# Feats still optional in 1D&D: and other notes from the survey results



## dave2008 (Dec 1, 2022)

I didn't see this noted in the main thread about the Origins UA survey results so I thought I would start a new one to highlight something I thought was significant.

Within the first 5 minutes of the survey results video Crawford implies that, unlike a lot of speculation I have seen on these forums including my own, feats will still be optional in 2024 D&D. He mentions (and I am paraphrasing here) that he was concerned about the 1st level feat in the UA because feats are optional and he didn't know if including one in a background would upset those who do not use feats. They way he said this implied to me that the intent is for feats to remain optional and the 1st level feat is a one time feat/feature requirement.

EDIT: To clarify I mean feats past 1st level will continue to be optional

How did you interpret his statement?

Also, something else I thought was significant: The design team expects you t be use the Fizban and MotM race options (and presumably all extent race options) along side any options in the 2024 PHB. The 2024 PHB is not replacing those options (if it has them at all), it is just providing new options.


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 1, 2022)

Well, that's not what I heard.

Starting at 3:00 (verbatim, *emphasis mine*) _"Some groups prefer not to use feats, which is one of the reasons why we're very carefully threading this needle of: Alright, *you get this free one*. So we're not going to require you to engage with the feat system *repeatedly* unless you really want to. But we also want to give you that *taste*, so that you can then make an informed decision about whether you later engage with feats."_

In the recent video, Jeremy Crawford describes the "background feat at 1st level" being wildly popular in their survey and that it scored the highest (almost 90% satisfaction) of their first One D&D Unearthed Arcana playtest survey. (As I note below, this may be flawed)

He explains that anything scoring this high is very likely to see further development in the actual game. 

It's hard to not view this in light of something Jeremy said back in 2018: that a majority of D&D players don't use feats.  
As @Alphastream said very well, this may be a flawed premise because there was no question asking "do you want bonus feats at 1st level?" (besides writing in your own comment in the text field at the end, which I did). There's a trend with these surveys to narrow the field of questioning to rating very specific features/feats/spells/races without asking the bigger question: do we even want this?

So, that "~90% satisfaction with background feats at 1st level" _might _be true – there certainly are a lot more players who are younger than me getting into D&D, and maybe they really connect with the power fantasy implied by a bonus background feat – but until they actually ask that question, we don't really know.

Honestly, I wish I'd been saving these surveys to look back at, but I just haven't had the wherewithal. 

I want to believe that there's nothing but the best intentions behind this playtest – to improve the design and player experience. However, if WotC have a marketing objective of, say, getting players to use the feat system more (based on their internal data showing that most players aren't using feats), then steering the conversation by selectively presenting survey questions so as not to undermine WotC's premise (_you want more feats_) is an effective way to do that.


----------



## Krachek (Dec 1, 2022)

Later (28:00) he mention that feat won’t no more be a must have and damage boost feature and defining feature will be in the class and not in the feats. With that in mind feats can still be optional.


----------



## dave2008 (Dec 1, 2022)

@Quickleaf , if you just take the part you quoted above (see below), how do you interpret it differently than: it is  suggesting feats are still optional, outside the 1st level feat?

_"Some groups prefer not to use feats, which is one of the reasons why we're very carefully threading this needle of: Alright, *you get this free one*. So we're not going to require you to engage with the feat system *repeatedly* unless you really want to. But we also want to give you that *taste*, so that you can then make an informed decision about whether you later engage with feats."_

He specifically says we are not going to require you to use them past 1st level_. _Also, first level feats are intentionally not like other feats, they are weaker. From one perspective they are not even feats, the are simply another background feature.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 1, 2022)

The 2014 Backgrounds already gave every player a free "Feat" that they just didn't call as such or had a specific dice mechanic tied to it.  Every Background Feature was essentially a roleplaying feat-- some special character-driven thing the PC could do that no one else could.

But because there was no mechanic tied to the Feature, I suspect WotC found that most people didn't ever bother with it.  Even the people who don't like Feats.  So what's the point of having character options in the game that no one uses?  It's why the Traits, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws will probably all been gone from Backgrounds as well.

At least by specifically calling out the new 2024 Background "features" as Feats and adding a mechanic to them... all the people who love having additional mechanics to play with might actually finally use them.  And the people who hate Background Feats can ignore them just like they did the 2014 Background Features.  There won't be any difference for those people.


----------



## dave2008 (Dec 1, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The 2014 Backgrounds already gave every player a free "Feat" that they just didn't call as such or had a specific dice mechanic tied to it.  Every Background Feature was essentially a roleplaying feat-- some special character-driven thing the PC could do that no one else could.
> 
> But because there was no mechanic tied to the Feature, I suspect WotC found that most people didn't ever bother with it.  Even the people who don't like Feats.  So what's the point of having character options in the game that no one uses?  It's why the Traits, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws will probably all been gone from Backgrounds as well.
> 
> At least by specifically calling out the new 2024 Background "features" as Feats and adding a mechanic to them... all the people who love having additional mechanics to play with might actually finally use them.  And the people who hate Background Feats can ignore them just like they did the 2014 Background Features.  There won't be any difference for those people.



While I agree, this discussion was more about whether or not feats would be required at higher levels. Some people were speculating that ASI would disappear and '24 D&D would be feat only or '24 would be ASI + feats.  Basically the fear was that feats would be required past lvl 1.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 1, 2022)

Yes. That is what I understood as well. Feats pst level one will continue to be optional in 1D&D.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 1, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> While I agree, this discussion was more about whether or not feats would be required at higher levels. Some people were speculating that ASI would disappear and '24 D&D would be feat only or '24 would be ASI + feats.  Basically the fear was that feats would be required past lvl 1.



If the Ability Score Increase "feat" remains in the game... then the people who don't like Feats will be able to do what they've always done... take ASIs at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th levels instead of getting some other game mechanic.  They'll just need to accept the fact that it's no longer called just an 'Ability Score Increase'... it's now called an 'Ability Score Increase' feat.

If they _can't_ accept that slightest alteration to merely its nomenclature... then I don't think WotC or anyone else can help them.


----------



## dave2008 (Dec 1, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If the Ability Score Increase "feat" remains in the game... then the people who don't like Feats will be able to do what they've always done... take ASIs at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 19th levels instead of getting some other game mechanic.  They'll just need to accept the fact that it's no longer called just an 'Ability Score Increase'... it's now called an 'Ability Score Increase' feat.
> 
> If they _can't_ accept that slightest alteration to merely its nomenclature... then I don't think WotC or anyone else can help them.



