D&D (2024) Where should optional rules go and why?

[Horwath]

What you mean feats should have never been optional? The only make or break for me to decide if I'm going to adhere to the 2024 ruleset is the optionality of feats.

I really hope they include the option to play without feats in the new PHB.

there will be a feat that gives you +2 to ability or +1 to two abilities, so you are covered.

 

[Nefermandias]

there will be a feat that gives you +2 to ability or +1 to two abilities, so you are covered.

Unless the books specifically spells out only allowing Ability Score Improvement as a valid game mode, players are going to complain and lash out at the DMs for choosing to do so.

 

[Horwath]

Unless the books specifically spells out only allowing Ability Score Improvement as a valid game mode, players are going to complain and lash out at the DMs for choosing to do so.

why would you want that anyway?

I have played in tens of campaigns in last 10 years and there were feats in all.

The part it is optional was just a cop-out for: we didn't playtest those 100% so you do it for us. Same for multiclassing.

So we did, 1st thing was to remove -5/+10 from those 2 feats and replace it with +1 ASI

 

[Nefermandias]

why would you want that anyway?

I have played in tens of campaigns in last 10 years and there were feats in all.

The part it is optional was just a cop-out for: we didn't playtest those 100% so you do it for us. Same for multiclassing.

So we did, 1st thing was to remove -5/+10 from those 2 feats and replace it with +1 ASI

I really dislike feats. A great deal of them just serve to take away aspects of the gameplay and reduce the importance of action declaration and decision making.

See for example, a fighter who takes both Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert suddenly doesn't have to worry with positioning on the battlefield anymore, since he's always ignoring cover and Disadvantage for shooting in melee.

Alert completely negates the possibility of the player being surprised.

Take War Caster and you suddenly don't have to worry about having your concentration broken or managing which items to hold in your hands during combat anymore.

Those are just a few examples of why I think the way 5e implement feats actually detracts from the game experience.

 

[Horwath]

I really dislike feats. A great deal of them just serve to take away aspects of the gameplay and reduce the importance of action declaration and decision making.

See for example, a fighter who takes both Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert suddenly doesn't have to worry with positioning on the battlefield anymore, since he's always ignoring cover and Disadvantage for shooting in melee.

Alert completely negates the possibility of the player being surprised.

Take War Caster and you suddenly don't have to worry about having your concentration broken or managing which items to hold in your hands during combat anymore.

Those are just a few examples of why I think the way 5e implement feats actually detracts from the game experience.

or feats describe at what you are really good at.

And feats are just as same as class features not tied to class.

And I didn't know that Warcaster makes you immune to Con saves, it just makes you better, enough damage instances and caster WILL fail.

And I didn't take that feat on any caster I played in 5E, the feat is just so damn boring, same as +2 HP per level feat.
or armor feats, or durable.

Now, Telekinetic is to me no.1 feat in the game in terms of design, and it's mechanically very useful but not broken.

Agree on Alert that it's too powerful and it is already sorted for new PHB, same as SS and GWM.

 

[Nefermandias]

or feats describe at what you are really good at.

And feats are just as same as class features not tied to class.

And I didn't know that Warcaster makes you immune to Con saves, it just makes you better, enough damage instances and caster WILL fail.

And I didn't take that feat on any caster I played in 5E, the feat is just so damn boring, same as +2 HP per level feat.
or armor feats, or durable.

Now, Telekinetic is to me no.1 feat in the game in terms of design, and it's mechanically very useful but not broken.

Agree on Alert that it's too powerful and it is already sorted for new PHB, same as SS and GWM.

Really, I don't see the need for feats in my game at all. Can I have that option, please?

 

[Horwath]

Really, I don't see the need for feats in my game at all. Can I have that option, please?

nothing prevents you from banning all feats or just some feats that you DM.

But, game is better that feats are default, at least they will get more balancing time from the team.

personally, I would like to see option that all you have in a class are feat slots and you take what you like for your character.
Nothing preselected for you.

 

[James Gasik]

When this thread turned up on my notifications, I was wondering why, so I went to the first post and, to my surprise, found that this was a thread I started! How strange.

Feats as "class-agnostic" class features is a fine idea in principle. Surely, if you had a (sub) class that said "you can use bows in melee combat without penalty" and it was archery-focused*, I don't think anyone would mind, but I can understand not liking a Feat that anyone can take to do the same- but at the same time, it feels like any archery-focused character would want such an ability, so if you limit it to one class, then people who don't play that class who want to use ranged weapons may feel like they're being short-changed. Or they ask if they can multiclass.

Which can end up muddying "(sub) class identity"** (if that's important to you). Now on the other hand, you could make every archery-themed (sub) class have their own unique abilities, but then you have everything you'd want to be a "master archer" spread out in multiple locations (I'm reminded of the Warlord thread, where people are like "look, you can be a Warlord with 3 levels of this, 3 levels of that, be a Halfling, take these Feats..."

Ahem. Anyways, the issue with Feats is mostly that the designers can't seem to agree on what they should do. Should they:

A) enhance existing abilities of a character (this Feat increases the benefits of Halfling Luck, or boosts Second Wind Healing!).***

B) let characters "opt-out" of system mechanics they find annoying or obnoxious. (This feat lets you grapple while wielding a greatsword!).

C) give characters completely new abilities (With this Feat, my Fighter can leap 30' into the air and Izuna Drop dragons!).

D) give mechanically-expressed flavor to a character (this Feat says I belong to a magical bloodline with deep ties to the setting!).

By having Feats be all four of these at once, and competing with (debatably) necessary ability score scaling, not to mention having fairly few Feats in the game (I think the grand total is 73 until the new PHB gives us a whopping 75. Woo!), I think it's safe to say that Feats are still pretty much a mess. The only real advantage is, we (mostly) no longer have Feats that make attempting basic combat maneuvers virtually unusable without them (nobody misses you, Improved Grapple!) and we don't have 3000 Feats to choose from. Still feels like a lot more can be done here.

*I believe the 1e Ranger had this feature.

**Speaking of Rangers, one of their core subclasses, is a grab-bag of abilities you can pick from that boost melee or ranged combat (some of which should either be core abilities, or perhaps Feats, because why are Rangers the ones with Whirlwind Attack?) which doesn't seem to have much identity at all.

***Examples given may or may not resemble real feats.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I think optional rules should be in the DMG, but I understand why some are int he PHB (specifically multiclassing, feats, and all the races listed after the halfling). I understand it just I don't like it, because so many people assume that everything in the PH is by default allowed/used in all campaigns, and I've had more than one go-round about it when I disallowed PH material.

 

[DammitVictor]

My preference is that optional/variant rules should be spread through the core books-- supplements are 100% optional-- in sidebars near the standard rules they modify, and then all of the optional rules should either be collated in an Appendix, or at least given a separate index table before or after the regular index.