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

[Horwath]

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.

yeah, the horror, asking players to read 2-3 pages of text, oh the humanity...

 

[B9anders]

yeah, the horror, asking players to read 2-3 pages of text, oh the humanity...

75 feats won't fit there.

I get it, there is no upper limit for complexity for your desire to crunch out characters and you have no time or appreciation for the fact that a lot of gamers don't share that. The humanity indeed.

I would never use such a game as an introductory rpg for kids, for example. Or anyone new to roleplaying really.

 

[Havain]

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.

There would be less than 75 when creating a character though right, since many of them are 4th level feats now?

 

[Horwath]

75 feats won't fit there.

maybe with no pictures and not a huge font, haha

I get it, there is no upper limit for complexity for your desire to crunch out characters and you have no time or appreciation for the fact that a lot of gamers don't share that. The humanity indeed.

so we have to cater to them?
you can as a DM remove all items that you think are too complicated for your players. Dont do that for all players

I would never use such a game as an introductory rpg for kids, for example.

maybe DND should not be that, or you should when making campaign for kids spend more time with them while making charcters. you know, knowing your players and their needs are?

Or anyone new to roleplaying really.

Funny, over last 10 years I've played with dozens of new players and not one wanted a more simple game, some even started playing their 1st time at 6th level without much problem, even full casters.

Some people really underestimate average players intelligence.

 

[B9anders]

maybe with no pictures and not a huge font, haha

so we have to cater to them?
you can as a DM remove all items that you think are too complicated for your players. Dont do that for all players

it would be nice if the core rules helped with that baseline, the way 5e does.

I have no issue with splat supplements to help PGs scratch their itch.

But I do have an issue with the most popular rpg in the world going in a direction where added complexity becomes mandatory.

maybe DND should not be that, or you should when making campaign for kids spend more time with them while making charcters. you know, knowing your players and their needs are?

I think D&D should be that. That's why we have Classic D&D throughout TSR's history. And why 5e has been such a smash hit, because it enabled a simpler playstyle than 3rd and 4th edition.

If I were to run a campaign for my current table with the new rules, I imagine there'd be a couple of players who'd need assistance with character creation, because they can't be bothered with internalisating that many options.

I don't like to run games where the rules are so complex that half the table basically rely on the GM to know stuff for them.

Funny, over last 10 years I've played with dozens of new players and not one wanted a more simple game, some even started playing their 1st time at 6th level without much problem, even full casters.

Some people really underestimate average players intelligence.

It's nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with zeal for complexity.

I think your own preference puts you out of touch with how zealous many gamers actually are. There are many happy to learn the rules up to a point and then show up for game nights, but who would never go online and discuss D&D, or ever touch on topics like charop, etc.

5e was able to meet those gamers. And also the PGs via splatbooks. 3e frankly was already too complex a game for such players. It sounds like the next edition will tilt towards too much complexity in the core game again.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

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.

Given that they are sectioned off by level and usage, it's actually a lot less. Definitely not more "Session 0 slog", certainly, and for those who don't want to use them they won't.

You talk about decision points, but sometimes a lack of options can slow things down because nothing quite fits and you are trying to figure out what works best among a bunch of imperfect options: adding some extra stuff can help in that regard.

it would be nice if the core rules helped with that baseline, the way 5e does.

I have no issue with splat supplements to help PGs scratch their itch.

But I do have an issue with the most popular rpg in the world going in a direction where added complexity becomes mandatory.

Have they said it's mandatory? As far as I know it's not, and this feels like we are ripping on them for adding options more than anything. If you want people to play simple stuff, there's nothing that takes that away in this. It just gives options for people who want them.

I think D&D should be that. That's why we have Classic D&D throughout TSR's history. And why 5e has been such a smash hit, because it enabled a simpler playstyle than 3rd and 4th edition.

If I were to run a campaign for my current table with the new rules, I imagine there'd be a couple of players who'd need assistance with character creation, because they can't be bothered with internalisating that many options.

I don't like to run games where the rules are so complex that half the table basically rely on the GM to know stuff for them.

Maybe that's just your group? Like, you still have the option to simplify stuff down, but I find less problems with my groups, especially among the younger players.

It's nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with zeal for complexity.


I think your own preference puts you out of touch with how zealous many gamers actually are. There are many happy to learn the rules up to a point and then show up for game nights, but who would never go online and discuss D&D, or ever touch on topics like charop, etc.

5e was able to meet those gamers. And also the PGs via splatbooks. 3e frankly was already too complex a game for such players. It sounds like the next edition will tilt towards too much complexity in the core game again.

I mean, maybe that goes back at you? Sometimes "streamlined" doesn't actually always make things faster or better. "Zeal for simplicity" has been a massive problem in the game, especially when it comes to the design of certain classes (like the Fighter).

But I think your example of 3E is not necessarily wrong but perhaps misses some of the bigger underlying problems: 3E was terribly balanced and had a great deal of trap builds and long feat-chains. It wasn't that the complexity of 3E was the problem, but rather you were forced to engage in that complexity many times to build a functional character, especially depending on the class. If you balance your stuff out of the gate much better, having more options is less of a problem because "optimization" becomes less of a concern than "What's something cool for my character?"

 

[Sulicius]

If they give rebalancing feats a shot, those 75 might all become options, which is better than what we had.

To optimizers it will never be enough, but they only use 10-15 anyway. And if more feats are released? The optimization will incorporate a few.

75 is more than enough to take a feat every 4 levels, from 1 to 20 and not run out picking a different feat with 15 characters.

 

[Horwath]

it would be nice if the core rules helped with that baseline, the way 5e does.

I have no issue with splat supplements to help PGs scratch their itch.

But I do have an issue with the most popular rpg in the world going in a direction where added complexity becomes mandatory.

I think D&D should be that. That's why we have Classic D&D throughout TSR's history. And why 5e has been such a smash hit, because it enabled a simpler playstyle than 3rd and 4th edition.

it's easier as a DM to dumb things down then to complex it up on yourself.
when you are simplifying, you are using existing mechanics, just removing some of them.

when you are inventing things on your own, that is a lot more work and a lot more places where you can make a mistake.

If I were to run a campaign for my current table with the new rules, I imagine there'd be a couple of players who'd need assistance with character creation, because they can't be bothered with internalisating that many options.

I don't like to run games where the rules are so complex that half the table basically rely on the GM to know stuff for them.

thats... what are DMs and other experienced players for, I've helped a lot of new players with their vision of characters.
what is the problem?

It's nothing to do with intelligence and more to do with zeal for complexity.

I think your own preference puts you out of touch with how zealous many gamers actually are. There are many happy to learn the rules up to a point and then show up for game nights, but who would never go online and discuss D&D, or ever touch on topics like charop, etc.

5e was able to meet those gamers. And also the PGs via splatbooks. 3e frankly was already too complex a game for such players. It sounds like the next edition will tilt towards too much complexity in the core game again.

you can have a complex game game that have simple options very easy, but having a simple game that tries to be complex is very hard.
That is why it's better for D&D to be complex that can be dialed down if needed(and most of the time it's not needed)

EDIT:
it would also help if PHB comes with suggested builds for new characters like 3.5e

 

[Minigiant]

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.

 

[Ringtail]

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.