I completely forgot they had made the ASI a feat - which makes 100% sense.  Thank you for reminding me and I agree with your assessment.


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 1, 2022)

I knew it was too good to be true. We just can't' commit to good game design. Or even consistent game design. Instead, every game is just a giant game of telephone.


----------



## Oofta (Dec 1, 2022)

Feats are just a way to add a bit of customization to PCs without creating ever more subclasses.  They make the background actually mean something, first level feats are just a way of saying "here's something unique you get" while using an established mechanic.  It doesn't mean you have to use that mechanic later on, just that it's also not something to be afraid of.

If they fix the handful of feats that cause the most issues, feats become less defining and less of a must have.  Add in the ASI as a feat, they're just consolidating rules a bit.


----------



## MockingBird (Dec 1, 2022)

I'm happy with this. I didn't want feats to be required. I see this as a compromise and it's a good one. Everyone gets to play how they want. It's really no different than the 2014 options. This makes me feel like they are listening to us.


----------



## Scribe (Dec 1, 2022)

But it's all optional...


----------



## Amrûnril (Dec 1, 2022)

I think that, at a table level, it'll still be easy to play a featless game in OneD&D. It would even be possible to drop the background feat at first level without too much trouble.

It may be a bit harder, though, for a player who doesn't want to use feats to be on par mechanically with players who do. Since the opportunity cost for taking a feat over an ASI has been effectively cut in half , I suspect that doing so will be the optimal choice in most cases.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 1, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> In the recent video, Jeremy Crawford describes the "background feat at 1st level" being wildly popular in their survey and that it scored the highest (almost 90% satisfaction) of their first One D&D Unearthed Arcana playtest survey. (As I note below, this may be flawed)
> 
> He explains that anything scoring this high is very likely to see further development in the actual game.
> 
> It's hard to not view this in light of something Jeremy said back in 2018: that a majority of D&D players don't use feats.



It actually makes a lot of sense and is not a contradiction.  

The vast majority of people love feats. And... The vast majority of people view ASI's to be better than feats, so they don't take them, especially the first two at 4th and 8th level since they want to bump those stats early.  However, since most tables never go past 8th or 9th level, they never see the third ASI where they might take a feat.

That means that a free feat at 1st level that isn't sucking up an ASI is going to be viewed very, very favorably.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 1, 2022)

Scribe said:


> But it's all optional...



What if I opt for it not to be?


----------



## Quickleaf (Dec 1, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> @Quickleaf , if you just take the part you quoted above (see below), how do you interpret it differently than: it is  suggesting feats are still optional, outside the 1st level feat?
> 
> _"Some groups prefer not to use feats, which is one of the reasons why we're very carefully threading this needle of: Alright, *you get this free one*. So we're not going to require you to engage with the feat system *repeatedly* unless you really want to. But we also want to give you that *taste*, so that you can then make an informed decision about whether you later engage with feats."_
> 
> He specifically says we are not going to require you to use them past 1st level_. _Also, first level feats are intentionally not like other feats, they are weaker. From one perspective they are not even feats, the are simply another background feature.



Well, if you're willing to move the goal posts of your argument from "feats are optional in One D&D" to "background feats in One D&D are not feats because +2 Charisma or +2 hp/level isn't the same as XYZ", well, that's your perogative.

I don't play moving goal posts.


----------



## Clint_L (Dec 1, 2022)

I'd be interested to know what percentage of tables use feats in 2022. I suspect that it would no longer be a minority, but I would love to see data. Certainly every group that I know uses them, as does every actual play show that I've seen. Often extensively (Critical Role), and I imagine that would influence quite a few people.


----------



## dave2008 (Dec 1, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> I knew it was too good to be true. We just can't' commit to good game design. Or even consistent game design. Instead, every game is just a giant game of telephone.



What does that even mean? Can you clarify what you think is good game design?  It seems to me that giving people the option to take a feat or an ASI is good game design.  What about that is bad design IYO?


----------



## Scribe (Dec 1, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> What if I opt for it not to be?


----------



## dave2008 (Dec 1, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> Well, if you're willing to move the goal posts of your argument from "feats are optional in One D&D" to "background feats in One D&D are not feats because +2 Charisma or +2 hp/level isn't the same as XYZ", well, that's your perogative.
> 
> I don't play moving goal posts.



I didn't mean to move the goal post and I updated the OP. I always intended it to mean feats past 1st level were not required. That is what I meant in my original OP when I said: 

"They way he said this implied to me that* the intent is for feats to remain optional and the 1st level feat is a one time feat/feature requirement*."

So I apologize, I was not trying to change the discussion, I just wasn't very clear. I see what I was misunderstood.  

So to clarify, I am guess that if only a first level feat is required (even if they are unlike other feats) then you feel feats are required, is that correct? Even though no other feats are required, you feel that unique background feat qualifies as them making feats required?


----------



## dave2008 (Dec 1, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> "background feats in One D&D are not feats because +2 Charisma or +2 hp/level isn't the same as XYZ",



Also, what does this mean? 1sr level feats do not give ability score bonuses. Are you conflating the playtest backgrounds which give ability score bonuses and a 1st level feat with first level feats on their own? I was never talking about the new backgrounds - that would be you moving the goal post wouldn't it?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2022)

Quickleaf said:


> It's hard to not view this in light of something Jeremy said back in 2018: that a majority of D&D players don't use feats.




Yes, but 2018 was four years ago.  5e was released in 2014, so 5e has _doubled_ it's lifespan since that statement.  2018 was before the massive boost in online play with covid.  Statements from 2018 cannot be relied upon to hold today.



Quickleaf said:


> ...this may be a flawed premise because there was no question asking "do you want bonus feats at 1st level?"




While I understand that, if you don't want feats, you want them to ask that specific question, but there are actually good surveying reasons to not ask questions in that form.

People respond differently to high-level, abstract and theoretical questions differently than they answer specific or experiential questions.  If you give someone a theoretical thing, or a general idea, they will tend to answer on ideological lines.  If you give someone an experience, and ask if it was good or bad, that response often does not match their ideological stance.

Like, you can ask someone if they don't like Brussels spouts, they'll reject them, but if they have a dish that includes Brussels sprouts, they may like it.  Ultimately, WotC is properly more interested in the latter than the former.




Quickleaf said:


> There's a trend with these surveys to narrow the field of questioning to rating very specific features/feats/spells/races without asking the bigger question: do we even want this?




Yes, well, doing the entire design by massive committee is probably not a practical approach to the work.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 1, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> To clarify I mean feats past 1st level will continue to be optional



I just...then they _aren't optional_.

