Larian Studios
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 10:59 AM
Just a question ...
I have seen some youtubers trying some Feats, but those were usualy dedicated gameplay, just to mess with them ... and the outcome was usualy vague, since their characters most often lacked the statistic to support the feat. :-/

I wonder if you people have it same, or is it just me ...
But i have aproximately 20-30 playthrough done ... and i used feat maybe twice, in every other case i just decided to boost my primary Ability Score. :-/

And therefore i would like to ask two things from Larian:
1) Please implement stat rolls as soon as possible ... it would really help, and as far as i know it was promised for final release anyway ... so, it should not be so huge problem.
2) Please consider implementing Variant Human ... if that is even planned, that allone could help us test feats even better.

But combination of both would be for the purpose of feat testing totally awesome! :P
Thanks for listening.
Posted By: JandK Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 01:07 PM
I think it would be better if everyone just started with a free feat. Something like that isn't going to break the game; it'll make it more fun.

I don't care so much about following core rules. Just give the extra feat.

Throughout the years, I've heard numerous arguments about how the system was balanced and how the slightest change would upset the balance, ultimately preaching for purity in the rules. And yet there have been multiple editions.

I'm to the point where I'm not convinced any of the versions are sacred or balanced at the core. It's ever evolving, ever changing.

I say just give everyone the free feat and let the game be more fun to play.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 01:10 PM
That is exactly what Variant Human do. smile

Quote
Variant Human
Source: Player's Handbook

- Ability Score Increase. Two different ability scores of your choice increase by 1.
- Skills. You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice.
- Feat. You gain one Feat of your choice.
Source: http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/human
Posted By: JandK Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 01:11 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
That is exactly what Variant Human do. smile

Quote
Variant Human
Source: Player's Handbook

- Ability Score Increase. Two different ability scores of your choice increase by 1.
- Skills. You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice.
- Feat. You gain one Feat of your choice.
Source: http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/human

Yeah, I just think that free feat at level one should be available for all racial choices.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 01:30 PM
Originally Posted by JandK
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
That is exactly what Variant Human do. smile

Quote
Variant Human
Source: Player's Handbook

- Ability Score Increase. Two different ability scores of your choice increase by 1.
- Skills. You gain proficiency in one skill of your choice.
- Feat. You gain one Feat of your choice.
Source: http://dnd5e.wikidot.com/human

Yeah, I just think that free feat at level one should be available for all racial choices.

Nah. I disagree. But then, you knew I would. Again, giving EVERYONE a free feat makes Variant Human not special, and it opens up for more imbalance issues.

Honestly, you must be the most imbalanced DM I've ever spoken with, rules imbalanced, that is. Do you just make up whatever you want when you play and ignore the rules a lot? I'm just curious. Not being mean here. I've just never met someone who said they were a long-standing DM who totally blasts the rules like you do.

As for the OP, I do use feats regularly. I wish more were available. I miss some of my favorites. Ability increases are boring to me. I do them when there is no feat I like for a character. So, Lae'zel usually gets a straight Ability increase because it works better for her, but other characters I go straight for the feats.
Posted By: RutgerF Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 01:36 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
As for the OP, I do use feats regularly. I wish more were available. I miss some of my favorites. Ability increases are boring to me. I do them when there is no feat I like for a character. So, Lae'zel usually gets a straight Ability increase because it works better for her, but other characters I go straight for the feats.
Can you provide some examples? Which feats you think are good for which origin characters, for example. I tried to look at them, but the way origin characters are statted, at level 4 nothing beats an ASI for me.

I don't even remember taking feats in Solasta when level cap was 10, although they did make a fine mess with them.
Posted By: fylimar Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 01:57 PM
I sometimes use feats. Especially when playing the charisma-based classes, warlock and sorcerer. I usually go with tiefling or halfelf there, get 17 charisma, steal Volos Ersatzeye and push the charisma to 18. On level 4 I choose a feat then. With the sorcerer the warlock spell list for Hex ( very nice combo, it feels a bit like multiclassing sorcerlock) and with warlock it depends on what I want to do.
You could do that with other stats/classes with Auntie Ethels hair, but I normally play good and don't want to throw Mayrina under the bus ... plus Auntie Ethels fight is really bugged for me, so the deal doesn't pop up anymore.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 02:01 PM
Honestly I don’t. Even if there a freaks I would like to get it just seems like a worst choice then boosting stats. I dislike that it is a choice between stat boosting and a perk - it might be less offensive once we level up higher and manage to raise key stat to max level, but within levels offers stats just apt seem like a better choice.

I honestly don’t remember leveling up in Solasta - 5e unfortunately seems to be back to 2ed times when any important choices were made during character creation and afterwards it was rather passive. Quite a step back after 3,5, Pathfinder and PoE.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 02:34 PM
I usually take the +2.

Think I took Magic Initiate: Warlock one time on my druid test run just for Eldritch Blast since I had no decent ranged capability and don't like shapeshifting, her Cha was higher than Dex or I would have taken Weapon Master instead. Mobile can be useful if I have a token melee character and want them to actually be able to hit the enemy before the rest of the party does all the damage, but could use the speed increasing gear instead. Otherwise, I find the rest of the currently implemented feats to be rather pointless.

Waiting for Observant, although this may be more fun/useful in proper DnD, War Caster, and Sharpshooter, but only if that one works as intended with the -5 being optional rather than mandatory. Possibly Skulker if they fix the broken stealth. The others I like will have to come from mods.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 02:37 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Honestly I don’t. Even if there a freaks I would like to get it just seems like a worst choice then boosting stats. I dislike that it is a choice between stat boosting and a perk - it might be less offensive once we level up higher and manage to raise key stat to max level, but within levels offers stats just apt seem like a better choice.
My thoughts exactly ...

