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

[Pedantic]

We've never really recovered from the original sin of conflating ASIs and feats to begin with. It might have worked, if accuracy was somehow stripped out of the equation.

 

[Shardstone]

Feats and Class/Subclass Features are basically the same thing.

Multiclassing comes with more then just a feat, it comes with profs. Mike Mearls said it made an issue for making new classes in the game and was what he calls a Tech Debt -- its a drawback that impacts the design of every class afterwards.

 

[Shardstone]

If it had been boarderline the would have included it in the new PHB playtest. The results were sufficiently cut-and-dried that there was no point.

WotC want the new rules to be as popular as possible in order to make the most money. Contrary to certain people's delusions, that means they closely follow the market research.

Strange how they've never been really consistent with this. Back in the Xanathars says, we learned that the hexblade didn't meet the 70% threshold but got in anyway, and that the Shadow Sorcerer was less popular than ALL of the elemental sorcerers but they got cut. I just don't think WotC is the perfect decision making machine many people pretend they are.

 

[Horwath]

First off, that feat does not do the same thing as shadow or fey touched. It removes the limitations on the feat (ASI is a mental score, 2nd level spell if fixed, 1st level is limited to two school choices). FT is already powerful, and this feat is essentially a no brainier feat tax for anyone seriously playing a caster.

Which leads to the next part: where is the story? Fey and shadow touched both insinuate some connection to the closest planes in the Multiverse: feywild and shadowfell. The limitations encourage and enforce this flavor. Further, feats are always named as adjectives or descriptions; they describe a character by giving them an attribute like observant, tough, or keen minded. I want players taking feats because they describe their characters, not because they are strict (or necessary) power upgrades. In that regard, the more specific and niche a fast is, the better. I want people taking shadow touched because the thought of going invisible and using spoopy magic is a part of their identity, not because that's two free spells of your choice known and two free spell slots.

I agree with you, but the answer was towards making less feats to print, this does that, it takes two very similar feats and combines then into one generic feat.

 

[Remathilis]

I agree with you, but the answer was towards making less feats to print, this does that, it takes two very similar feats and combines then into one generic feat.

Feat: Do Whatever
+1 ASI
You gain one ability of your choosing. Work with the DM to determine a suitable ability. You can take this feat multiple times.

There. We combined all the feats into a single one. Look how much space we saved.

That's not the point though. All the space saving in the world is useless if feats are generic and flavorless.

 

[tetrasodium]

We've never really recovered from the original sin of conflating ASIs and feats to begin with. It might have worked, if accuracy was somehow stripped out of the equation.

I'm not sure what 4e used, but It certainly didn't help topping that choice off with the decision to drop 3.x style +N attribute modifying gear in favor of 2e style attrib=19 stuff without rolling back to 2e style usually near meaningless attributes with a comparably giant +0 deadzone

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Anyone worried about the idea that "75 Feats" will make Session Zero a slog - you don't go looking through 75 feats at Level 1. You pick a background and it gives you a feat. You can custom-make a background, but that's only if you WANT to add that level of complexity. Similarly, you can STILL take ASIs at Level 4, etc.

For those that don't like Feats, they're still essentially optional - your background feature is just feat-like now. (In that it's called "a feat" and actually does more than free room and board).

 

[roger semerad]

Honestly, arguing about the number of feats is the most pointless discussion on the board. Since day one tying ASI's and feats together to the same resource has completely hamstrung the ability for feats to be interesting. The standard model for feats is you take the one option that is absolutely necessary for your build as your first feat, then maxed out your primary stat. Then and only then could you actually look at the feat list and see if there are any that interest you, and that would be at level 16 for most builds ( first feat at lv.4, 8&12 asi ). Even then, that only applies if your class is single ability dependent. If your character is MAD the feat system might as well not exist. 5.5's level one feat might help a little, but just isn't enough to fix this fundamental problem. I'd respect the designers more if they removed feats from the game, at least they'd be honest and consistent about the goals of the game. I want feats, but we would need a 6th edition to fix this.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

I honestly hope that they get rid of the "Level One" feats too and just have the background give you a feat, minus the +1 ASI. And balance the feats accordingly.

Actually, I don't think they'll do this, but what I'd really like is for the floating +2/+1 ASI at character creation, that used to belong to Races, gets ditched and that all classes give you an option of two class-based prime stats (Like Fighter being "Add +2 to STR or DEX or +1 to each). And background gives you your +1, through the feat that it adds (or you pick your own feat at level 1).

This way, ALL the Level 1 ASIs are explained through your character's training.

 

[Zaukrie]

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.

Mechanical differentiation is essential to me, or every fighter is the same....I think we'll disagree here.