1st level, variant humans may take a feat but I'll have a look at it first. If it's something unfitting for the character and just taken to get a rules benefit (like a Tough wizard just grabbing more HP), I don't allow it. Taking a feat after character creation must be justified by the game's story. So, for example, one of the characters took time training his archery skills with an elven sniper while the party stayed in an elven city, and I then ruled they may take the Sharpshooter feat. Similarly, if players take time to train with armor and use it despite not being proficient for a while, they may take a feat that grants them access to the new armor group. In the same fashion I'd allow feats granting skill proficiencies and so on, but not something like "Lucky".
In the end, the feats are little more than what we used to have in our older-editions D&D games, too. Sometimes a character would be granted special abilities, if the story justified it and we felt it didn't break the game. If we discovered it did after all, we adjusted it or took it away. I'd do the same with the feats in 5e.
So now our feats are not some mechanical benefit suddenly popping up, but an ability anchored in the story of the character and earned. I'd rather have this than a hundred magic items granting the weirdest abilities.
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on Nov 16, 2018 10:25:00 GMT -6
We use the official feats from the PHB (except those I threw out) and we use them as a guideline when inventing our own. It really mostly comes from the players. For example, when they stayed a while at the elven city, the archer asked if he could train with the elven archers. Originally it was "just fluff". He ended up training with the elves and he then asked if that may be a good reason to choose the Sharpshooter feat when they reach level 4.
The other characters used the time with the elves differently and the wizard, for example, expressed his wish to study in the elven High Library. He might be allowed to choose a fitting feat, too. Or he might invent his own and ask if he can learn that. As long as it's not breaking the game, I'll very likely allow it.
When the players have fun, I enjoy the game, too. And I think they see the "earned" feats as special, something that their character has but none else, because there's a story attached to the feat.
|
|
|
Post by delta on Nov 21, 2018 23:28:34 GMT -6
FWIW, I do use "feats" in my OD&D game as a wrap-around category for all the different boosts Gygax gave to fighters over the years -- multiple attacks, super-multiples vs. low-HD, extra strength bonuses, weapon specialization, ranger/barbarian/cavalier skills, etc. My reading was this was the same motivation as in 3E, which I respect. A fighter in my game gets to pick one of these boosts every 4 levels. My list was first written up in Fight On! #9, or you can see them in my free player's house rules here (p. 4).
|
|