So i have ben wondering IF they would implement stat rolling (wich as far as i remember was promised, so it should not be taken as any extra work) ...
We would have at least chance with some characters to have high stats since the start, so we could try and pick some Feats. O:)

I know rolling was hot topic some time ago ...
But i have tryed to create some characters on DnDBeyond and it didnt take too much time to roll at least single 18 ...
(i was also so lucky so my first character ended up with 18 16 18 11 10 8 laugh )
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 02:41 PM
Originally Posted by RutgerF
Originally Posted by GM4Him
As for the OP, I do use feats regularly. I wish more were available. I miss some of my favorites. Ability increases are boring to me. I do them when there is no feat I like for a character. So, Lae'zel usually gets a straight Ability increase because it works better for her, but other characters I go straight for the feats.
Can you provide some examples? Which feats you think are good for which origin characters, for example. I tried to look at them, but the way origin characters are statted, at level 4 nothing beats an ASI for me.

I don't even remember taking feats in Solasta when level cap was 10, although they did make a fine mess with them.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the feats in Solasta. However, off the top of my head, Dual Wielder with Lae'zel has been cool. Two weapon fighting with long swords and +1 AC is good. That one also works for a barbarian or a strength based ranger. Though not used as much, armor proficiency feats are also nice, and will be nicer when they give us better armor to work with in the future. Once they give us full plate armor, I will probably have Shadow heart Take the heavy armor proficiency, so she can use full plate. I sometimes have liked to give Gale light armor proficiency, just because he's such a wuss. I've also given Wyll better armored class proficiency as well, because he's so squishy.

One of my most used ones is weapon mastery. This allows me to make it so that my cleric of Tyr can use the greatsword taken from Andres. It allows him to also then have better weapons to deal more damage.

There are so many different feats that I'd love for them to put in the game. Spearmastery is one. I like to give shadow heart the Watchers spear that you get relatively early. Having spearmastery would give her a bigger boost with that weapon.

I would really love it if they made Shove an Action, rather than Bonus Action, and then they added Shield Master's most powerful feature back into it, that if you are equipped with your shield, you can make an attack action and then use your bonus to shove 5 feet instead of allowing everyone to do both Attack and Shove in a single turn. That would make Shield Master so much more unique and valuable.

If they fixed ranges and added cover rules, Sharpshooter would make a darn good feat for someone like Astarion who uses ranged weapons a lot. It is useless right now, because ranges are so broken and there is no cover.

Skulker would also be awesome if they fixed Stealth in the game.

See? Here again are reasons why I'd love for them to be more true to the 5e ruleset. Feats are not as cool because Larian has kinda stripped them of their values.

So, I guess you could say that in a way Larian has been giving out free Feats to all characters by homebrewing different rules. What is normally something you have to get as a feat in 5e is something they're letting all characters do, like Shove as a bonus.
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Just a question ...
I have seen some youtubers trying some Feats, but those were usualy dedicated gameplay, just to mess with them ... and the outcome was usualy vague, since their characters most often lacked the statistic to support the feat. :-/

I wonder if you people have it same, or is it just me ...
But i have aproximately 20-30 playthrough done ... and i used feat maybe twice, in every other case i just decided to boost my primary Ability Score. :-/

And therefore i would like to ask two things from Larian:
1) Please implement stat rolls as soon as possible ... it would really help, and as far as i know it was promised for final release anyway ... so, it should not be so huge problem.
2) Please consider implementing Variant Human ... if that is even planned, that allone could help us test feats even better.

But combination of both would be for the purpose of feat testing totally awesome! :P
Thanks for listening.


YES! I have advocated for Roll for Stats and Variant Human since forever! But even despite how things are currently, I still get mileage from the Great Weapon Master feat playing my dwarven barbarian using reckless attacks in his rage =)
Posted By: andreasrylander Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 02:46 PM
Originally Posted by JandK
I think it would be better if everyone just started with a free feat. Something like that isn't going to break the game; it'll make it more fun.

I don't care so much about following core rules. Just give the extra feat.

Throughout the years, I've heard numerous arguments about how the system was balanced and how the slightest change would upset the balance, ultimately preaching for purity in the rules. And yet there have been multiple editions.

I'm to the point where I'm not convinced any of the versions are sacred or balanced at the core. It's ever evolving, ever changing.

I say just give everyone the free feat and let the game be more fun to play.


YES!!! I love free feats... it makes a character more of a character!!!
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 03:04 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by JandK
Yeah, I just think that free feat at level one should be available for all racial choices.

Nah. I disagree. But then, you knew I would. Again, giving EVERYONE a free feat makes Variant Human not special, and it opens up for more imbalance issues.
Variant Human gets 2 feats then - the one given by their class and their free feat. Still special. And giving everyone a free feat unbalances all classes equally - unlike many of the other balance changes people argue against - where the solution is just to make combats more difficult to compensate.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 03:12 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Originally Posted by JandK
Yeah, I just think that free feat at level one should be available for all racial choices.

Nah. I disagree. But then, you knew I would. Again, giving EVERYONE a free feat makes Variant Human not special, and it opens up for more imbalance issues.
Variant Human gets 2 feats then - the one given by their class and their free feat. Still special. And giving everyone a free feat unbalances all classes equally - unlike many of the other balance changes people argue against - where the solution is just to make combats more difficult to compensate.

I guess. It's just, feats in 5e are supposed to represent either special racial/class traits or a character's more advanced training. Giving them out at level 1, to me, seems to whitewash starting racial traits for different races, etc.

I mean, if you allow a free feat at character creation, Level 1 characters could then use Great Weapon Mastery right from the start. Or, I could use Dual Wielder immediately, equipping someone at Level 1 with 2 non-light weapons.

