D&D (2024) One D&D and feats

[MockingBird]

So it seems they want to push feats out of the optional space. I personally don't have anything against feats other than nightmares from 3e and PF. We just never used them. I allowed them, my players just didn't want to use them. Do you think we will have a featless option in the future or are they too baked in now? Seems to me they're too baked in. Opinions? Thoughts? Is my group in the minority concerning feats?

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm just relieved to have some clarity on it. Calling them "optional," then putting them in the Player's Handbook, was causing unnecessary confusion and conflict at my table.

But no, I don't believe there will be a "featless" option in the future. From what I've seen here and elsewhere, Feats are incredibly popular with both players and DMs alike.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think, you won't get around background feats, but after that, they are probably still optional and competing woth ASIs.

I think I can live woth that. 1st level feats help bringing the character to life as much as race does.
Imagine a tough dwarven barbarian.
A tavern brawling monk: a drunken master right out of the gate.

 

[darjr]

The feats in the test are probably going to be powered down to match the combination of race and class options they remove.

Also I think they might add a sidebar, about not using feats, even these 1st level ones.

 

[MockingBird]

I'm torn, I keep going back and forth on it. I can see how it helps build a character. I guess my concern is how they implement it. By that I guess I mean the format. I would like it to be as seamless as it possibly can be and avoid the wall of feats. IMO having the feats optional made character building simple and easier to teach. Full disclosure I play with casual players they don't really dive deep into the rules.

 

[Horwath]

I'm torn, I keep going back and forth on it. I can see how it helps build a character. I guess my concern is how they implement it. By that I guess I mean the format. I would like it to be as seamless as it possibly can be and avoid the wall of feats. IMO having the feats optional made character building simple and easier to teach. Full disclosure I play with casual players they don't really dive deep into the rules.

just have people play with feats if they want to read about them and let others take ASI.

wast majority of feats are not worth losing +2 to your primary score, and even the "best" ones are just competing with it.

 

[Nikosandros]

Also I think they might add a sidebar, about not using feats, even these 1st level ones.

Personally, I hope not. IMO, the ambiguous state of feats in 5e, didn't do the game any favors. I hope that they will be part of the game and that the revision will be designed around that.

 

[Willie the Duck]

I suspect what will happen is there will be some form of guidance for what to do when someone doesn't really want to interact with the feat system overall. Just with the playtest material, I can imagine a human fighter can start off with Toughness and Skilled and just increase their HP and number of skills --and these seem on-par (or at least ballpark) with the other 1st level feats, whereas they were kinda lackluster when competing with ASIs and things like PAM, CBE, Resilience, etc. If there are similar options for any mandatory high-level feats, things could turn out fine.

This is what I will be pushing for most when the survey comes up -- Please, WotC, include EXHAUSTIVELY clear language about what everything is, WHY everything is the way it is, and what and how new-to-TTRPG players ought to look at, think about, and do with the game. The number one issue I have with 5e hasn't been any given rules or obvious stinker options or bad stealth/vision/CR rules or even the encounters/day & martial-caster balance issues, it has been clarity, communication of design intent, and ease of use for new gamers.

 

[Li Shenron]

There is nothing ambiguous about something explicitly optional as in yes/no. If that's ambiguous, well then pretty much everything in character creation is a nightmarish decision.

I do think at the end probably they might leave a "can choose an ASI each time you earn a feat". It would be otherwise a mistake to force players to wade through a feats list to pick one each time. Maybe with "1st level feats" they could slim the list down to 5-6 only, but at the same time this forces more experienced players to choose among a short list instead of the full list, and also results in the same few feats being chosen over and over again in every campaign.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

It's probably easiest (and probably what they'll be doing) to just make +2 to an ability INTO a feat. Then, if you don't want to play with feats, just take that (or some other simple option).

Not at level one, though. Just take a background feat (or if you don't want to worry about it, take the one that the background you chose gave you, and consider it a background feature.)