D&D (2024) 75 Feats -- not nearly enough

[Horwath]

And let's be honest

A lot of the feats are either class features stripped out for dabbling or specializations striped out the fighter to make the core fighter simple as dirt.

We don't really need half the feats.

true,

maybe barbarian should have been: RAGE! I smash, you die! simple warrior.

Then in reverse 90% of "class features" can become feats that anyone can take.

classes are just a guideline how to pick a bunch of feats and not gimp the character(most of the time as we do have the monk class)

 

[Horwath]

I think the game does just fine with the selection of feats it currently has.

So if that 75 is just the majority of what was released in the PHB, Tasha's and Xanathar's re-printed, I'm honestly fine with that.

As a crunch fan, more might be fun, but its hardly necessary.

I also as a crunch fan thinks that 75 would be more than enough, if-and only if, they are balanced with eachother and with level they can be acquired.

half the printed feat I have never seen taken once and 25% are only taken here and there, with 25% being mandatory for various builds.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The reason there are no level 8 feats is very simple. When they experimented with them in UA a year or two ago they met with a very strongly negative reaction. A majority of people who posted an opinion did not want them.

 

[Kobold Stew]

In a core game, it is massive. It's a lot to ask players to study and learn and a lot for them to go through when creating a new character. The decision points will be an absolute slog at many tables.

they will require assistance to go through character creation with 75 feats. That means the core rules have failed.

Honestly, 75 feats in a core game sounds terrible to me. Session 0 slog and more charop-minigame shenanigans.

I'm not sure why you think this is the case. Perhaps you haven't read the OP?

At level 1 (i.e. what you refer to with "creating a new character", "assistance to go through character creation", "session 0 slog"), there are 10 options we've seen in the playtest materials, 5 possible inclusions from tasha's, and fighting styles, which won't be available to every class. And there might be a few more.

If 15-20 is too many for you, it might help if you identified what number do you think is not a slog for players making a first-level character. Because for most, this is not a wide choice, and certainly a simpler choice than which class to play.

(EDIT: I'm in an area w/ slow wifi, and I was scooped by @Justice and Rule )

 

[Minigiant]

The reason there are no level 8 feats is very simple. When they experimented with them in UA a year or two ago they met with a very strongly negative reaction. A majority of people who posted an opinion did not want them.

They Never playtedted level 8 feats.

Only levels 1, 4, and 20.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They Never playtedted level 8 feats.

Only levels 1, 4, and 20.

There where level 8 feats tested in the UA for Bigby's, and a few years back for Eberron. Both times they where strongly rejected.

 

[GrimCo]

Level prerequsits fo feats are bad design imho. Good feats should be viable options at all levels,1-20.

Locking feats via minimum level just means that lv 4 feats will be stronger and better than lv1 and that lv1 feats will give options that are less usefull at higher levels.

 

[Horwath]

There where level 8 feats tested in the UA for Bigby's, and a few years back for Eberron. Both times they where strongly rejected.

probably as they were worse than feats you could take at 1st level as variant human.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

and in reverse, you can take any 4th level feat at 1st level without +1 ASI

Not sure about that. I like that some feats are gated behind level requirement 4+

 

[Horwath]

Not sure about that. I like that some feats are gated behind level requirement 4+

why?
what feat is so game breaking at 1st level?

only one that could possibly be is Heavy armor master and that was reworked from 3 to prof bonus in damage reduction.