So, where's the buildup? I've already started awesome. Got nowhere to go from there but build up Ability scores. And you can only do that for so long because there's a cap on Ability scores. So, by level 8, Lae'zel could be pretty much maxed out on Strength with Great Weapon Mastery and so forth.

I just think it leaves too much room to yet again unbalance the game. You THINK it won't, and who knows, maybe it won't. I've never tested handing out free feats at level 1, but I think it likely would.

I certainly would be less inclined to take a feat at level 4, that's for sure. If I can take one at level 1, I'd likely take what I want at level 1 and just do an ASI at level 4. Maybe, I might take another, but I doubt it. Feats would become even less valuable, I would think.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 03:26 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
off the top of my head, Dual Wielder with Lae'zel has been cool. Two weapon fighting with long swords and +1 AC is good. That one also works for a barbarian or a strength based ranger. Though not used as much, armor proficiency feats are also nice, and will be nicer when they give us better armor to work with in the future. Once they give us full plate armor, I will probably have Shadow heart Take the heavy armor proficiency, so she can use full plate. I sometimes have liked to give Gale light armor proficiency, just because he's such a wuss. I've also given Wyll better armored class proficiency as well, because he's so squishy.
Those are certainly interesting choices ...

A few questions if you please.
There is no overstatement my interest! laugh

Dual Wielder for Lae'zel, dont you feel like you are wasting it a little?
Since she starts with Great Weapon Fighting style by default. O_o
To me it seems she would work much better with Great Weapon Master Feat ... of course especialy after they fix that Bonus Action attack ... wich as i heard (didnt try myself) dont do anything right now. frown
(It would be kinda half-wasted on Berserker Barbarian tho, since they allready are attacking with their Bonus Action, when they Rage ... i mean Frenzy smile )

But IF we would have option to diceroll our stats, this could unlock its true potential ... i mean -5 is heavy penalisation, if your character have only +3 from 17 Strength. laugh

Giving plate armor to Shadowheart seems also a little odd to me, since then her 14 Dex would be completely wasted. :-/
Is that really worthy that +1AC, when compared to Half Plate he can wear right now ? O_o

Also i wonder wich armor did you find for gale, so it was better than 13+Dex he have from Mage Armor. O_o
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 03:27 PM
I mean, I definitely recognize that feats can unbalance the game and make lvl 1 characters super powerful, which can result in swingy combat. A level 2 barbarian with GWM and Charger is very OP - their attack has +15 damage.

Potentially the "free feat" list could be a restricted list, including all the less common feats that are more flavorful than strictly powerful: Athlete, Martial Adept, Skilled, Tough, etc.

Though I still recognize that this further diminishes the impacts of leveling up compared to your character's power at level 1. I would prefer if characters gained both feats and ASIs during level up, but here we are...
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
So i have ben wondering IF they would implement stat rolling (wich as far as i remember was promised, so it should not be taken as any extra work) ...
We would have at least chance with some characters to have high stats since the start, so we could try and pick some Feats. O:)
I am not sure there is a need for stat rolling - they could just allow to raise stats higher. Limit to how high I can raise my warriors strength at the start... is curious to me.

I am surprised you take issue with this Rag. Taking your "shove" logic, if you want to take feats just take a feat even if it's not a desiarable option. No one is forcing you to boost your stat if you don't find that fun. It is almost as if you were arguing for a better balance between options give to you, and that would be unthinkable. smile
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 05:01 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
So i have ben wondering IF they would implement stat rolling (wich as far as i remember was promised, so it should not be taken as any extra work) ...
We would have at least chance with some characters to have high stats since the start, so we could try and pick some Feats. O:)
I am not sure there is a need for stat rolling - they could just allow to raise stats higher. Limit to how high I can raise my warriors strength at the start... is curious to me.

I am surprised you take issue with this Rag. Taking your "shove" logic, if you want to take feats just take a feat even if it's not a desiarable option. No one is forcing you to boost your stat if you don't find that fun. It is almost as if you were arguing for a better balance between options give to you, and that would be unthinkable. smile

The reason to limit stats is because players can literally focus too much on a particular Ability score and make them so tough it's imbalanced.

Imagine you create a warrior with Strength 20. Everything else sucks, but you have super high +5 Strength. Dang! Ogre Warrior.

Now what? Where do you go from there? You're already 20 Strength. Should they let you just go higher in Strength than 20? Shall they let you go to 24... 26... 28?

+5 is already REALLY high. That's like Arnold Schwartzanegger at his prime. Imagine Athletics with +6 or +7 or +8 Base stat. OMG. You'd never fail in Shoving enemies off cliffs or throwing them. As it is, +4 Base Strength + 3 Proficiency is +7 Athletics. That versus a +1 or +2 enemy is still a pretty high chance that you're going to shove and throw things off ledges and cliffs. I can't even imagine you allow players to buff their Strength stat higher than that. Then, at higher levels...

The limits prevent imbalances over and over and over again.
Posted By: smberg Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 05:31 PM
Another related question is… who ever takes Human? Anytime I roll up a Human, I end up switching to Half Elf because it’s just so much better without any downside. I really would like Variant Human to be implemented so that I would have a reason to be Human. Having an extra Feat and Skill at character creation would be really appealing.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 05:37 PM
My wife and I have created humans before. They CAN be just as fun.

That said, Human Variant would be awesome too. I'm not saying I DON'T want that. Just saying that humans CAN be fun.

Give humans a chance!
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 05:51 PM
Originally Posted by Ragitsu
Originally Posted by GM4Him
Give humans a chance!

They have a ways to go before they can match Corellon's kids think.

Lol. This IS true. I must say. Humans are on the bottom of the totem pole. I love elves most, I think. Half-orcs are huge on my list, and sorely missed in BG3 right now. Dwarves are high on my list, and I like Aasimar, Genasi and Dragonborn.

