Is restoring Feat chains to 5E workable?

[stoutstien]

I don't necessarily agree with any of that. It seems to me that "planning builds" is a longtime staple and pastime for many people in the hobby; there's like countless threads and youtube videos dedicated to exactly that. Ludic's long running thread is exactly that. So that seems a complete non-issue.

And it only limits "distinctiveness" to the degree that everyone wants to play with the feat chains. Given that I haven't heard much of a hubbub about ANY of the current feat chains (Dragonlance, Planescape, Bigby's) I don't see this as a thing.

And again... I'm not sure how concerned we are about distinctiveness since the game is already plagued with cookie-cutter "optimized" builds.

The big issue with feat chains for 3rd edition is that they were expensive for little gain. The issue for 5E is that you get too few of them and they compete with ASIs.

There is a world of difference between being able to plan a PC top down if you want
and making it mandatory to be relevant.

You can make fear chains work but you would need to make sure that taking 2 non linked feats are just as valid....which largely defeats the purpose of the chain.

The without number games do a decent job having feat (foci) chains without them being full of crappy prerequisites or traps. SoDL is basically all chains and does it well.

DND hasn't shown that they care nor has the design space to make them work without going back to 3.X ivory tower BS

[Dr.Samurai]

None of the current 5e feat chains are considered "mandatory", but many 5e feats/spells/subclasses ARE considered "mandatory".

Feat chains are no different from any other asset in the game that gives you powers/abilities. If they wind up in optimization builds (which none have to date, to my knowledge) then they will be no different from any other optimization build that requires certain levels in classes/subclasses, certain feats, certain spells, etc.

[stoutstien]

None of the current 5e feat chains are considered "mandatory", but many 5e feats/spells/subclasses ARE considered "mandatory".

Feat chains are no different from any other asset in the game that gives you powers/abilities. If they wind up in optimization builds (which none have to date, to my knowledge) then they will be no different from any other optimization build that requires certain levels in classes/subclasses, certain feats, certain spells, etc.

The fact there are perceived mandatory options is all the proof I need they don't have the basic principles in place to include chains without making a mess of it.

[Dr.Samurai]

The fact there are perceived mandatory options is all the proof I need they don't have the basic principles in place to include chains without making a mess of it.

That’s fair 😎

[Amechra]

Not entirely. Feats were the 3e take on weapon proficiencies, which sometimes had really wonky exotic rules to enhance particular weapons. They then expanded it to broader things, like metamagic and skill boosts and the like.

You're not wrong, per se, but that wasn't what they set out to do. It just turned out that way.

Feats grew out of the rules for 2e's Weapon Proficiencies (which really only became exotic and wacky when you got to the PO books at the end of the line — before that, it was mostly just "hey, pick what weapons you're proficient in, and Fighters can double-invest for Better Numbers") and Non-Weapon Proficiencies (which were effectively 2e's skill system... and yes, that's what they were called. TSR D&D wasn't exactly known for giving things names that rolled off the tongue).

Crucially, though, the way you got them was substantially changed between 2e and 3e. In 2e, your WP slots and NWP slots were entirely separate, with the number you got of each being determined by your class. Taking proficiency in Baking for flavor reasons even if you didn't expect it to come up mechanically didn't really matter, because most of the stuff you could spend NWP slots on were similarly background-y. 3e just kinda dumped them into a pile, went "people will figure out which feats are good", and called it a life.

...

It'd honestly be kinda interesting to see what a 5e that went back to the source for feats and skills looked like. Off the top of my head, there'd be a strict separation between Feats (read: combat-related feats) and Skills (read: non-combat-related skills), with Fighters getting extra Feats. Heck, if we go really far back, Bards and Rogues (as descendants of the Rogue) would have prepared skills — apparently there was a version of the Thief before it got published in the Strategic Review that prepared which skills it could use similarly to how the Magic User got to prepare spells, which is... interesting.

[DragonEyeSeeker]

Feat chains are a cool way to incrementally make your character more powerful but the concept falls flat when the game does not give players enough feats.

I would even argue that getting 7 feats across 20 levels was too few in 3.x's case and that edition was the king of feat chains. I think PF1E and 4E, where you received a feat every other level was the ideal structure to make feat chains really work.

[Goobahfish]

Feats (and particularly feat chains) are generally... bad design.

It comes out a few different ways. If the chain is there to gatekeep power-level (i.e., don't take this until level 8), then it penalises a player by making them take feats they don't want (looking at you dodge and toughness) to get powers they do want. Why not just gatekeep at level 8?

The problem in design comes when you can either accelerate feats (i.e., bonus feats means I get the level 8 power at level 4) OR when you don't optimise you are playing sub-standardly (i.e. its a trap).

This punishes new players and rewards system masters. I.e., bad design.

Feats can be used to 'flesh out' a character as a kind of mini-multi-class (see PF2) but then.. you'd be better off with more useful multiclass rules to begin with. Even used this way, they fall into 'its a trap' OR 'its a hack' territory.

It basically goes against a lot of the D&D design philosophy in 5e...

