The following is a general summary of what I've gathered so far, in terms of pros & cons, conclusions drawn from people's comments, as well as my own design preferences and standards at the end:

3e Pros

• Less costly than 5e feats
• Reward system mastery

3e Cons

• Are Mandatory components
• Are required for actions that should be default
• Most provide only insubstantial benefits
• Tend to rely on feat-chains
• Bloated and unmanageable lists
• Mistakes may "screw up" your character

5e Pros

• Are Optional components
• Aren't required for most actions
• More substantial than 3e feats
• Don't rely on feat-chains
• Concise and manageable lists
• Less chance to "screw up" your character
• Help define your character & make them stand out

5e Cons

• Feats cost one +2 ASI
• A +2 ASI is usually still better than taking a feat

Comments & Conclusion

• Feats should be optional
• All feats should provide substantial/meaningful benefits
• Feats should focus on benefits when dealing with actions, rather than being a requirement for them
• Feat-chains should be minimized or eliminated
• Feats should be adaptable to the setting

Core Functions & Personal Preferences

• Feats may provide special perks or capabilities, ability increases, ability check bonuses or additional effects when attempting certain actions, or special benefits in certain situations
• 1 Feat = +1 ASI
• Feats stronger than +1 ASI should be broken into multiple feats
• People who don't like feats may simply take +1 ASI as their feat selection
• Follow Comments & Conclusion as guidelines to make feats more effective as game tools
• Only tasks involving specific knowledge and/or special capabilities (like magic) should require feats

If you want to see how Feats in 3e were done correctly - it's Fantasy Craft.

I argue 5e should have taken a page out of that design too, but FC is far more mechanically toolkitty than 5e ever will be. The Feats are *beefy*, none of them suck. All of them are weighted against one another *and* spells and because of how the classes are designed along with their HP/Wound system they have more vertical scale.

I've posted about it at length elsewhere in Fantasycraft threads.

General Fantasy Craft comparisons

Fantasy Craft Feats

I like that they are optional in 5e. Because they end up being flavoring. Instead of a focus of how the game works.

in 3e, they were a bit too omnipresent for my tastes. They changed how the system worked. Which was fine. But they also led to options overload for a player.

Quote from: tenbones;1137654If you want to see how Feats in 3e were done correctly - it's Fantasy Craft.

I argue 5e should have taken a page out of that design too, but FC is far more mechanically toolkitty than 5e ever will be. The Feats are *beefy*, none of them suck. All of them are weighted against one another *and* spells and because of how the classes are designed along with their HP/Wound system they have more vertical scale.

I've posted about it at length elsewhere in Fantasycraft threads.

General Fantasy Craft comparisons

Fantasy Craft Feats

I've heard about Fantasy Craft a couple  times in passing, but never really delved into it. From your breakdown it appears to have a lot of interesting stuff, not just in the way they handle feats but also classes. Definitely will check out.

Thank!

Quote from: Zalman;1137369The reason I don't like feats is because they pretend to be abilities, but in actuality are proscriptions. My experience playing with feats is that they inevitably tear immersion and verisimilitude apart -- sooner or later a perfectly reasonable character action is going to be banned for lack of having the feat, with no reasonable explanation available as to why the character in the story couldn't actually attempt that action. It's a case of the rules opposing the story, instead of supporting it.

To me that is just the same as a Wizard memorising a spell.  No you can not cast Fireball because you learned Lightning Bolt.

If it is a perfectly reasonable action then the DM should let you take your action.  And on the other hand if the DM is going to let everyone "whirlwind attack" because it seems perfectly reasonable that everyone could "whirlwind attack" for example then why have the feat "whirlwind attack"

If the feat Whirlwind attack was the first in the chain, it would make sense.  It was the stuff that everyone should do that you had to buy to get to it that didn't make sense. (Roughly speaking.  It's been so long since I've played 3E I've forgotten the exact sequence, but I remember at least some of them being substandard.)

Reminds me of my teenage games:  

I stab him in the eye!  Yeah, must be double damage, right?

Im surrounded?  That means I can spin around and attack everyone, right?

Good times, good times.