Niara's going to be mad, but halflings, humans, yuan-ti purebloods, tieflings... they're kind of on the bottom of the list of my most desired characters. I like them all, mind you, but they're not the ones I usually gravitate towards. I don't even know why, but drow always seem to stand out for me, and I really really don't like their culture or society. Makes no sense to me. Wood elves always seem to be right there along with drow, and half-elves are probably the most chosen race for me - whether half-drow or half-wood elf or whatever.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 06:34 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
No one is forcing you to boost your stat if you don't find that fun.
That is the thing. smile
I do ...

I want to have my stats good and i would like to try some of those Feats with high stats, to see how they will work ... since (quite honestly) that is when i shall take them. laugh
As i said, i have tryed few times to take feat instead of stat incerase ... and results was usualy, (to put it in my words so you can understand it in context of my "shove logic" if you want to call it that) "not fun". :P

And since there were promised some mechanics that would help to to fulfill this desire ...
And there is some race that is highly and often demanded by many people ...

I just saw an option to kill two flies with single strike. wink
Posted By: JandK Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 06:56 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Variant Human gets 2 feats then - the one given by their class and their free feat. Still special. And giving everyone a free feat unbalances all classes equally - unlike many of the other balance changes people argue against - where the solution is just to make combats more difficult to compensate.

+1
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The reason to limit stats is because players can literally focus too much on a particular Ability score and make them so tough it's imbalanced.
Yeah, I suppose I never gelled with raising core stats when leveling up. I prefered BG1&2/Pillars approach when you define stats during creation and that is that - that's who the character is. Their progression is achieved through different means, and stats stay the same.

I just don't find stat increase to be a mechanically interesting choice. When creating characters you will always favour about two skills. When given a choice to increase skills you will focus on those skills as those are important to you. I found it less offensive in Pathfinder when it was just something I would do, but I don't like how it is handles in 5e.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Do you even use Feats? - 28/02/22 09:10 PM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Variant Human gets 2 feats then - the one given by their class and their free feat. Still special. And giving everyone a free feat unbalances all classes equally - unlike many of the other balance changes people argue against - where the solution is just to make combats more difficult to compensate.
I like this idea aswell ...
At least for Early Acess (and potentialy as part of difficiulty settings) more potential Feats mean more potential testing! :P
Posted By: avahZ Darkwood Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 12:09 AM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The reason to limit stats is because players can literally focus too much on a particular Ability score and make them so tough it's imbalanced.
Yeah, I suppose I never gelled with raising core stats when leveling up. I prefered BG1&2/Pillars approach when you define stats during creation and that is that - that's who the character is. Their progression is achieved through different means, and stats stay the same.

I just don't find stat increase to be a mechanically interesting choice. When creating characters you will always favour about two skills. When given a choice to increase skills you will focus on those skills as those are important to you. I found it less offensive in Pathfinder when it was just something I would do, but I don't like how it is handles in 5e.

I agree with the only caveat being (in Sazza’s voice). These feats are so BORING! smile
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by avahZ Darkwood
I agree with the only caveat being (in Sazza’s voice). These feats are so BORING! smile
Yeah.....
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 12:54 AM
I do agree. We need more feats and better ones. I do only ever use a few that are in game now. I think I mentioned them all.
Posted By: Ragitsu Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 01:38 AM
[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]
Posted By: Sozz Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 07:08 AM
The question of feats seems to come up quite a bit, I forget which designer it was who said this, but supposedly only a small fraction of groups play with feats or maybe it was only a small fraction of players when given a choice, choose them over a stat gain. I guess I can understand why, buffing your primary stat gives you probably the most utility, but it also means every character in a class, will start to look the same over a long enough period.

Edit: Thinking about this, I'm guessing the fact that most people never play characters to higher levels also contributes to this.

Of course if you're not going to be a Barbarian with 24s what are you even doing...bro.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 10:42 AM
Frankly if it was up to me I’d revamp the feat system entirely.

No feat should also include ability increase and you should get BOTH ability increases and feats at alternate timing while leveling up (i.e. “starting at level 2, one of the two every two more levels”).

But this is more a problem with how 5th edition works rather than an issue with the game’s implementation.

This would also reduce the CRAVING NEED for rolling stats that many feel, incidentally.
Posted By: Niara Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 11:14 AM
I'm not against re-separating feats from ASI marks, however it's not as simple as some folks initially assume; in the current 5e structure, ASIs aren't tied to character level, but to class level, and some classes get more than others; disentangling feats from ASI levels creates a difficult to resolve mess as a result, when multi-classing is considered (and even when it isn't, for fighters and rogues, etc.); not only for the differing scales, but also for the knock-on effect that has in regards to the by-level feeling of gain and accomplishment. In the current system, it's set up so that you get something nice each level, but that you never get drowned by too many things at once - disentangling feats and ASIs breaks this in a number of ways, and while it could potentially be resolved in terms of balance, the feel of general class progression would end up feeling distinctly lop-sided in other areas, almost no matter what you do.

Feats are meant to be strong and interesting, and they're meant to be a viable substitution for a full ASI. In the early design days, this was done with a strong thought towards the new bounded accuracy philosophy that was being put into the core of the system; branching out and doing interesting or different things was intended to be made more appealing and more valuable by virtue of the the fact that your core ability score bounding was not as swingy as in previous editions. They were intended, at least in terms of the combat-centric ones, to add versatility more than they added direct power, because that versatility was, in itself, powerful in the new system. At least, that was the philosophy. Power creep being what it is in the present day, I could not fault people for shrugging and saying that being able to overload on feats as well as still capping your ability scores was fine. I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't be surprised to see it.

