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

[tetrasodium]

I agree that the game is functional.
It remains functional without feats.

Trouble is that the game was designed so the GM is equipped with monsters & challenges suited to PCs hitting a bar far below the one PCs actually punch. The idea that feats are "optional" and that the baseline should be deliberate self sabotage levels of CharOp during character creation because players rarely feel that feats or magic items are actually "optional" with good reason.

The questions are
1) whether or not it is worthwhile to forgo an ability score increase to choose a feat

That's the wrong question because it omits acceptance & acknowledgement of critically important elements that solidly cement the answer in place. Because the monsters are designed to a standard so far below even the most basic "I should put my highest stat in my most important attrib" levels of CharOp there is no meaningful opportunity cost involved in taking an S-tier feat(or close) instead of a +2 attribute bonus. That is further compounded by the fact that in the chance event that there is an opportunity cost it's most likely because the GM is using custom or 3pp monsters which opens the door for that player to complain that the GM needs to give them magic items that erase that opportunity cost while still maintaining the benefits of that feat.

2) and is that true for 75 of them?

We've seen exactly zero because anything in the UA can change & there has been almost no info from wotc about 5.5 that would allow forming an opinion. Back in 3.5 the answer was "Obviously yes, duh" but with 2014's baselines it's hard to say how many of those feats will even be worth the ink or paper used to print them

Also, as the conversation has progressed:
1) Will the leveled feats mean that the ones worthwhile are locked behind being required to choose ones which aren't?

With any luck many of them will have additional requirements beyond level alone

2) Is it good game structure to have choosing a feat compete with ability score advancement?

Not really but at a conceptual level feats have severe problems at their core since 2014 in the way they try to graft a contradictory mishmash of 3.5 mechanics & expectations onto 2e style mechanics & expectations. That clash overshadows any answer that could be given

 

[Neonchameleon]

I agree that the game is functional.
It remains functional without feats.

The questions are
1) whether or not it is worthwhile to forgo an ability score increase to choose a feat
2) and is that true for 75 of them?

1: Depends on the feat, the build, and depending whether the feats give +1 ASI how far you intend to take the campaign.
2: There is no build that this will be true for all 75 feats.

In OG 5e if you have an even prime stat there are four martial feats that are worth a +2 ASI if they work with your build (Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master). There are some other feats that are worth taking in specific builds (e.g. an Illusionist picking up a warlock at will illusion invocation).

In D&Done from what we have seen of the playtest:

• few of the first level feats are worth a +2 ASI.
• With the "standard array" and floating stats leading to 17/14/14 starting stats, and all the fourth level feats having a +1 ASI a fourth level feat that works with you will be better than a +2 ASI. Almost everyone who can is better off picking a feat at level 4. Monks and Charismadins might go for a 16/16/13 starting array but these cases are rare.
• By level 12 (10 for rogues and 8 for fighters) you can get three feats that synergise with what you do and hit [primary stat] 20. If you are intending to go to or beyond level 12 three level four feats is an obvious good pick.
• If you are planning to not go much past level 8 a +2 ASI is frequently competitive with your second choice level 4 feat.

Also, as the conversation has progressed:
1) Will the leveled feats mean that the ones worthwhile are locked behind being required to choose ones which aren't?

No.

2) Is it good game structure to have choosing a feat compete with ability score advancement?

It is not good game structure to have the boring choice be the strong choice. But having boring choices that are valid is fine.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

I don't think that they will make the +2 ASI into a feat. The later UAs looked like it was back to "ASI or Feat" like the 2014 PHB.

I think you missed that the ASI was considered a Feat in the documents.

Anyway I think too much is being assumed of the Feats right now, we don't know how all of them are being changed, and how many will be 1st Level Feats that you get one of for free.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Trouble is that the game was designed so the GM is equipped with monsters & challenges suited to PCs hitting a bar far below the one PCs actually punch. The idea that feats are "optional" and that the baseline should be deliberate self sabotage levels of CharOp during character creation because players rarely feel that feats or magic items are actually "optional" with good reason.