"Feats past first level are optional" is like saying "meat after breakfast is optional." That still means meat isn't optional!


----------



## SkidAce (Dec 1, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> I just...then they _aren't optional_.
> 
> "Feats past first level are optional" is like saying "meat after breakfast is optional." That still means meat isn't optional!



Functionally, if you ignore feats past first level, then the 1st level feat is just an extra ability.

Technically, you are correct though.

Personally, I'm cool with it.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 1, 2022)

SkidAce said:


> Functionally, if you ignore feats past first level, then the 1st level feat is just an extra ability.
> 
> Technically, you are correct though.
> 
> Personally, I'm cool with it.



I mean, so am I. I think feats shouldn't be optional at all, that players should be free to choose them at any ASI level (and, indeed, that they should get more opportunities to do so.) Feats are one of the few parts of 5e design I'm generally cool with, despite some of the balance wrinkles. The usual suspects are already known, though Elven Accuracy takes the cake for being _stupidly broken_, on top of also being a "half feat" when it absolutely should not have been one.

It's just really confusing to see the claim that "no guys they're totally still optional!" when...they aren't. All first-level characters _will_ have a feat now. This is a clear change. I think it's, overall, a _good_ change. Trying to pretend it _isn't_ a change is really, _really_ weird, and makes me ponder questions I really would rather not ponder.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> It's just really confusing to see the claim that "no guys they're totally still optional!" when...they aren't.




Fine, let us have them call the list "First Level Extra Abilities".  Voila!  Feats are optional again.


----------



## Lanefan (Dec 1, 2022)

The bigger question might be whether the designers are going to start assuming feats-yes as 5.1's default when balancing the game's math.  If yes, the game will become somewhat more challenging for no-feat parties/players. (original 5e math assumed no feats)


----------



## jasper (Dec 1, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Yes. That is what I understood as well. Feats pst level one will continue to be optional in 1D&D.



Yes as optional as AL DM dealing with feats. Yea optional. Market speak for you will take the feat at first level or be behind the power curve. I wonder if they are going back to the old AL modules and paying the authors to update them to the new power creep.


----------



## jasper (Dec 1, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I'd be interested to know what percentage of tables use feats in 2022. I suspect that it would no longer be a minority, but I would love to see data. Certainly every group that I know uses them, *as does every actual play show that I've seen. Often extensively (Critical Role), *and I imagine that would influence quite a few people.



Gee, if the cool dudes are doing it. It must be true.


----------



## Shiroiken (Dec 1, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> It's why the Traits, Bonds, Ideals, and Flaws will probably all been gone from Backgrounds as well.



I've never like it being associated with Backgrounds, but I hope they don't completely ditch them. They could provide a list of examples for various concepts for each, rather than trying to tie them to something else like they did previously with Backgrounds.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Dec 1, 2022)

Shouldn't the threads about One D&D be in that forum and not the Dungeons and Dragons forum? I thought that was the point of having a second forum for it...


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 1, 2022)

jasper said:


> Yes as optional as AL DM dealing with feats. Yea optional. Market speak for you will take the feat at first level or be behind the power curve. I wonder if they are going back to the old AL modules and paying the authors to update them to the new power creep.



The power creep of a first level (its a nerfed feat) feat in your background?

I don’t think any update is needed for that. I mean have you played 5e? That makes next to no difference. Less than choosing the “right” class at least


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 1, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> Shouldn't the threads about One D&D be in that forum and not the Dungeons and Dragons forum? I thought that was the point of having a second forum for it...



Ask the mods to move it then


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 1, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> The bigger question might be whether the designers are going to start assuming feats-yes as 5.1's default when balancing the game's math.  If yes, the game will become somewhat more challenging for no-feat parties/players. (original 5e math assumed no feats)



In the video the specifically mention trying to rebalance the feats so that they are not required. An ASI should be just as good. That was the goal with O5e as well, they just didn’t quite get there.


----------



## DND_Reborn (Dec 1, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Ask the mods to move it then



That's why I posted it. I figured eventually they will read it and make that decision.

Of course, we already have _another_ thread about One D&D in this forum and the other thread in that forum was shut down because it was in this forum already.


----------



## overgeeked (Dec 1, 2022)

It's not optional if everyone gets a feat at 1st level. Optional means you can use it or not use it, your choice. If there's no choice, it's not optional. Must be from whoever thought adding power creep, changing the mechanics, tweaking level progressions, reworking how classes work, and how subclasses work is still somehow magically "backwards compatible."


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 1, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> I mean, so am I. I think feats shouldn't be optional at all, that players should be free to choose them at any ASI level (and, indeed, that they should get more opportunities to do so.) Feats are one of the few parts of 5e design I'm generally cool with, despite some of the balance wrinkles. The usual suspects are already known, though Elven Accuracy takes the cake for being _stupidly broken_, on top of also being a "half feat" when it absolutely should not have been one.
> 
> It's just really confusing to see the claim that "no guys they're totally still optional!" when...they aren't. All first-level characters _will_ have a feat now. This is a clear change. I think it's, overall, a _good_ change. Trying to pretend it _isn't_ a change is really, _really_ weird, and makes me ponder questions I really would rather not ponder.





overgeeked said:


> It's not optional if everyone gets a feat at 1st level. Optional means you can use it or not use it, your choice. If there's no choice, it's not optional. Must be from whoever thought adding power creep, changing the mechanics, tweaking level progressions, reworking how classes work, and how subclasses work is still somehow magically "backwards compatible."



Question: if they didn’t call the 1st level feat a “Feat” and called it a background trait, would that qualify as feats being optional?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 1, 2022)

After 3.5 and Essentials people still believe in .5 editions that are backwards compatible?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2022)

DND_Reborn said:


> That's why I posted it. I figured eventually they will read it and make that decision.




*Mod Note:*
We do not read every post on the boards.  So, what you did was unlikely to catch our notice.

Indeed, the only reason I know about it is that someone else reported your post.

Edit to add:  Morrus owns the place.  He gets to put threads wherever he wants.  If you have a problem with that, you can take it up with him.


----------



## dave2008 (Dec 2, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> I just...then they _aren't optional_.
> 
> "Feats past first level are optional" is like saying "meat after breakfast is optional." That still means meat isn't optional!



Except that the 1st level feats are purposely not like other feats.  They could be renamed "background traits" and then it would be 100% accurate to say feats are optional.  I mean the 1st level feats =/= feats. They are lesser powered, will not have an ASI, and are only available at 1st level.  They are feats in name only.