In 3rd edition or Pathfinder, I see a feat I like and I get excited, but then I see that in order to get that feat, I have to take like five feats in a specific order, most of which suck and/or don't match my character at all. So in order to get that one cool feat I have to forgo the fun of getting good feats for the next 10 levels and who knows if the campaign will even last that long. So I look through the mountains and mountains of feats that don't have prerequisite and most of them are useless or don't match my character concept.

When I saw 5th edition and the way they changed things, I knew that somebody who felt the same way as I did must have had a big influence in making 5th edition. I like 5th edition much better.

My understanding is that the philosophy behind the original design of feats was to reward system mastery - much like magic did with their design of card sets for MtG. So some feats were required for a good build, whereas others might look good, but would ultimately lead to a poor character.

Unfortunately, they failed to notice the vital difference between D&D characters and magic decks. If your MtG deck turns out to be rubbish, you can remake it with completely different cards - or just tune it over time. D&D characters on the other hand are not updated from week to week - so sucks to be you if you chose one of those "trick" feats! And if through luck or good judgement you honed in on the best feats that were synergistic and boosted each other, then your character became miles better than the rest of the group. Not good for player happiness.  

So feats were designed for a fundamentally different game - one where you can swap them in and out as the game goes on. So no wonder they never worked for 3rd ed (and non-essentials 4th ed) D&D. As other people have said, they tend to replace things that a GM might have allowed a player to try - and perhaps succeed on a good roll (like the example of befriending a stray). But feats now replace that more free-wheeling approach. And you can't mix them, otherwise a player will complain of unfairness - they had to use a feat that someone else is "getting for free". Not good at all.  

5th ed feats are much better - each is designed to replace a +2 ASI. They tend to be flavourful and allow a few non-standard things that are situational rather than always on. And the weaker ones give a +1 ASI to make up for their weakness. And I haven't found a game-breaking feat combo yet (maybe xbow expert and sniper combined?).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1137698If the feat Whirlwind attack was the first in the chain, it would make sense.  It was the stuff that everyone should do that you had to buy to get to it that didn't make sense. (Roughly speaking.  It's been so long since I've played 3E I've forgotten the exact sequence, but I remember at least some of them being substandard.)

I looked them up and they were all subpar at best or pure trash: Dodge, Expertise, Mobility, Spring Attack (also 13+ Dex and Int, and +4 Base Attack).

Dodge: +1 AC vs ONE opponent.
Expertise: Take up to -5 to attack in exchange for equal AC bonus (would just be a default option if up to me).
Mobility: +4 AC vs Attacks of Opportunity when moving between opponents (not bad but extremely situational).
Spring Attack: May move up to remaining movement after attacking (this is a default option in 5e).

TBH, I'd just leave the Dex and BAB requirements and ignore the rest, which barely even have anything to do with attacking everyone around you (in the off chance you're even surrounded in the first place). Whirlwind Attack is a flashy trick that's not bad, but it's also not always that useful in practice. Even if you hit with every single attack, if you don't kill at least a few of them you're getting flanked and pummeled when it's their turn. But it may help soften them up if you have friends around to help pick them off you.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1137703In 3rd edition or Pathfinder, I see a feat I like and I get excited, but then I see that in order to get that feat, I have to take like five feats in a specific order, most of which suck and/or don't match my character at all. So in order to get that one cool feat I have to forgo the fun of getting good feats for the next 10 levels and who knows if the campaign will even last that long. So I look through the mountains and mountains of feats that don't have prerequisite and most of them are useless or don't match my character concept.

Exactly! Sometimes campaigns don't even last more than a few sessions, if someone can't commit to it and you end up playing something else. And even if you make it happen there's no guarantee that you're gonna make it pass mid-high levels before you end up playing something else. Your character could even die before 10th level if the campaign even makes it that far. Meanwhile you only got to play with crappy feats that added almost nothing to your character, either mechanically or in terms of what you wanted to play.

Quote from: spon;1137725My understanding is that the philosophy behind the original design of feats was to reward system mastery - much like magic did with their design of card sets for MtG. So some feats were required for a good build, whereas others might look good, but would ultimately lead to a poor character.