That's the wrong question because it omits acceptance & acknowledgement of critically important elements that solidly cement the answer in place. Because the monsters are designed to a standard so far below even the most basic "I should put my highest stat in my most important attrib" levels of CharOp there is no meaningful opportunity cost involved in taking an S-tier feat(or close) instead of a +2 attribute bonus. That is further compounded by the fact that in the chance event that there is an opportunity cost it's most likely because the GM is using custom or 3pp monsters which opens the door for that player to complain that the GM needs to give them magic items that erase that opportunity cost while still maintaining the benefits of that feat.

We've seen exactly zero because anything in the UA can change & there has been almost no info from wotc about 5.5 that would allow forming an opinion. Back in 3.5 the answer was "Obviously yes, duh" but with 2014's baselines it's hard to say how many of those feats will even be worth the ink or paper used to print them

With any luck many of them will have additional requirements beyond level alone

Not really but at a conceptual level feats have severe problems at their core since 2014 in the way they try to graft a contradictory mishmash of 3.5 mechanics & expectations onto 2e style mechanics & expectations. That clash overshadows any answer that could be given

You do know that Monsters and encounter building are being redone as well. Most monsters are in a much better situation as well.

Also the players can be easily challenged by the DM using even just MM monsters alone. I don't know if you know this, but it's really really easy to hit the PCs with more than they can handle.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The questions are
1) whether or not it is worthwhile to forgo an ability score increase to choose a feat

No, these are not the questions. Based on what we've seen feats will be available to some martial characters without the option of +2 ASI, and every character will get a starting feat without the option of a +2 ASI. Of course that could change, but this framing misses everything that has been added in the playtest.

2) and is that true for 75 of them?

No one expects all 75 to fit every character. Different ones for different people, and (shock horror) some people might not be interested in optimized builds.

1) Will the leveled feats mean that the ones worthwhile are locked behind being required to choose ones which aren't?

In the playtest documents there are none that operate this way.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think you missed that the ASI was considered a Feat in the documents.

No, I didn't.

I think that you might have missed that the last few playtest packets were back to calling the L4, L8 etc class abilities "Ability Score Improvement" in their respective charts. It appears that part has returned to 2014-style.

Anyway I think too much is being assumed of the Feats right now, we don't know how all of them are being changed, and how many will be 1st Level Feats that you get one of for free.

More precisely, you get it with your Background - whether you pick one or make one up.

I agree with you that too much is being assumed. That was kind of my point!

 

[MonsterEnvy]

No, I didn't.

I think that you might have missed that the last few playtest packets were back to calling the L4, L8 etc class abilities "Ability Score Improvement" in their respective charts. It appears that part has returned to 2014-style.


More precisely, you get it with your Background - whether you pick one or make one up.

I agree with you that too much is being assumed. That was kind of my point!

You missed the Feat section of the playtest. This is taken from Playtest 8.

It's considered a feat.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

You missed the Feat section of the playtest.

Again, NO, I did NOT miss that. It was consistent with the other playtest packets. The part that I'M talking about is THIS:

Playtest 5

Playtest 8

My point being that they appear to be going backwards.

But like we've both said - We simply don't know what the final form of anything is going to look like. The playtest is a playtest. Anyone who was around for D&DNext knows that the final printed books can look very very different from the playtest.

 

[Argyle King]

....

feats.
But having boring choices that are valid is fine.

I'm less concerned with boring choices that are valid than I am choices that are fun but kinda suck.

I think most people (including myself) are willing sacrifice some amount of +N to get something we would have more fun with. However, I don't believe the game should be built around needing to do that.

 

[Argyle King]

No, these are not the questions. Based on what we've seen feats will be available to some martial characters without the option of +2 ASI, and every character will get a starting feat without the option of a +2 ASI. Of course that could change, but this framing misses everything that has been added in the playtest.

No one expects all 75 to fit every character. Different ones for different people, and (shock horror) some people might not be interested in optimized builds.

In the playtest documents there are none that operate this way.

I addressed earlier that I'm not talking about optimized builds.

Currently, there are a small handful of feats that are so ridiculously good in comparison to the rest that (in my anecdotal experience) the people who choose feats usually stick with those few.

Even people who don't care about min/maxing can still care about not feeling like they're a liability to the team.