----------



## jasper (Dec 2, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> The power creep of a first level (its a nerfed feat) feat in your background?
> 
> I don’t think any update is needed for that. I mean have you played 5e? That makes next to no difference. Less than choosing the “right” class at least



383 Adventure league sessions as a DM. So yes, I have played with feats.


----------



## jasper (Dec 2, 2022)

Shiroiken said:


> I've never like it being associated with Backgrounds, but I hope they don't completely ditch them. They could provide a list of examples for various concepts for each, rather than trying to tie them to something else like they did previously with Backgrounds.



They sticking them to backgrounds because people were choosing a background and never using after the skills they got. So, it sounds like they are forcing people to take backgrounds.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 2, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Question: if they didn’t call the 1st level feat a “Feat” and called it a background trait, would that qualify as feats being optional?



No, because it is still a feat.

If they designed a completely new set of mechanics for it, which were clearly distinct from feats and could not be substituted for feats, and which could not be acquired any other way (except perhaps as a feat, loosely similar to 13th Age's "Further Backgrounding" feat), then yes, it could be that. But they aren't doing that, and it is extremely unlikely that they will take the time to draft a completely new system that clearly and specifically differentiates itself from feats in order to achieve that end.

Genuine question: why do you seem to think that _literally just changing the name_ would alter the situation?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 2, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Genuine question: why do you seem to think that _literally just changing the name_ would alter the situation?



Because it works constantly for D&D?

Don't believe me, ask a balor or a halfling.


----------



## Dausuul (Dec 2, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> I'd be interested to know what percentage of tables use feats in 2022. I suspect that it would no longer be a minority, but I would love to see data. Certainly every group that I know uses them, as does every actual play show that I've seen. Often extensively (Critical Role), and I imagine that would influence quite a few people.



I suspect the percentage of tables that _allow_ feats has always been a substantial majority.

What Crawford said back in the day was that the majority of players did not _use_ feats, which is quite different. In 5E, unless you're playing a variant human, feats are competing with maxing out your primary stat until at least 8th level (and 12th for most classes)... which is to say, if you want to max your primary stat, and your campaign ends at or before 12th level as most do, you will probably never take a feat, unless you a) roll stats or b) start with 17 in your primary stat and use a "half feat" that grants +1 to that stat.

Nowadays, that second option is quite appealing, as there are lots of amazing choices for "half feats." But at the time Crawford made that comment, the available "half feats" were mostly trash. If you were, say, a wizard looking to boost your Int, your options were... let's see... Keen Mind and Linguist. Whee. Moreover, you had to be playing a gnome or rolling stats to get that starting Int of 17 in the first place. The changes in Tasha's have made it possible for any class/race combo to start with a 17 in anything.

So, back in the day, I think it's not only possible but likely that most tables allowed feats and yet few players actually took any. You'll note that 1D&D is institutionalizing the "floating +2" from Tasha's, as well as making _all_ feats above 1st level into half feats, both of which reduce the competition between feats and maxing your primary stat.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 2, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> Because it works constantly for D&D?
> 
> Don't believe me, ask a balor or a halfling.



It works for _legal_ things. Because in legal stuff, names really are _that_ important.

I absolutely, positively guarantee you that changing only the name does not and will not work with most users. "Here's a list of Background Traits!" wouldn't convince anyone who dislikes feats, if the mechanics remain completely unchanged.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 2, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> It works for _legal_ things. Because in legal stuff, names really are _that_ important.
> 
> I absolutely, positively guarantee you that changing only the name does not and will not work with most users. "Here's a list of Background Traits!" wouldn't convince anyone who dislikes feats, if the mechanics remain completely unchanged.




The old traits could als be seen as feats. Roleplaying feats, but feats. So if you agree, that the new backgrounds just give a feat, if you take a prebuilt one, thanen the difference is very small...


----------



## Delazar (Dec 2, 2022)

What does it mean "Feats are Optional"? Optional for who? Everything is optional, if you decide to not use it. I never really understood this distinction. If the party says "we're not using clerics in this campaign", then Clerics are optional, I guess?


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 2, 2022)

If feats become 'compulsory' but the rules expressly state that for campaigns that wish to operate without them simply allow level 1 feats as a background benefit and the ASI feat going forward?  Qualitatively, the difference is a level 1 feat.  I was disappointed when they removed the level 1 feats after the playtest.  They are almost the only way to make two level 1 characters of the same class feel different.  Are some people mad because they think level 1 characters are so awesome they don't need anything else?


----------



## Vaalingrade (Dec 2, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> It works for _legal_ things. Because in legal stuff, names really are _that_ important.
> 
> I absolutely, positively guarantee you that changing only the name does not and will not work with most users. "Here's a list of Background Traits!" wouldn't convince anyone who dislikes feats, if the mechanics remain completely unchanged.



What about calling all the rangers' exploits spells for 5e? That worked somehow.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 2, 2022)

Delazar said:


> What does it mean "Feats are Optional"? Optional for who? Everything is optional, if you decide to not use it. I never really understood this distinction. If the party says "we're not using clerics in this campaign", then Clerics are optional, I guess?



Just from a human psychology perspective, it's easier to decide opt into something(or not) than it is to opt out of something that the official default. Feats are optional in that they are not used unless you opt into them.  Clerics are a default part of the game that you would have to take away from people in order to opt out.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 2, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> If feats become 'compulsory' but the rules expressly state that for campaigns that wish to operate without them simply allow level 1 feats as a background benefit and the ASI feat going forward?  Qualitatively, the difference is a level 1 feat.  I was disappointed when they removed the level 1 feats after the playtest.  They are almost the only way to make two level 1 characters of the same class feel different.  Are some people mad because they think level 1 characters are so awesome they don't need anything else?




When did they remove the level 1 feats?


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 2, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> When did they remove the level 1 feats?



Not sure - 2012?  But they were a bit more class-specific at the time - from the D&D Next playtest:

Feats: A specialty comprises a handful of feats, which provide special abilities to your character. You gain a feat at levels 1, 3, 6, and 9. Each feat’s entry describes the feat’s effect in the game world and includes a benefit, which explains how the feat works in the game rules. Some feats have prerequisites. For example, the Aura of Souls feat requires a character to be able to cast spells. You must meet a feat’s prerequisites to take that feat. You can take a feat only once, unless a feat says otherwise.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 2, 2022)

Do the folks who say the one or two small game mechanics they might get from a background feat is too much, _also_ not use Xanathar's and Tasha's splatbooks?  I'd certainly hope so.  Because it lessens their argument if they have no problem whatsoever using all the piles of new mechanics found in those books but get all indignant about the one from a background feat.  Makes it harder to take their concerns about "too many mechanics" as seriously.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 2, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Not sure - 2012?  But they were a bit more class-specific at the time - from the D&D Next playtest:
> 
> Feats: A specialty comprises a handful of feats, which provide special abilities to your character. You gain a feat at levels 1, 3, 6, and 9. Each feat’s entry describes the feat’s effect in the game world and includes a benefit, which explains how the feat works in the game rules. Some feats have prerequisites. For example, the Aura of Souls feat requires a character to be able to cast spells. You must meet a feat’s prerequisites to take that feat. You can take a feat only once, unless a feat says otherwise.