Unfortunately, they failed to notice the vital difference between D&D characters and magic decks. If your MtG deck turns out to be rubbish, you can remake it with completely different cards - or just tune it over time. D&D characters on the other hand are not updated from week to week - so sucks to be you if you chose one of those "trick" feats! And if through luck or good judgement you honed in on the best feats that were synergistic and boosted each other, then your character became miles better than the rest of the group. Not good for player happiness.  

So feats were designed for a fundamentally different game - one where you can swap them in and out as the game goes on. So no wonder they never worked for 3rd ed (and non-essentials 4th ed) D&D. As other people have said, they tend to replace things that a GM might have allowed a player to try - and perhaps succeed on a good roll (like the example of befriending a stray). But feats now replace that more free-wheeling approach. And you can't mix them, otherwise a player will complain of unfairness - they had to use a feat that someone else is "getting for free". Not good at all.

This is a good point. 3e feat design followed a different design philosophy from the game they were made for. What's good for a card game is not necessarily good for an RPG.

I'm not fundamentally against the idea of "builds" in RPGs, because there are aspects of character design that lend themselves to picking optimal ability packages for what you want your character to focus on. The issue lies when you have to make a bunch of "gamey" picks that just add bloat to the system  and don't meaningfully contribute to your game options or concept just to get the ability you actually want.

As VisionStorm says, a lot of things that you needed feats for should probably just be the rules as they are. It comes from rule systems which are too convoluted, made worse by feat requirements to do all sorts of things. One really common example is Dexterity for attacking and damaging. It's something that any Dexterity based combat character is going to want and yet to do it in 3rd edition or Pathfinder requires a bunch of feats in the right order along with weird limitations, like not having anything in your other hand. Why make all Dexterity classes jump through those hoops?

As for rewarding system mastery - I disagree on a fundamental level. There should be no reward for system mastery, especially not a reward which is deliberately built into the system. A person playing their first D&D game who doesn't understand the rules that well shouldn't have a mechanically weaker character than a person playing for decades who knows the rules by heart and it's bizarre to think that they should. Especially when picking the wrong feat could condemn a character to problems for the rest of the campaign, unless you have a DM who lets you change out bad feats if you realize you made a mistake.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1137781Exactly! Sometimes campaigns don't even last more than a few sessions, if someone can't commit to it and you end up playing something else. And even if you make it happen there's no guarantee that you're gonna make it pass mid-high levels before you end up playing something else. Your character could even die before 10th level if the campaign even makes it that far. Meanwhile you only got to play with crappy feats that added almost nothing to your character, either mechanically or in terms of what you wanted to play.

Thats really a fake complaint.  Why?  Because you could apply it to literally anything in the game. For example:

The DM gives your party a plot hook: Go to the ruins, defeat the Dragon and rescue the Princess.  But oh noes, maybe me only get half way there and the game finishes so what a waste of plot hook.

The PC has a backstory, his brother has gone missing presumed kidnapped!  But oh noes, the group falls apart and can not game anymore before you get to find out what happened to your characters brother so what a waste of backstory.

You have come up with a great accent for your character complete with different sayings that ground your character within the game world,  But oh noes, Bill wants to swap to playing Shadowrun chummer and now your DnD game is finished.

The worst that you can say about Dodge is that it gives you +1 to your AC vs one opponent which, if you have had at least one fight, has helped your character at least once during your game.  Is it a +5 to AC? No, but so what its a level 1 feat were you expecting an extra language or something.

If we want to talk about wasted opportunity then you have to realise that you dont even get any feats in 5e until what 4th or 5th level so oh noes maybe your game does not even make it that far because reasons.

Want to cast Fireball?  Well bad luck, you dont even get that to 5th level so better hope the game lasts that long otherwise you are stuck with crappy magic missile and burning hands like a chump.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1137796As VisionStorm says, a lot of things that you needed feats for should probably just be the rules as they are. It comes from rule systems which are too convoluted, made worse by feat requirements to do all sorts of things. One really common example is Dexterity for attacking and damaging. It's something that any Dexterity based combat character is going to want and yet to do it in 3rd edition or Pathfinder requires a bunch of feats in the right order along with weird limitations, like not having anything in your other hand. Why make all Dexterity classes jump through those hoops?

