TheRPGSite

Or perhaps, like I'm building my character using Lego blocks.

Or perhaps, it makes my medieval fantasy roleplay start to feel like superhero fantasy roleplay.  It's a distraction that interferes with my immersion in a medieval game.  ASI's, within reasonable limits; don't interfere with my immersion the same way.

You do you. My immersion is improved by the idea that my character can train to do specific things rather than just general across the board improvement that leveling up grants.

Feats work even better if you use the AD&D concept of actually needing to spend time and money on training to gain your level-up benefits instead of them automatically coming to you. In that case you're paying an instructor to train you in what the feat accomplishes before you can use it.

My ideal system in that regard would be one that is non-leveled and entirely skill-based where the rank in the skill improves the more it is used rather than by spending experience points or leveling up for unrelated activities.

Quote from: Chris24601;1098333You do you. My immersion is improved by the idea that my character can train to do specific things rather than just general across the board improvement that leveling up grants.

Feats work even better if you use the AD&D concept of actually needing to spend time and money on training to gain your level-up benefits instead of them automatically coming to you. In that case you're paying an instructor to train you in what the feat accomplishes before you can use it.

My ideal system in that regard would be one that is non-leveled and entirely skill-based where the rank in the skill improves the more it is used rather than by spending experience points or leveling up for unrelated activities.

I could sit down right now and play D & D using d20 roll under 6 abilities; and as long as abilities were capped at 18, i'd never even need to consider any modifiers.....much less if my character had all of the necessary Feats.  But in that scenario; I'd either go with 3d6 down the line, a moderate stat array, or a low number of points arranged to taste.

I'm not especially fond of feats either so it's fortunate for me that there are so many RPGs, including some versions of D&D, that don't use feats. Given that RPGs that don't focus on feats have always existed, I'm not sure where you are going with your post.

Quote from: Bren;1098340I'm not especially fond of feats either so it's fortunate for me that there are so many RPGs, including some versions of D&D, that don't use feats. Given that RPGs that don't focus on feats have always existed, I'm not sure where you are going with your post.

It seems like outside of the OSR movement; RPGs are going full blown Featpalooza, and I don't like it.  PF2E being an excellent example.

Now, get off of my lawn!!!

Quote from: Chris24601;1098333You do you. My immersion is improved by the idea that my character can train to do specific things rather than just general across the board improvement that leveling up grants.

Feats work even better if you use the AD&D concept of actually needing to spend time and money on training to gain your level-up benefits instead of them automatically coming to you. In that case you're paying an instructor to train you in what the feat accomplishes before you can use it.

My ideal system in that regard would be one that is non-leveled and entirely skill-based where the rank in the skill improves the more it is used rather than by spending experience points or leveling up for unrelated activities.

Entirely Skill Based, with Skills improving through experience; would be a great way to play.

Quote from: Razor 007;1098343It seems like outside of the OSR movement; RPGs are going full blown Featpalooza, and I don't like it.  PF2E being an excellent example.

Now, get off of my lawn!!!

I don't really disagree with you. There certainly are a lot of games that use feats either in their basic rules or as an optional rule. As I said, I'm not too fond of feat-a-palooza RPGs myself. I think feats or boons work in systems like Barbarians of Lemuria/Honor+Intrigue, but there the feats are not in trees, don't usually have prerequisites, and characters start with at most a few feats (typically 0-3), and characters don't earn or learn new feats as part of experience.

Quote from: Razor 007;1098361Entirely Skill Based, with Skills improving through experience; would be a great way to play.

There are games that do that.

Razor, in various threads you've listed a number of things you don't like about D&D in general and even more things you dislike about WotC versions of D&D and their open source clones. Have you tried playing games that are significantly different than D&D?

Quote from: Razor 007;1098327Or perhaps, like I'm building my character using Lego blocks.

Or perhaps, it makes my medieval fantasy roleplay start to feel like superhero fantasy roleplay.  It's a distraction that interferes with my immersion in a medieval game.  ASI's, within reasonable limits; don't interfere with my immersion the same way.

These days that is the entire point. At some time during the edition churn, high level play moved away from domain management and shifted towards fantasy superheroes.

It's not my preference either, but I have long since accepted that I am in the minority in the hobby.

Quote from: Bren;1098368There are games that do that.

Razor, in various threads you've listed a number of things you don't like about D&D in general and even more things you dislike about WotC versions of D&D and their open source clones. Have you tried playing games that are significantly different than D&D?

No, unless you count something like Dungeon World; which is another take on D & D.

Quote from: Razor 007;1098372No, unless you count something like Dungeon World; which is another take on D & D.

I guess I'll ask.

Dude, why not?

Quote from: Jaeger;1098373I guess I'll ask.

Dude, why not?

Because I want all the D & D goodies in my games.