None of this is intended to really argue for or against anything or anyone, it's just some food for thought to add to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Tuco
This would also reduce the CRAVING NEED for rolling stats that many feel, incidentally.

All else aside, Tuco, no... it really wouldn't. Not for me, at least, and I suspect not for others who also wish for it. We're on opposite sides of the spectrum here in terms of what we want (and that's fine ^.^), but I can say very certainly that my view of the essential need for the ability to roll our stats has nothing to do with, and remains completely unaffected by, how many or how few feats we have access to and whether or not they remain tied to the ASI core system. Do you recall the various reasons that were brought up by myself and others that were eager for the ability to roll and/or set stats, in previous discussions? Most weren't to do with having power or room for feats at all.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 01:20 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
All else aside, Tuco, no... it really wouldn't. Not for me, at least, and I suspect not for others who also wish for it.
It wouldn't for you because simply NOTHING would.
But the point is that a system of this kind would be more generous with GUARANTEED stat points ("Ability points") while also leaving room to be creative with feats. And, UNLIKE a roll system, it would maintain a resemblance of balance and fairness among all characters.

And I assure you that the appeal/benefit of rolling for stats isn't lost to me: it's convenient to a lot of players because it gives access to an insane amount of stat points for basically free. Especially without any restriction in place and/or a GM supervising the process.

That aside, the one about stat rolling was little more than a little footnote, not really the core point of my post.
Posted By: Niara Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 02:49 PM
Sure something would: being able to roll or set my ability scores would most definitely satiate my craving need to be able to roll or set my ability scores. Naturally, something that is NOT that thing would, consequently, NOT satisfy that desire... no surprises there.

If the core of your point was, back on topic, about disentangling ASIs from feats... did you have any thoughts on the extra considerations I mentioned?

Quote
And, UNLIKE a roll system, it would maintain a resemblance of balance and fairness among all characters.

Rolling for ability scores, and whether your ASI levels and feats share real estate are two completely different topics that are almost entirely unrelated to one another... I feel as though you're letting your venom for one bleed into your discussion of the other. Even then, no, it would not maintain a semblance of balance and fairness amongst all characters - I outlined the basics of why it would not, just above. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on a solution to the problems I highlighted might be though.

Spoilering the rest since it's becoming a tangent:



If something was provided that answered the reasons why I want to be able to roll ors et my scores in character creation, but was not that, then that would satisfy me too; if something which was not rolling for stats or being able to set them in character creation nevertheless answered and satisfied my stated reasons for wanting to be able to do so, I'd be quite happy with that solution, whatever it was. I'm open to suggestions if you have any. I'm actually interested to hear any suggestions you might have on that score, since it would be a chance for you to demonstrate that you actually do understand why I want to be able to roll or set my scores; we had a long discussion about it in another thread where I went into the reasons why I wanted to be able to do this, along with others who also felt similarly (and a goodly number who were against it, or didn't care too - there was a good spread of folks on all sides in that one).

Originally Posted by Tuco
And I assure you that the appeal/benefit of rolling for stats isn't lost to me: it's convenient to a lot of players because it gives access to an insane amount of stat points for basically free. Especially without any restriction in place and/or a GM supervising the process.

The thing is that, at the moment it comes off very much as though it is lost on you. I say this not to insult or to snark (Genuinely, I do not want this to come off in a combative way, and I don't intend it as such), but because I just literally said that it wasn't about power, or getting more stuff, and I reminded you of the previous discussion about this that also, as described by those who wanted it, was not about having more power, or getting more things... and you've turned around and said that you understand that it's about having more power and stuff. So, yes, it really does look like you've missed it and it's lost on you, at lest in the context of this exchange right now... It's not about having more points, and it's not about having more feats, and it's not about being more powerful than other players. That is not the reason that I, or most who advocate for it, want to be able to roll or set their ability scores. It's simply not. Please accept that as told to you by one who is advocating it; that is not the reason, or even a consideration at all.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 03:07 PM
Originally Posted by Niara
I'm not against re-separating feats from ASI marks, however it's not as simple as some folks initially assume; in the current 5e structure, ASIs aren't tied to character level, but to class level, and some classes get more than others; disentangling feats from ASI levels creates a difficult to resolve mess as a result, when multi-classing is considered [...]

Feats are meant to be strong and interesting, and they're meant to be a viable substitution for a full ASI. In the early design days, this was done with a strong thought towards the new bounded accuracy philosophy that was being put into the core of the system; branching out and doing interesting or different things was intended to be made more appealing and more valuable by virtue of the the fact that your core ability score bounding was not as swingy as in previous editions. They were intended, at least in terms of the combat-centric ones, to add versatility more than they added direct power, because that versatility was, in itself, powerful in the new system. [...]

None of this is intended to really argue for or against anything or anyone, it's just some food for thought to add to the discussion.
All true, which is why it'd require an overhaul of the feat system instead of just giving every character both a feats and an ASIs at every current ASI level (or alternating).

Imo ASI/feats are tied to class level largely because of fighters; since the default fighter is a fairly empty class they need those ASIs - in particular feats - to have identity, power, and versatility. This would be partially fixed if ASIs were tied to character level but feats tied to class level. Mutliclassed characters would then get ASIs at the same time they get other class features, but that's fine (adding 2 stat points is a simple endeavor). And feats could remain tied to class levels, so that fighters & rogues get them at their dedicated feat-emphasized levels.

