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

[UngeheuerLich]

I hope they reconsidered how they distinguished between different level feats.
It would be easier if all level 1 feats would also get +1 ASI if you took them at a later level.

 

[Horwath]

I hope they reconsidered how they distinguished between different level feats.
It would be easier if all level 1 feats would also get +1 ASI if you took them at a later level.

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

 

[B9anders]

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

5e curtailed the excesses of 3e by having a tighter core base and the excellent rule of core+1 rulebook.

I was hoping for less feats better designed.

 

[Minigiant]

Does the game need feats? I have always allowed them when running 5e but also have done some one shots where no feats were taken and nothing was missed. I don't want a return to 3.x and 4e where feats dominated the game and it was about "builds" instead of actual character. I moved from D&D to DCC because Goodman handled the feat question elegantly in mighty deeds and how the classes worked and his luck mechanic(s). I love 5e but after the simplicity of OSE/BX and DCC my group has said no more Starfinder, Pathfinder, etc and 5e needs to avoid that pitfall. That is the way of bloat. ESPECIALLY leveled feats.

Well it depends.

Feats explain "Is my character different?".

Feats often "make up for" the simplicity of the base Ability Score and class system of most editions. And the simplistic races as well.

There was always a drive to this. Before it was weapon specialization and spell school specialization. Then there was weapon speed and attack charts.

I could play a fighter then my fighter either dies or I go into a new campaign, I can play a new fighter that plays different from the last. And what if you have 2 members of the same class. Now you are in direct competition for a role or loot in a cooperative game

Without feats, the onus on mechanical differentiation is placed on the DM who is now forced to hand out crazier loot

 

[GrimCo]

Personaly, i like feats as optional rules. It makes character creation easier and faster.

At this point, i would rather have 10-15 good, interesting and usefull feats than 75-100 feat of which 80-90% are rarley if ever taken cause they are outright bad, too niche or very situational. And no feat chains. 3.x had those where you needed bad feat or two as a prerequisite to take one that was actually good. Small selection of good feats removes both choice paralisys, fomo and trap choices, all very real problem that plagued 3.x with it's hundreads of feats.

 

[B9anders]

Well it depends.

Feats explain "Is my character different?".

Feats often "make up for" the simplicity of the base Ability Score and class system of most editions. And the simplistic races as well.

There was always a drive to this. Before it was weapon specialization and spell school specialization. Then there was weapon speed and attack charts.

I could play a fighter then my fighter either dies or I go into a new campaign, I can play a new fighter that plays different from the last. And what if you have 2 members of the same class. Now you are in direct competition for a role or loot in a cooperative game

Without feats, the onus on mechanical differentiation is placed on the DM who is now forced to hand out crazier loot

And similarly, there has always been a drive towards less. 5e struck a nice balance, by looking to make it possible to play a straight featless fighter who could still work alongside a tricked out warlock/paladin.

Ok, they ultimately failed, but 5e is still a better game for trying to make that happen. Mechanical differentiation is not the sine qua non of D&D. There are many ways to differentiate a character non-mechanically.

 

[Horwath]

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

5e curtailed the excesses of 3e by having a tighter core base and the excellent rule of core+1 rulebook.

I was hoping for less feats better designed.

you can certainly have less feat better desing, but 75 feats is not that much IMHO.

you could merge Shadow touched and Fey touched and streamline it to:

Spell touched:
+1 ASI
learn one 1st level spell and one 2nd level spell
gain one 1st and 2nd level spell slot.
you can take this feat up to two times. Or 3? Or any number?

Skilled, skill expert, various armor proficiencies can be merged into one feat:

Additional training:
gain 6 benefits from the list:
skill proficiency(can be taken any number of times)
skill expertise(can be taken 2 times)
Tool proficiency in 3 tools
3 Languages
martial weapons(costs 2 benefits)
cantrip(can be taken 3 times)
shield proficiency
Light armor proficiency
Medium armor(requires light armor)
heavy armor(requires medium armor)
Saving throw(dex, con or wis) costs 2 benefits
Saving throw(str, int or cha) costs 1 benefit. This might go to 2 also, depending on 2024 saving throws spread across 6 abilities.
+1 ASI(costs 3 benefits), if you really only want a Half-feat

 

[Minigiant]

And similarly, there has always been a drive towards less. 5e struck a nice balance, by looking to make it possible to play a straight featless fighter who could still work alongside a tricked out warlock/paladin.

Ok, they ultimately failed, but 5e is still a better game for trying to make that happen. Mechanical differentiation is not the sine qua non of D&D. There are many ways to differentiate a character non-mechanically.

Mechanical differentiation is not essential...

...unless you are trying to sell a lot of books of the same game to the same groups of people for a decade.

 

[B9anders]

you can certainly have less feat better desing, but 75 feats is not that much IMHO.

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.

There will always be the dedicated ones who internalise all of it and can quickly visualize what will go with their build or idea. But a lot of gamers just sorta know the rules and they will require assistance to go through character creation with 75 feats. That means the core rules have failed.

 

[Horwath]

Personaly, i like feats as optional rules. It makes character creation easier and faster.

At this point, i would rather have 10-15 good, interesting and usefull feats than 75-100 feat of which 80-90% are rarley if ever taken cause they are outright bad, too niche or very situational. And no feat chains. 3.x had those where you needed bad feat or two as a prerequisite to take one that was actually good. Small selection of good feats removes both choice paralisys, fomo and trap choices, all very real problem that plagued 3.x with it's hundreads of feats.

problem with 3.5e was that every splatbook came with like 50 feats added, several times per year.

feat chains might be OK for 5E, if concept is too much for one full feat or some part might be too powerful for a given level.
but two feats should be max for feat chain.