Quote from: Razor 007;1098377Because I want all the D & D goodies in my games.

I think there are things that someone with specialized training can do that I can't and I think there are things that people with specialized training can do better than me, even if I can do them.

I do think that too many feats end up being barriers to creative playing.  There are a lot of things that people perhaps could try with some small probability of success, but once a feat has been implemented, it indicates that unless you have the feat nobody can do it.  

So fix it.  Spit-balling, you could say that just about any Feat could be used if you succeed on a TN 20 attribute check that appears appropriate with a -4 penalty.  

You want to attack with 2-weapons this round?  Make a TN 20 Dexterity check and if you succeed, both of your attacks are at -4.

Want to Power Attack with your greatsword?  Make a TN 20 Strength check and if you succeed, you power attack with a further -4.

You want to summon a more powerful monster (Agument Summoning)?  Make a TN 20 Will check and if you succeed, you get the creature, but it gets a Will check against your spell DC with a +4 bonus to be uncontrolled.  

Adding a line to 'normal' line to each feat that doesn't have it might be helpful in that case.

There is a big difference between 3.5/PF and Kevin Crawford's Stars Without Number foci or Savage Worlds edges.

When "feats" matter and are impactful to the character, then they are good. Feat taxes are bad. A feat system written to sell more and more feats tends to also be bad.

I thought Feats were optional in 5e?
Is the complaint, more accurately, that you can't find anyone willing to play without them?

Quote from: Razor 007;1098327Or perhaps, like I'm building my character using Lego blocks.

Or perhaps, it makes my medieval fantasy roleplay start to feel like superhero fantasy roleplay.  It's a distraction that interferes with my immersion in a medieval game.  ASI's, within reasonable limits; don't interfere with my immersion the same way.

In my mind it could be worse, you could have to play a character whose race is their class.  Now that is immersion breaking video game bonkerness.

Quote from: Razor 007;1098377Because I want all the D & D goodies in my games.

Have you looked at Shadow of the Demon Lord? It has all of the D&D tropes with a slimmed mechanic, a reasonable lethal system, and a light setting. It's one of the games that fights with D&D5e for my fantasy itch when I feel that the latter is "too much game" for what I'm looking to do.

Quote from: Simlasa;1098392I thought Feats were optional in 5e?
Is the complaint, more accurately, that you can't find anyone willing to play without them?

It would be nice if Feats were in a separate book of options, and not in the PHB itself.  Even though it says that Feats are optional, they are right there with the information you use to create and advance your character.

Eh, they existed in old school D&D.  2E had proficiences.  BECMI D&D had weapon mastery which gave people different maneuvers they could do with weapons.  And many of the feats are simply class abilities from 1e or even OD&D, just now people choose instead of them being baked into the class.

Feats in 3e are essentially just special skills and widgets that would normally be skills and lit perks in 2e.

In 5e Feats are not 3e Feats and should not have been called that.

So in the end yes having skills detracts from D&D as it feels like I am playing a video game or lego blocks. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Razor 007;1098327Or perhaps, like I'm building my character using Lego blocks.

Or perhaps, it makes my medieval fantasy roleplay start to feel like superhero fantasy roleplay.  It's a distraction that interferes with my immersion in a medieval game.  ASI's, within reasonable limits; don't interfere with my immersion the same way.

I'm sorry your experience is different from others.

But if you want your D&D goodies, you get to deal with feats.  Or you could try older versions of D&D and not have to pay the feat tax.

Quote from: Razor 007;1098343It seems like outside of the OSR movement; RPGs are going full blown Featpalooza, and I don't like it.  PF2E being an excellent example.

Now, get off of my lawn!!!

Exception-based design, chargen and advancement via deck-building, planning 1-20 character builds with Feat/Trait trees, etc.  It's very CCG/Videogamey, and it's how WotC makes games.  Period.  You're also seeing a lot of other games doing the same thing.

Then again, we're always had GURPS and HERO with Advantages/Disadvantages and Powers that are much more tailorable than Feats.

You're right though, it's definitely a "thing" and is increasingly becoming the norm.

Quote from: pdboddy;1098530Or you could try older versions of D&D and not have to pay the feat tax.

I've run 5e 1-20 without feats, it works fine. Even if GM allows them the player doesn't have to take them.

Quote from: S'mon;1098539I've run 5e 1-20 without feats, it works fine. Even if GM allows them the player doesn't have to take them.

I've let players take feats for their characters.  So far, I'm seeing about one feat taken for every 20 or so opportunities.  It's always been highly on point and helpful to that character's style.  Giving up that ability score adjustment is no small thing.  And by the time characters get up into their teen levels, a feat or three added on is hardly going to over-complicate things compared to what was before.