Ah. Ok, just wanted to make sure you are speaking of next. I think, what I actually miss most were the themes.
I really loved the Idea of class agnostic progression with a lot of flavour attached. Sadly that was split into subclasses and feats.
With unified subclass progression, we could see a return of themes if no class is dependent on thwir subclass to function properly.


----------



## TwoSix (Dec 2, 2022)

Delazar said:


> What does it mean "Feats are Optional"? Optional for who? Everything is optional, if you decide to not use it. I never really understood this distinction. If the party says "we're not using clerics in this campaign", then Clerics are optional, I guess?



Optional means that, for players, you can't assume the presence of the feature.  Rather, you need active approval from the DM saying that the feature will be included in this campaign.  

As experienced players, we forget that removing classes, adding classes, or modifying classes to fit a desired setting is not something that novice players and DMs generally do, unless they've been exposed to the idea from other media.  An experienced DM choosing to override the present rules (by banning clerics, say) isn't the same use case as choosing to use or not use a rule presented as optional from the PHB.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 2, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> The old traits could als be seen as feats. Roleplaying feats, but feats. So if you agree, that the new backgrounds just give a feat, if you take a prebuilt one, thanen the difference is very small...



They obviously are not feats and hardly even compare to the _weakest_ mechanical parts of the half-feats like Actor or Keen Mind. None of the background features resemble what feats (whether "half" or not) do. This is exactly what I mean; this is an obvious and rather tenuous stretching of the definitions of things in order to smooth away an obvious difference in order to deny that a change has occurred. I just don't understand why. The difference is really obvious.



Vaalingrade said:


> What about calling all the rangers' exploits spells for 5e? That worked somehow.



Well, the big difference would be that they are, in fact, _actually spells_ now. Like, they don't work in an antimagic field, they have casting times and defined areas of effect and spell schools, they can (at least in theory) be counterspelled, literally all but 5 (out of 71) spells have verbal components meaning they cannot be cast in a zone of _silence_ or when gagged. In particular, Hunter's Mark has a verbal component.

So...yeah. They actually did change the mechanics so that these things are spells, and because they're spells, they're subject to all the frustrating characteristics that the neo-Vancian spellcasting system enforces on things.


----------



## Pauln6 (Dec 2, 2022)

I went for the lowest end healing option without batting an eyelid.  I think some of the complaints I see on the forums I just don't experience in my game.  If anything, I'd like to beef up cure wounds.


----------



## dave2008 (Dec 2, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Genuine question: why do you seem to think that _literally just changing the name_ would alter the situation?



I can't answer for Uni, but I have asked the same question before and my reason is this: first level feats are specifically different. They are intended to be less powerful than general feats.  Whether they can be taken later or not, they shouldn't be because they are intentionally not as good.  They are specifically different. Enough so that I think the name "feat" is misleading for them and that they should be renamed. Unless they specifically prohibit 1st level feats from being taken at higher levels (which I doubt) it creates confusion because 1st lvl feat =/= feats.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 2, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> I can't answer for Uni, but I have asked the same question before and my reason is this: first level feats are specifically different. They are intended to be less powerful than general feats.  Whether they can be taken later or not, they shouldn't be because they are intentionally not as good.  They are specifically different. Enough so that I think the name "feat" is misleading for them and that they should be renamed. Unless they specifically prohibit 1st level feats from being taken at higher levels (which I doubt) it creates confusion because 1st lvl feat =/= feats.



Isn't Skilled one of the choices you can take? Skilled is a perfectly cromulent feat for most games, and quite powerful for any game that is more skill-focused than combat-focused. (I wouldn't want to _use_ 5e for such a game, because it provides almost no support for such an approach, but it _is_ something people do.) I don't see this hard-and-fast gap you're alleging here.

Especially because, based on the playtest documents, _Lucky is a first-level feat_. You know, the one feat everyone considers stupidly overpowered and which gets constant demands for it to be banned? (Even though it's nowhere near as powerful as Elven Accuracy.) Oh, and Magic Initiate, a feat quite frequently taken for its charop potential, and which has only gotten _stronger_ in the playtest, because the unified spell list plus the decoupling of casting stats means a Druid can pick Arcane and still use Wis, or a Wizard can pick Divine and still use Int.

So...no. I'm not buying that "1st-level feat" means "weak, incomplete feat that isn't as good as _proper,_ high-level feats." One of the best feats in the whole game is currently classified as a "1st-level feat" in "One D&D."


----------



## dave2008 (Dec 2, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Isn't Skilled one of the choices you can take? Skilled is a perfectly cromulent feat for most games, and quite powerful for any game that is more skill-focused than combat-focused. (I wouldn't want to _use_ 5e for such a game, because it provides almost no support for such an approach, but it _is_ something people do.) I don't see this hard-and-fast gap you're alleging here.
> 
> Especially because, based on the playtest documents, _Lucky is a first-level feat_. You know, the one feat everyone considers stupidly overpowered and which gets constant demands for it to be banned? (Even though it's nowhere near as powerful as Elven Accuracy.) Oh, and Magic Initiate, a feat quite frequently taken for its charop potential, and which has only gotten _stronger_ in the playtest, because the unified spell list plus the decoupling of casting stats means a Druid can pick Arcane and still use Wis, or a Wizard can pick Divine and still use Int.
> 
> So...no. I'm not buying that "1st-level feat" means "weak, incomplete feat that isn't as good as _proper,_ high-level feats." One of the best feats in the whole game is currently classified as a "1st-level feat" in "One D&D."



I am not going to argue about the execution; however, they (the designers) specifically stated 1st level feats are supposed to be less powerful. Now, if the final product doesn't actually achieve that goal then my argument is of course complete rubbish. I am talking conceptually here.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 2, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Genuine question: why do you seem to think that _literally just changing the name_ would alter the situation?



Because they are intended to be different, the only thing that is not different is the name.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 2, 2022)

Uni-the-Unicorn! said:


> Because they are intended to be different, the only thing that is not different is the name.