As for rewarding system mastery - I disagree on a fundamental level. There should be no reward for system mastery, especially not a reward which is deliberately built into the system. A person playing their first D&D game who doesn't understand the rules that well shouldn't have a mechanically weaker character than a person playing for decades who knows the rules by heart and it's bizarre to think that they should. Especially when picking the wrong feat could condemn a character to problems for the rest of the campaign, unless you have a DM who lets you change out bad feats if you realize you made a mistake.

Any game that involves skill is going to have an advantage to an experienced player.

DnD has always been like that.

Quote from: Shasarak;1137809Thats really a fake complaint.  Why?  Because you could apply it to literally anything in the game. For example:

The DM gives your party a plot hook: Go to the ruins, defeat the Dragon and rescue the Princess.  But oh noes, maybe me only get half way there and the game finishes so what a waste of plot hook.

The PC has a backstory, his brother has gone missing presumed kidnapped!  But oh noes, the group falls apart and can not game anymore before you get to find out what happened to your characters brother so what a waste of backstory.

You have come up with a great accent for your character complete with different sayings that ground your character within the game world,  But oh noes, Bill wants to swap to playing Shadowrun chummer and now your DnD game is finished.

The worst that you can say about Dodge is that it gives you +1 to your AC vs one opponent which, if you have had at least one fight, has helped your character at least once during your game.  Is it a +5 to AC? No, but so what its a level 1 feat were you expecting an extra language or something.

If we want to talk about wasted opportunity then you have to realise that you dont even get any feats in 5e until what 4th or 5th level so oh noes maybe your game does not even make it that far because reasons.

Want to cast Fireball?  Well bad luck, you dont even get that to 5th level so better hope the game lasts that long otherwise you are stuck with crappy magic missile and burning hands like a chump.

Yeah, it's a weak argument on its own and specially out of context. But that wasn't so much a core argument as much as it was a reinforcing one. It wasn't so much "Aw, this sucks because I have to wait!" but rather "Aw, this sucks because all these feats are garbage and don't even make sense as requirements. And to top it off, now I have to wait AND use up all my selections in the meantime on stuff I don't want just to qualify for something I might not even play long enough to get!"

Coincidentally, I've also complained before about wizards only getting garbage spells till they get to level 5. But at least wizards don't need to invest heavily on a specific set of crappy spells just unlock Fireball. They automatically get access to that one the moment they reach 5th caster level, even if they don't know a single fire-related spell.

Quote from: Shasarak;1137820Any game that involves skill is going to have an advantage to an experienced player.

DnD has always been like that.

True. I just accept this as a fact of life. My only problem is when the game exacerbates this with stuff like long feat chains that force you to take a bunch of crappy feats and plan ahead just to get the few viable feats. While inexperienced players just consistently gimp their character trying to navigate a sea of useless feats.

Quote from: Shasarak;1137820Any game that involves skill is going to have an advantage to an experienced player.

DnD has always been like that.

Actually, 3E D&D was literally designed with 'trap' options to deliberately lull inexperienced players into bad design to reward more experienced players. This was explained, and later apologized for, by... as I recall... Jonathon Tweet in an essay called... Ivory Tower Design... or something like that, and... again, as I recall (Its been a while since I read it)... this idea explicitly came from Magic the Gathering deck building design philosophy.

It is a spectacularly stupid idea to punish new players (Eg Potential new lifelong customers) simply for the crime of being new.


Of course, as far as I'm concerned modern gaming has taken a decidedly stupid turn by focusing entirely on combat balancing. Certainly no character should only ever be useful in a fight, which is an entirely different topic, but my earlier comments (this thread?) about how the Rogue should have remained the Thief certainly do more than touch upon my thoughts on the matter.

But yes: Being able to Dodge an attack is, or should be, an innate human characteristic, rather than a selected (and chain mandatory) 'Special Thing' about your character... and if you are a noteworthy 'exceptional dodger', having something better than a mere 5% increase to dodge chances, against one dude at a time where mass combats are common, is especially pathetic.  Dodge is a poster child for the problems with 3E Feat philosophy.