Feats would almost certainly have to be reworked. Aside from the fact that the current feats vary wildly in power (GWM/Mobile/War Caster/Observant/Lucky vs Athlete/Linguist/Weapon Master/Second Chance), I agree with @Tuco that these separated-from-ASIs feats should be revamped to not include ASIs. Balance-wise, feats could be equivalent to one ability point: a simple fix could be to remove the "+1 ASI" from all the feats that have that and then split the bigger feats in 2. E.g., Polearm Master would turn into one feat giving the BA attack and another giving the opportunity attack.
Posted By: Cantila Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 03:20 PM
A free feat from the start? Seems like a suggestion a millennial would do.., too impatient to progress slowly, must have everything from the get go. This will hurt the feel of progression a lot and also imbalance encounters are characters are too powerful.

The feats/ASI are supposed to be a tough choice. With your sugegestion everyone gets everything. I take feats quite often, but even those who don't, it's not really an argument because the full game is not out yet. You might take ASI at lvl 4 but at lvl 8 you probably want a feat as that stat increase will give diminishing returns compared to a feat the higher level you are.

If you really want this suggestion come true, you can get a mod for it and let everyone else play the game as it's intended.

ASI are preferred choices now mostly because the companion stats are so badly distributed that they are in dire need of ASI.
Posted By: Ragitsu Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by Cantila
A free feat from the start? Seems like a suggestion a millennial would do

...?

Holy cow, that was fast.
Posted By: Aaezil Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 03:34 PM
Longtime tabletop D&D player here. It depends on the personality and player-type that you are with but most DMs i’ve played under prioritize things like story, pacing and having fun over slavishly following any rule books. At least all of the great DMs in my opinion operate this way. It even says so in all the DM books.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 04:27 PM
Originally Posted by Cantila
You might take ASI at lvl 4 but at lvl 8 you probably want a feat as that stat increase will give diminishing returns compared to a feat the higher level you are.
And we probably will when the game will be out properly ...

Now we are talking about testing purposes ... you know, the think Early Acess is (at least officialy) ment for? laugh

Thats why i dont even think we can talk about any kind of "progression" since there isnt any. laugh
You kill whole tutorial > level 2 ... you kill Intellect devourers > level 3 ... 2 more combats ... and whole "progresion" is done. laugh

Basicaly we allready wasted year and half of potential testing for something we had the whole time, bcs we simply didnt have statistic to even think about it. :-/
If i didnt watch Wolfheart video, where he was talking SPECIFICALY about feats ... i would not even know that Great Weapon Mastery curently dont even work. :-/
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 04:44 PM
Originally Posted by Aaezil
Longtime tabletop D&D player here. It depends on the personality and player-type that you are with but most DMs i’ve played under prioritize things like story, pacing and having fun over slavishly following any rule books. At least all of the great DMs in my opinion operate this way. It even says so in all the DM books.

There is something to this, yes. Slavishly following the rules can bog the game down and even cause issues, turning the game into something not fun.

That said, there is an extreme as well. Start veering too much from the rules and the game becomes too imbalanced and ruins it. Also, players tend to like it when they legit win; not winning because a DM fudged the rules and made it so they win no matter how they play.

The real challenge of a good DM is to find that perfect balance between playing by the rules and tweaking them.

Taking away feats would make ASI boring, IMO with absolutely no other options to make your characters more special. I think MORE feat options would be better, options that would make taking a feat a real temptation over ASI.

Think higher levels. If I create a barbarian with 17 Strength, and at level 4 give him ASI +2 Strength. Now he's 19. At level 8, ASI again, but now 20 is max. So, 1 goes to Strength. Then ASI what? Constitution or Dex maybe? Okay. That's fine. Level 12. Do it again. No real deviation or variation. All characters who are fighters/barbarians, you'll probably do the exact same thing. No difference between Lae'zel and your fighter. Both pretty close to same stats.

However, with more feats, Lae'zel might take Great Weapon Master while my custom fighter might choose dual wielding and wield to battle-axes effectively in combat with +1 AC. Or maybe my fighter will do Shield Master and shove enemies as a Bonus rather than Action (like it should be instead of everyone shoving as bonus). Whatever. The point is, you can with feats have different characters even of the same class with unique abilities instead of just always building up the same stats every 4 levels.

More feats that are more effective, is what I think is needed.
Posted By: Cantila Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 07:19 PM
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Cantila
You might take ASI at lvl 4 but at lvl 8 you probably want a feat as that stat increase will give diminishing returns compared to a feat the higher level you are.
And we probably will when the game will be out properly ...

Now we are talking about testing purposes ... you know, the think Early Acess is (at least officialy) ment for? laugh

Thats why i dont even think we can talk about any kind of "progression" since there isnt any. laugh
You kill whole tutorial > level 2 ... you kill Intellect devourers > level 3 ... 2 more combats ... and whole "progresion" is done. laugh

Basicaly we allready wasted year and half of potential testing for something we had the whole time, bcs we simply didnt have statistic to even think about it. :-/
If i didnt watch Wolfheart video, where he was talking SPECIFICALY about feats ... i would not even know that Great Weapon Mastery curently dont even work. :-/


Nowhere in your OP did you say your change should apply to the EA only. I don't see the point of that either. Why test something that's not intended to be a feature on release? If you want to test feats you can already do that at level 4? Testing it at level 1 is pointless, what purpose would it serve that level 4 doesn't fulfil?
Posted By: Cantila Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 07:22 PM
@GM4Him that is something I totally agree with.
Posted By: RagnarokCzD Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by Cantila
Nowhere in your OP did you say your change should apply to the EA only.
No ... but there also isnt even single mention of Feats for level 1 is it? :P

Cant shake the feelin you didnt read it very carefully. :-/

That was just suggested by someone else a little later. :P
And since it would be fiting my intention, i see no problem for supporting it.

Originally Posted by Cantila
Why test something that's not intended to be a feature on release?
Feats are not suppose to be feature on release?
Rolled stats that were multiple times promised are not suppose to be a feature on release?
Variant human that is frequently requested ... ok, this one might not be ...