....but they aren't. Skilled is a "One D&D" "1st-level feat." Lucky is another. Magic Initiate is a third. _These are feats._ They are not "background traits" that have been somehow tuned up slightly. They are straight-up, explicitly, feats. Calling them not-feats with "One D&D" won't change the fact that they were feats for a _decade_ beforehand.


----------



## Uni-the-Unicorn! (Dec 3, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> ....but they aren't. Skilled is a "One D&D" "1st-level feat." Lucky is another. Magic Initiate is a third. _These are feats._ They are not "background traits" that have been somehow tuned up slightly. They are straight-up, explicitly, feats. Calling them not-feats with "One D&D" won't change the fact that they were feats for a _decade_ beforehand.



I get where you are coming from


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 3, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> ....but they aren't. Skilled is a "One D&D" "1st-level feat." Lucky is another. Magic Initiate is a third. _These are feats._ They are not "background traits" that have been somehow tuned up slightly. They are straight-up, explicitly, feats. Calling them not-feats with "One D&D" won't change the fact that they were feats for a _decade_ beforehand.



So is it really just about the word "feat" itself?  Would removing that word actually change how you feel about whatever mechanics are given to players?

I mean right now they could write in the playtest that Backgrounds give you the following:

2 Ability Scores raised by +2 for one and +1 for the other; or three scores raised by +1
2 Skill proficiencies
1 Language
1 Feat

OR

2 Ability Scores raised by +2 for one and +1 for the other; or three scores raised by +1
5 Skill proficiencies
1 Language

These two descriptions can denote the exact same Background, except one doesn't use the word "feat".  The second one merely incorporates the mechanics of one of the feats directly into the description.  Do you consider these equally bad, or is the first once worse because it uses a word that is supposed to be optional?  Would having the second description in the game be better in your eyes?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 3, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> These two descriptions can denote the exact same Background, except one doesn't use the word "feat".  The second one merely incorporates the mechanics of one of the feats directly into the description.  Do you consider these equally bad, or is the first once worse because it uses a word that is supposed to be optional?  Would having the second description in the game be better in your eyes?



Neither of them is "bad."* _I personally_ want feats to be NOT optional. I want feats to be readily accessible.

What I _do not_ like is people trying to have their cake and eat it too. The second example you gave would avoid making feats non-optional; but it would do so by enforcing one (and only one) benefit from backgrounds, which is not the point of the changes. The point of the changes is to enable a meaningful, solid mechanical benefit.

That's my problem. It is extremely clear that the new background rules:

Intentionally want to make modular benefits that can be, in part, constructed by the player
Want these benefits to be solid, something more than just a ribbon like existing background benefits
Are in fact actually a _change_ compared to the existing background rules.
These efforts to pretend that the new rules are somehow _not_ using feats, or somehow using "lesser" feats that don't _count_ as feats, and therefore don't _actually_ count as a real change, are both confusing and frustrating. They seem to be openly denying either that feats are the thing being provided, _or_ that providing feats in this way is a clear and obvious _change_ compared to the way things used to be done.

Feats in "One D&D" are not optional. I, personally, think this is a step in the right direction. I think it's a pathetically small one, but it _is_ a step in the right direction. I am confused and frustrated by posters pretending that it either somehow isn't an _actual_ change because these aren't _real_ feats, or that it couldn't be a change because feats are _totally_ what backgrounds always provided all along. Both of these statements seem to be openly and intentionally denying something obviously true: either that "One D&D" first-level feats are, in fact, _feats_ in every sense of the word, and run the gamut from golden to garbage); or that backgrounds in 5e currently _already do_ provide (non-selectable) feats or the equivalent _in addition to_ the baseline 2 skills, when they emphatically do not.

*Though if you're asking of my personal preference between the two, it would be the first. I like feats, so effectively forcing me to _only_ choose the Skilled feat when I could have at least had the _option_ to choose others is a clearly inferior offering, because, as I have said many times in this thread, _*I like feats.*_


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 3, 2022)

I'm not sure why they think double speak is the best way to market the game... "it's not a new edition it's just new classes new feats and new species that replace the old classes feats and races" then "feats are still optional but you have to get a feature at 1st level that is a feat" 
Why not just say 1D&D is and be straight forward.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 3, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Why not just say 1D&D is and be straight forward.



As is the case in almost all business/branding/marketing stuff:

Reputation and perception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Facts

It doesn't matter that the resulting product is going to almost certainly be the 5.5e (or "5.50" or whatever) that everyone's been expecting for the past 2-3 years. It doesn't matter that all this circumlocution looks horrible and sounds stupid and requires tortured logic.

Preserving the _appearance_ and _perception_ is paramount. Image is everything. Facts are inconvenient weights one must deftly navigate around.


----------



## glass (Dec 3, 2022)

Vaalingrade said:


> After 3.5 and Essentials people still believe in .5 editions that are backwards compatible?



What does Essentials have to do with the price of fish? It was not an edition, .5 or otherwise.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 3, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> As is the case in almost all business/branding/marketing stuff:
> 
> Reputation and perception >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Facts
> 
> ...




Or. You see it as it is: an upgrade that leaves the core functional and is mostly compatible.

Compared to 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e, the switch is small. In no way warranting calling it a new edition.
It is a half edition though (I count 1e to 2e half edition), going from the playtest. I just think they want to assure everyone, that it is no fundamental* shift in game design.

*I define what I mean with fundamental game design/mechanic:

(Matrix)ThAC0 -> BAB -> half level bonus -> proficiency bonus.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Dec 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Or. You see it as it is: an upgrade that leaves the core functional and is mostly compatible.
> 
> Compared to 3e to 4e and 4e to 5e, the switch is small. In no way warranting calling it a new edition.
> It is a half edition though (I count 1e to 2e half edition), going from the playtest. I just think they want to assure everyone, that it is no fundamental* shift in game design.
> ...



My issue is that there are a lot of people--seemingly including WotC themselves--who do not even want to admit that it is _that_ much. They want "One D&D" to still be _just 5e_, no .5, no nothing. Pretending *nothing at all* has changed while, y'know, changing things.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Dec 3, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> It is a half edition though (I count 1e to 2e half edition), going from the playtest. I just think they want to assure everyone, that it is no fundamental* shift in game design.



an argument can be made it is 5.5e not 6e, and the exact place where you draw the line is just a bit of discussion..,. my issue is like


EzekielRaiden said:


> My issue is that there are a lot of people--seemingly including WotC themselves--who do not even want to admit that it is _that_ much. They want "One D&D" to still be _just 5e_, no .5, no nothing. Pretending *nothing at all* has changed while, y'know, changing things.



yeah people are pretending there is no line it is just the 2014 book with slight errata


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 3, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> My issue is that there are a lot of people--seemingly including WotC themselves--who do not even want to admit that it is _that_ much. They want "One D&D" to still be _just 5e_, no .5, no nothing. Pretending *nothing at all* has changed while, y'know, changing things.