Agree with others that 5E "feats" should have been named something else, because the baggage on the term is misleading in 5E.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1098535Exception-based design, chargen and advancement via deck-building, planning 1-20 character builds with Feat/Trait trees, etc.  It's very CCG/Videogamey, and it's how WotC makes games.  Period.  You're also seeing a lot of other games doing the same thing.

In the Fantasy Heartbreaker my friends and I created and play, we use Feats (called Talents) that have no prerequisites other than level.  There are Talents that are available beginning at level 5 and Talents available at Level 9 that provide powers that would be game-breaking at lower levels, but otherwise, you don't have to plan ahead.

I'm with you Razor, I prefer creative thinking at the gaming table. Feats widgetize possible action, and in my experience all that does is prevent players from doing what they want to do, rather than enable it. In my game, anyone can attempt any "feat" they can think of at any time, and that results in a lot of situational variety. To me, a hero that performs the same action over and over again gets dull fast, and that repetition just amplifies the feel of repeatedly hitting a button on a game controller.

With well over a dozen skills, and six abilities; I don't see the need for Feats.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1098540Agree with others that 5E "feats" should have been named something else, because the baggage on the term is misleading in 5E.

You could replace "feats" with any of a hundred other terms too, but 5e is the baggage-honoring edition.

Quote from: Zalman;1098592IFeats widgetize possible action, and in my experience all that does is prevent players from doing what they want to do, rather than enable it.

If the game explains some 'sample actions' and how they ought to be adjudicated (or if you make it clear at your table) that might be true, but for most people feats let them do things that they might not be allowed to do otherwise.

Without a feat or a class ability, how do you determine what happens when I try to attack with two weapons?

Without a feat or a class ability, how do you determine what happens when I try to wear full plate that I'm not proficient in and is not sized for me?

Without a feat or class ability, how do you determine what happens when I say I want to leap onto the dragon's back as he flies by, balance on his neck, and plunge my sword directly into his brain pan?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098640Without a feat or a class ability, how do you determine what happens when I try to attack with two weapons?
Without a feat or a class ability, how do you determine what happens when I try to wear full plate that I'm not proficient in and is not sized for me?
Without a feat or class ability, how do you determine what happens when I say I want to leap onto the dragon's back as he flies by, balance on his neck, and plunge my sword directly into his brain pan?

Personally, I wouldn't conflate class abilities with feats. To me, that's like asking "how do I know if my character can cast spells or not?". That question might make sense in a game without classes, but otherwise the answer is simple: some classes include that training, others do not.

As for the other examples, I prefer rulings over rules. I do use general guidelines that include "doing anything fancy" to achieve an effect in battle other than causing damage, and they work just fine for 99.99% of the cases without modification. I find my players a lot more creative for it, and more heroic.

My experience with feat-based systems has been opposite: players frequently suffer from "I-don't-have-that-feat" paralysis, and are more likely to feel like the game is about what they can't do than what they can do.

The first two I listed are feats that are provided freely as class abilities.  There's certainly a blurring of the lines.

The thing that feats do is they make it clear to the players what the rules are if they want to do something.  

I agree that feats can close off too much of the play space, but I think that comes from poorly defining what happens if you don't have a feat.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098671The thing that feats do is they make it clear to the players what the rules are if they want to do something.

I don't think feats are the best way of doing that, but I certainly agree that gaming is better if players are on the same page as the GM about whether swinging on a chandelier and crashing through the window, before swinging their sword at someone makes it overall more or less likely that the character will hit with their sword. And is it more or less likely that instead of getting to attack the character instead will (a) fall flat on his back leaving him open to a counter attack or (b) take damage from deadly shards of glass.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098671I agree that feats can close off too much of the play space, but I think that comes from poorly defining what happens if you don't have a feat.

The best feats are those that specifically grant an exception to a clearly defined default rule. Feats that grant "exceptions" that make you have to go back and piece together what the default rule is supposed to be suck.

Attacking with two weapons in 5e is not attached to feats or classes. It is a function within the Combat chapter, limited by the keywords of said weapons. :) Anyway, this may not be the most fruitful expansion of whatever argument you guys are going on about.

If feats' justification can stand on its own, that would be more convincing that it is not a kludge. ;)

I've never been a fan of feats, for the big reason laid out previously (the implication that without the feat, you can't even attempt the action).

It's for this reason that I enjoy GURPS' approach, where anyone can at least attempt pretty much anything a regular person could (for example, attack more than once in a turn; kip up from a prone position; trip/disarm; climb a sheer wall; duck-roll to reduce fall damage; do a backflip; etc.), but where extra-normal traits or abilities must be purchased (the ability to slice bullets out of the air with your katana; running and gunning with double pistols with a bonus instead of a massive penalty + skill cap; running up the side of a building; etc.) or learned/trained.

If strictly talking D&D approaches, I vastly prefer the stripped-down OSR variants to 'modern' D&D/PF feats (although I don't mind Proficiencies).