Originally Posted by Cantila
If you want to test feats you can already do that at level 4?
Well ... i gues i "could" test something simmilar ...

I can test and see how effective (or working), would curently provided feats be for characters with bad statistics and unfinished ... how did you call it? Progression ... true.
Question is what value would such testing have ...

I mean if you only have +2 from your strength ... and you take feat that gives you -5 ... making your hit modifier effectively -3 ... is it really surprising that you are missing as hell? laugh

On the other hand, IF you would get Rolled Stats, and/or Variant human ... you would be able to test the same feat with +5(for rolled) or +4(from Variant) ...
Wich surprise surprise, will be MUCH closer to statistic you will have on level 8 ... wich is exactly the time when you ACTUALY will most likely take Feat. :P
That is what i would call testing that have some value. smile
Posted By: WebSpyder Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 09:58 PM
Feats, at level 4, especially when you're not building toward a specific later game build (like sentinel fighter), are simply pointless. This is true on paper as well. We are currently operating in a fishbowl that seriously de-values feats.
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 01/03/22 10:57 PM
The ONLY reason people I've known don't pick feats:

1. They are lazy and just want to do the easy thing and go with ASI. No thinking involved. Easy and done.
2. It makes sense to. Either they are at 15 and 17 with certain attributes and they want them to be 16 and 18, or something similar. Serious buff to states especially if two Abilities are getting a bump like this.
3. They don't even know what feats are out there, and they're not sure there are any that will actually fit their character. This kinda goes along with 1. People typically don't bother to see what's being offered because it's too much work, so they don't want to look into it and see what there is to offer that could make their character unique and more interesting.
4. Fun and interesting feats aren't being offered. Depending on the source materials you are working with, you may only have a handful of boring feats that don't appeal to the players.

So it all really boils down to two things: 1. It's easier to ASI or there aren't fun feats being offered.

I think both of these apply to BG3 right now. There are only a few feats that really appeal at all, and even those aren't THAT appealing.

And why?

Many are stripped of their value by homebrew rules. So, here again, we're back to the homebrew devaluing things. Again, one of the coolest things about Shield Mastery is the ability to push people as a Bonus Action with your shield. You gain other buffs, but pushing via Bonus Action is part of what makes it appealing. Suddenly, you can attack and shove in the same turn.

But BG3 makes Shove a Bonus Action already, so they stripped it of one of its best abilities and made it unappealing at all.

And what about feats like Crossbow Expert? Not in the game. Why? Because the feat allows you to ignore loading of crossbows - not in the game so makes the feat pointless - and if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature it doesn't impose a disadvantage on your ranged attack roll. Oh! That might be cool, but honestly, would you use it? You can do two weapon fighting with light weapons and probably do more damage anyway. The only other thing it does is when you use an Attack action and attack with a one handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding. So, swing with sword and shoot with hand crossbow. Kinda cool, but does it apply to how a hand crossbow is used in BG3 already? Meh. Not really. I mean. Kinda maybe.

But still, this feat doesn't exist, which is a really cool feat for those who love crossbows, because most of the mechanics are already stripped from it in BG3. Thus, the feat is boring and pointless.

Over and over I'm beating a dead horse here, but I'm trying to point out each time Larian's ignoring the basic rules negates the value of things in D&D 5e. We wouldn't be having this conversation if there wasn't a bunch of homebrew that negates the value of a lot of feats and special abilities. People would want to pick more feats because they would provide players with a more tantalizing appeal.

Oh, and here's one that goes right along with Barbarian. Instead of making everyone able to pick up and throw things well and so forth if they have enough Strength, why not Tavern Brawler at Level 4. Suddenly, Tavern Brawler feat, if they included it, would be SO much more valuable.

Why? Because in order to throw well, you'd need this feat. It increases either Strength or Constitution by 1, it makes you proficient with both improvised weapons and unarmed strikes - both of which you should need to Grapple and Throw - your unarmed strikes would do 1d4 damage instead of 1d3, And when you hit a creature with an unarmed strike or an improvised weapon on your turn, you can use a bonus action to attempt to grapple the target. A grapple check is a Strength (Athletics) check contested by the target's Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acorbatics) check.

So, THIS is what you should need to Throw enemies. Then you wouldn't have everyone throwing, including enemies, and it would make taking a feat like this enticing and special. Suddenly, more people would want to take Tavern Brawler because they'd like the idea of their fighter or barbarian being able to use improvised weapons well and unarmed strikes and picking up and throwing and so forth.

But, again, they make it so everyone can do it, so having a feat for it is really pointless.

THAT, my friends, is why feats in BG3 are lame and unappealing and why many are saying they just ASI. There's almost nothing appealing about feats in this game.
Posted By: Merlex Re: Do you even use Feats? - 02/03/22 07:06 PM
I play with a few mods that effect feats. More Feats, Feats Extra, and Background Feats. The first 2 add many of the feats that are currently missing; like Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and Elven Accuracy. The last 1 allows for all characters to select a feat as part of their background. Sadly though, these are custom backgrounds with no choice of their skills. I also use the Custom Lineage mod (Race mod, +2 to an Ability & a Feat), and Expansion (which allows level up to 6th). With these mods, I can have a 6th level Fighter with Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, and an ASI. Or a Sorcerer with Fey Touched and an ASI. Or a Ranger with Duel Wield and an ASI. So I use feats in almost every playthrough.
Posted By: Brir Re: Do you even use Feats? - 02/03/22 07:22 PM
I like using feats and use them a lot in actual dnd.
In BG3 I'm using them less often as some powerful ones are missing or nerfed, but there are still a few that can be worth using:
- weapon master on Astarion so he can use heavy crossbows
- magic initiate: warlock to get hex on characters that can hit multiple times per turn
- moderately armoured on warlocks or rogues