Technically they are correct though. Right now nothing has changed. All rules are just being playtested. And if they fail the test, they could be reverted.
That's what they say on the OneDnD page, although after some feedback, that scenarios seems unlikely.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Dec 3, 2022)

People are getting way _way_ *way* too hung up on what everyone is calling everything.  Every term, every name... none of it matters.

And if it's getting you all worked up that someone is calling the game '6E' or a "new edition"... or that someone is saying that feats aren't _real_ feats... or that what the WotC designers are saying is just "marketing doublespeak"... or any other thing of that regard... you probably just need to take a deep breath, step back, and remember the actual truth here:

In 2024 WotC will publish a set of books.  And you will either choose to buy them _or not_ buy them.  And all that matters is how that game works for you, regardless of what it or its various pieces are called.  If you don't like it, then you won't buy it.  If you do, then you will.  Simple as that.  And nothing any of us schmucks on EN World have said up to that point will change it.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 4, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> And if it's getting you all worked up that someone is calling the game '6E' or a "new edition"... or that someone is saying that feats aren't _real_ feats... or that what the WotC designers are saying is just "marketing doublespeak"... or any other thing of that regard... you probably just need to take a deep breath, step back, and remember the actual truth here:




I find it funny and sad at the same time how a few people generally distrust the designers or corporate people in general.

I think out of responsibility for people who just want to play D&D and happen to google about OneD&D and land here, we should at least try to make sure that they know, the sky is not falling and 5e is not going away. That feats, although a subset of them are replacing background traits are still mostly optional.

So I am not hung up or anything. I just dislile the negativity spread by a few people who disliked 5e in the first place.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> No, because it is still a feat.



This is only a name.  "Feats" in 5e are something you can opt into in place of your ASI.  In 5.5 the first level "feat" is a feat in name only.  It replaces no ASI and is just the same as any other first level class or racial ability.  It's something you just get.  Getting the 1st level "feat" in no way means that the 4th, 8th, etc. ASIs will allow players to choose feats.  Feats are still optional.


EzekielRaiden said:


> If they designed a completely new set of mechanics for it, which were clearly distinct from feats and could not be substituted for feats, and which could not be acquired any other way (except perhaps as a feat, loosely similar to 13th Age's "Further Backgrounding" feat), then yes, it could be that. But they aren't doing that, and it is extremely unlikely that they will take the time to draft a completely new system that clearly and specifically differentiates itself from feats in order to achieve that end.



If someone is having a hissy fit because the 1st level ability is called a "feat" instead of a Goomer Stomper or something, I don't really have much sympathy for them.  Nobody is forcing them to add feats to the game.  Those are still optional.


EzekielRaiden said:


> Genuine question: why do you seem to think that _literally just changing the name_ would alter the situation?



Because the "feat" is literally no different than Rage, Wild Shape, Channel Divinity or Relentless Endurance.  It's just an ability you get for free at 1st level.  People are getting upset at quite literally only the name and nothing else.  That's why a name change would alter the situation.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Isn't Skilled one of the choices you can take? Skilled is a perfectly cromulent feat for most games, and quite powerful for any game that is more skill-focused than combat-focused. (I wouldn't want to _use_ 5e for such a game, because it provides almost no support for such an approach, but it _is_ something people do.) I don't see this hard-and-fast gap you're alleging here.



There's a feat to give you proficiency with saves.  So we have to remove all free feat proficiencies from classes so that your characters aren't using feats.  We also have to get rid of halfling luck, since lucky is a feat and we can't have characters getting free feats. And of course nobody can be proficient in free skills at 1st level, since there's a feat that does that, too.

The 1st level feat is a feat in name only.  It's just another ability like you get from race or class.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 4, 2022)

just write 1st level feats as background features.

and keep them simple.

have a 4th level feat:
+1 ASI
gain additional background feature.
you can take this feat multiple times.

balance out "background features" to go in hand with half-feats without ASI.

*Though:*
+2 HP at 1st level, +1 HP for every level after.
when you spend a HD to heal, you heal +1 HP extra.
This background feature can be taken twice

*Skilled:*
+2 skill proficiencies
This background feature can be taken twice

*Lucky:*
just keep the advantage part.
it's strong enough without giving enemies disadvantage

*Magic initiate:*
learn any two cantrips.
You casting stat is highest of int, wis or cha

*Fighting style:*
learn any fighting style

*Tavern brawler:*
1d6 unarmed damage,
can make single unarmed attack as Bonus action
Furniture as weapons

*Savage attacker:
removed from history!

Crafter and Musician:*
add; gain expertise in one tool/music instrument. Expertise in tool/instruments are mostly ineffective for gameplay, but adds that special flavor that you are best at your chosen craft.

*Healer:*
remove rerolls(it's too much of them), just add that you improve your targets HD healing by your prof bonus. Target adds it's Con mod as normal.

*Armor training* reworked as *Martial training: *
you improve your 1st level class armor category by two steps:
none->medium
light->heavy
you an exchange two armor categores for Martial weapons proficiency or one armor category for extra Class skill.

*Speedster,* moved to 1st level background features,
You increase your speed by 10ft. The end.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Technically they are correct though. Right now nothing has changed. All rules are just being playtested. And if they fail the test, they could be reverted.
> That's what they say on the OneDnD page, although after some feedback, that scenarios seems unlikely.



This is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.  Of course, we know for a fact that quite a bit will change, even if we don't know exactly what or how. WotC absolutely must make significant changes or they are wasting ink and a ton of money on books that nobody will buy. We are going to be getting 5.5 at the very least.


----------



## Horwath (Dec 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> This is technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.  Of course, we know for a fact that quite a bit will change, even if we don't know exactly what or how. WotC absolutely must make significant changes or they are wasting ink and a ton of money on books that nobody will buy. We are going to be getting 5.5 at the very least.