Some early game feats that I like to use in DnD that are not in BG3 yet:
- lucky, which allows you to reroll a skill check, saving throw or attack roll 3 times per day (in DnD you can't use inspiration to reroll)
- healer, which allows you to get a character who is making death saves back on his feet (currently everyone can do that without a feat, and unlike the feat you don't even need to use a healers kit consumable)
- inspiring leader, which allows you to give everyone temporary HP
- polearm master, which gets you opportunity attacks against enemies that enter your reach as well as allowing you to use your bonus action to attack with the blunt end of your weapon
- sentinel, which allows you use opportunity attacks even when the enemy uses disengage and if you hit someone with an opportunity attack, they can't move for the rest of the turn
- sharpshooter, which allows you to use the full distance of your ranged weapon without disadvantage (e.g. 400ft for a heavy crossbow, 600ft for a long bow) as well as ignoring partial cover (which doesn't really exist in BG3)
- spell sniper, which doubles the range of all spells that involve an attack roll, allows you to ignore partial cover and allows you to learn an attack cantrip from any class
- war caster, which allows you to cast spells while you have a weapon or shield in both of your hands (currently everyone can do that without a feat), gets you advantage on concentration saving throws and allows you to cast spells as opportunity attack
Posted By: SFPuck Re: Do you even use Feats? - 02/03/22 08:14 PM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
<snip>
Many are stripped of their value by homebrew rules. So, here again, we're back to the homebrew devaluing things.
<snip>
But, again, they make it so everyone can do it, so having a feat for it is really pointless.

THAT, my friends, is why feats in BG3 are lame and unappealing and why many are saying they just ASI. There's almost nothing appealing about feats in this game.

Soooo much this.
Posted By: Van'tal Re: Do you even use Feats? - 05/03/22 02:01 PM
Many missing...They should have a Feat coding day or two or...

Must haves: (personal preference)

Polarm Master

Duel wielding equivalent for reach weapons (extra attack bonus action)...and its your main hand weapon (adds your proficiency bonus/pact weapon).

will often give another attack (reaction) for anything that comes within 10 feet of you...two extra attacks is Awesome for melee.

Elvin accuracy for crit fishing builds (This is very popular).

What is not to love about Half-elf? Oh yea...they haven't added the "No Variant" option yet (two extra skills of choice)...they should make time for this.
Just make all current Half-elf models available and add unique models latter if they want to (Easy Peasy).

Very Popular:

Sentinal is a favorite for tanking.

Alert

Lucky (Top pick for many)

Resilient

War Caster

Others that are maybe irrelevant in this system:

Observant

Actor
Posted By: GM4Him Re: Do you even use Feats? - 05/03/22 04:15 PM
And feats that give EXPERTISE! Man! We NEED expertise in the game. Rogues and Bards need it, and if players really want their characters to be experts in various skills, they need the feats that can give them this... Like Skill Expert.

Want a barbarian who is really good at Shoving and Throwing? Skill Expert (provided they nerf Shove and Throw which they need to do for all characters who aren't Expert Athletes).

Want a cleric who's an expert in Medicine? Skill Expert, but again, only really important if Medicine is required to stabilize characters.
Posted By: Aaezil Re: Do you even use Feats? - 05/03/22 04:35 PM
+ attribs and the one that gives you pushing attack are the only feats i’ve found worth selecting so far. kind of a shame.
Posted By: Street Hero Re: Do you even use Feats? - 05/03/22 05:21 PM
What about Potent Cantrip???
[Linked Image from pics.me.me]
Posted By: dwig Re: Do you even use Feats? - 05/03/22 05:54 PM
Originally Posted by smberg
Another related question is… who ever takes Human? Anytime I roll up a Human, I end up switching to Half Elf because it’s just so much better without any downside. I really would like Variant Human to be implemented so that I would have a reason to be Human. Having an extra Feat and Skill at character creation would be really appealing.

Human is the only race that can start with 16 in strength, constitution, and dexterity. Its very niche, but that gives human barbarian 16 AC naked without sacrificing the +3 mod to strength. I don't think its worth the bad night vision, but it IS a tiny advantage that you can only get from Human.
Posted By: Van'tal Re: Do you even use Feats? - 10/03/22 02:31 AM
Originally Posted by GM4Him
And feats that give EXPERTISE! Man! We NEED expertise in the game. Rogues and Bards need it, and if players really want their characters to be experts in various skills, they need the feats that can give them this... Like Skill Expert.

Want a barbarian who is really good at Shoving and Throwing? Skill Expert (provided they nerf Shove and Throw which they need to do for all characters who aren't Expert Athletes).

Want a cleric who's an expert in Medicine? Skill Expert, but again, only really important if Medicine is required to stabilize characters.


I am quite sure they haven't coded it yet (expertise). My evidence is that moders have had a hard time with simple things like Elvin accuracy.

I have mentioned it in other posts, but for the sake of relevance, The More Feats mod at nexus is spot on for Polearm Master and many others.
I have this on both my barbarian and Lai'zel.

Beside the extra attack, the opportunity attack that occurs when enemies encroach into your weapons range on their turn (within 10' for Glaive, Pike, and Poleaxe), is procing all the time.

Keep in mind that we will have dice roll for attributes at launch. For the heck of it, Last week I used this to roll my stats. method: (roll 4 six-sided dice and drop the lowest).

https://www.wizards.com/dnd/dice/dice.htm

I rolled !8,15,15,14,13,12 on my first try.

Since my main stat will be high, and my supporting stats look nice; I will feel good about taking a feat at 4.

Maybe Just me, but Half-Elf with versatility is just too good to pass up in a game that rewards skill checks.
© Larian Studios forums