QFT,

no one will buy books for cleared out rule language or balanced out 3 feats and 5 spells.

extra (background) feat(ure)? thanks... half the people house ruled that in 9 years ago.

we need rework of 80% of subclasses,
buff ranger subclasses so Deepstalker is not only viable ranger choice,
same with Mercy monk,
aberrant mind and clockwork sorcerer are only ones that closes in on other full-casters.
delete or rework Twilight cleric,
buff Champion fighter. Maybe +1 HP per level and additional +1 HP per level heal on second wind? Keep it simple here.
Remove exhaustion from Berserker, Bonus action attacks are now more frequent and it's nothing special.
add more feat(ASI) slots to classes


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> QFT,
> 
> no one will buy books for cleared out rule language or balanced out 3 feats and 5 spells.
> 
> ...




This are way less dramatic changes than what we have seen.

So a little rebalance and making a best of PHB would work too.

I personally am glad that they are trying out a bit more though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 4, 2022)

Horwath said:


> QFT,
> 
> no one will buy books for cleared out rule language or balanced out 3 feats and 5 spells.
> 
> extra (background) feat(ure)? thanks... half the people house ruled that in 9 years ago.




I like how you do statistics.
Many people would be glad about an updated rules book. But how many? I don't know. But you seem to have done a bit of research.

I can for sure say, I would not buy a book containing your Idea of 5e.

Also, after 8 yearsof extensive use, my PHBshows signs of wear. Buying a new one with tasha's and MotM updates included. Sign me up.
I'd also recommend this book to the many players I play with who have not bought a PHB already.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Also, after 8 yearsof extensive use, my PHBshows signs of wear. Buying a new one with tasha's and MotM updates included. Sign me up.
> I'd also recommend this book to the many players I play with who have not bought a PHB already.



If they haven't purchased a PHB after 8 years, I doubt they're suddenly going to go out and buy one because it contains a few updates.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> If they haven't purchased a PHB after 8 years, I doubt they're suddenly going to go out and buy one because it contains a few updates.




Some of the people I play with are 15 or 16 years old. I don't think they wanted to buy one when they were 8.
I also did not say they buy one because of the updates. But they would be glad if the new book contained the rules from tasha they are accustomed to.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Some of the people I play with are 15 or 16 years old. I don't think they wanted to buy one when they were 8.



That's odd.  My son is 8 and he wants to buy everything whether he needs it or not. 


UngeheuerLich said:


> I also did not say they buy one because of the updates. But they would be glad if the new book contained the rules from tasha they are accustomed to.



Okay, but they want to sell books.  If they don't provide significant enough changes to warrant 5.5 or 6e, people aren't going to buy the books in enough numbers to make it successful.  They NEED significant changes.


----------



## Warpiglet-7 (Dec 4, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Feats are just a way to add a bit of customization to PCs without creating ever more subclasses.  They make the background actually mean something, first level feats are just a way of saying "here's something unique you get" while using an established mechanic.  It doesn't mean you have to use that mechanic later on, just that it's also not something to be afraid of.
> 
> If they fix the handful of feats that cause the most issues, feats become less defining and less of a must have.  Add in the ASI as a feat, they're just consolidating rules a bit.



Once again what my group toys with becomes a rule (or is likely to).

I find loading up on magic spells through feats makes a better eldritch knight in terms of flavor.  Magic initiate at level one makes sense for the fiction and adds some mechanically.  

I have no problem nerfing a few if they expand availability.  Level one feats tied to background is something we usually did with variant humans and experimented with others.

May not buy much of ONE—-we will see—-but I will be happy to steal some innovations that codify what we were doing in a half ass and informal way.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Dec 4, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> That's odd.  My son is 8 and he wants to buy everything whether he needs it or not.
> 
> Okay, but they want to sell books.  If they don't provide significant enough changes to warrant 5.5 or 6e, people aren't going to buy the books in enough numbers to make it successful.  They NEED significant changes.




I think we will never know. I guess we will see significant changes, extrapolating from what we know now. I think they are on the right track with the amount of changes. I think we can agree (exteapolating from your earlier posts) that those changes are about half an edition change. I'd call that significant and I'd call that "not too much".


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think we will never know. I guess we will see significant changes, extrapolating from what we know now. I think they are on the right track with the amount of changes. I think we can agree (exteapolating from your earlier posts) that those changes are about half an edition change. I'd call that significant and I'd call that "not too much".



Yeah. I don't think it's going to be a full edition change.  Full editions are pretty drastically different mechanically.  This one will be a .5.


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Dec 5, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> I completely forgot they had made the ASI a feat - which makes 100% sense.  Thank you for reminding me and I agree with your assessment.




 Meaning feats are going to be a requirement period going forward, because if ASI are themselves feats, they aren't optional anymore and I suspect it's partially because the old school players who pushed for them to be an optional mechanic moved on to OSR systems, and then a pile of new players came in where feats weren't a problem, most going unused because it's usually better to take an ASI instead.


----------



## Mistwell (Dec 5, 2022)

If it said, "You may either choose three additional skills to gain proficiency with, OR choose a first level feat (if your DM allows first level feats" would that solve for this issue?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 5, 2022)

Henadic Theologian said:


> Meaning feats are going to be a requirement period going forward, because if ASI are themselves feats, they aren't optional anymore and I suspect it's partially because the old school players who pushed for them to be an optional mechanic moved on to OSR systems, and then a pile of new players came in where feats weren't a problem, most going unused because it's usually better to take an ASI instead.



What's the difference between Get +2 to a stat or +1 to two stats and here's a feat that gives you +2 to a stat or +1 to two stats?


----------



## Oofta (Dec 5, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> What's the difference between Get +2 to a stat or +1 to two stats and here's a feat that gives you +2 to a stat or +1 to two stats?



Because it's  FEAT man! They said feats are optional but, like, it's a FEAT! 

Or something.   I actually don't know what all the fuss is about. They're just cleaning house a bit and making things a little more streamlined. Yes, backgrounds grant a low level feat because they wanted backgrounds to matter more. It can always be ignored or the DM can limit it to specific feats like gaining additional feats.  I think it's a good idea overall,  it gives PCs a little more room to stand out and be unique.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 5, 2022)

Oofta said:


> Because it's  FEAT man! They said feats are optional but, like, it's a FEAT!



I feel like they'd be mad at me for offering them bacon when what they really wanted was thin strips of pig fried up crispy.   Bacon, though, is out of the question! 


Oofta said:


> Or something.   I actually don't know what all the fuss is about. They're just cleaning house a bit and making things a little more streamlined. Yes, backgrounds grant a low level feat because they wanted backgrounds to matter more. It can always be ignored or the DM can limit it to specific feats like gaining additional feats.  I think it's a good idea overall,  it gives PCs a little more room to stand out and be unique.



I totally agree.


----------