[LumenPlacidum]

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with feat chains. However, in order for something to be a prerequisite, it should actually be a prerequisite.

For example: let's say you really like the 5e feat "Heavy Armor Master", which lets you take less damage when struck by nonmagical weapons. I'm not sure that it's that great, but that's not what's important at the moment. You could create a subsequent feat with Heavy Armor Master as a prerequisite, and I'd be fine with it only if it actually augments the ability that you gained from the Heavy Armor Master feat! Maybe the second feat will increase it from reducing 6 damage per attack with a nonmagical weapon to reducing 5 damage per attack with any weapon and you get to apply the benefit to sources of fire, cold, and acid damage. Also, it's a half-feat.

The effect of the feat would be directly augmenting the ability that the first feat got you, and is simply stronger than the first feat in the chain. After all, it was harder to take than the first feat in the chain--it represents a greater opportunity cost.

Design like this has the significant problem that the subsequent ability needs to not bring a character out of line with the general level of balance of the game while also being stronger than a non-chained feat. As someone already said, I think that WotC's track record with feats suggests that this is too fine of a path for them to reliably walk it.

[Kane0]

I don't think there's anything intrinsically wrong with feat chains. However, in order for something to be a prerequisite, it should actually be a prerequisite.

The effect of the feat would be directly augmenting the ability that the first feat got you, and is simply stronger than the first feat in the chain. After all, it was harder to take than the first feat in the chain--it represents a greater opportunity cost.

Design like this has the significant problem that the subsequent ability needs to not bring a character out of line with the general level of balance of the game while also being stronger than a non-chained feat. As someone already said, I think that WotC's track record with feats suggests that this is too fine of a path for them to reliably walk it.

Heavy Armor Master Master
+1 Str or Con
The damage reduction from your heavy armor applies to damage from magical weapons as well as acid, fire, cold, thunder, lightning and force damage

Medium Armor Master Master
+1 Str, Dex or Con
You can apply your entire Dex bonus to your AC in medium armor

Polearm Master Master
+1 Str
The damage of the Bonus Action attack becomes the same die size as the weapon

Great Weapon Master Master
+1 Str
When taking -5 to hit, you instead gain +15 to damage

Shield Master Master
+1 Str or Con
You can add your Shield's AC bonus to any Dex save you make
When you use your reaction you take half damage if you fail the save

Crossbow Master
+1 Dex
The bonus action attack can be with any crossbow you are holding

Master Charger
+1 Str or Dex
When you use your action to dash you can make both an attack and a shove with the bonus action granted by Charger, making either the attack or shove at advantage (your choice which).

Master Dual Wielder
You gain another +1 AC when using a weapon in each hand
When you make an opportunity attack you can make an attack with both weapons
The extra attack you make when using TWF is made as part of the attack action instead of as a bonus action

Elemental Master
+1 Int, Wis or Cha
The damage type chosen by Elemental Adept also treats immunity as resistance, and once per turn when rolling damage of that type you can roll one extra die

Master Poisoner
+1 Dex or Int
When you make a damage roll, you treat immunity to Poison damage as resistance
When you cause a creature to make a saving throw against Poison, they do so at disadvantage

[Ignimortis]

*Snip Quote Master*

GWMx2 and PAMx2 do not need to exist. XBEx2 is...iffy, simply because bows don't get Rapid Shot anymore and that would actually make XBE the superior archery build for anyone who actually cares to invest. Most of these are good, though...but not as double downs on feat costs, but rather as fixes to the original feats.

Like, I would actually consider picking up HAM if it wasn't just "oh, well, against non-magical weapons..." and scaled a bit (prof bonus reduction rather than a flat 3). Considering Barbs don't get to wear Heavy Armor and Rage, there's unlikely to be a gamebreaking stacking situation. Same for Medium Armor Master - medium armor is already in that limbo where nobody wants to use it unless they have exactly 14 DEX and don't care for it otherwise. Letting MAM add the whole DEX bonus is a bit too much, but the current feat is also not worth it (bringing half-plate to the level of plate, but at the difference of 3 ASIs (16 DEX and MAM vs 10 DEX and HAP) for..."doesn't impose disadv on stealth" - it does need something more to make it worthwhile.

Etc, etc. Dual-wielding eventually scaling like a half-decent shield could be a good niche for it (half proficiency bonus to AC, rounded down?), and the "dual-wielding attack is part of the Attack Action" should be core.

Actually, your suggestions (potentially ironic?) work out pretty much the same as 3.5 feat chains - some bonuses stack with already good feats (GWMx2 in particular being basically "Improved Power Attack"), while other things add functionality that honestly could've been part of the first feat (HAMx2 being something along the lines of Dodge (PF1 version)+Mobility+Spring Attack in one feat, which might actually make it worth taking) without being OP in the slightest.

[Kane0]

Most of these are good, though...but not as double downs on feat costs, but rather as fixes to the original feats.

Well i did cheat a bit, having already homebrewed a bunch of feat fixes. I just recycled that.

[Pex]

For a feat chain to work in 5E it needs two things. 1) Each feat must have +1 to an ability score relevant to the effect of the feat or player choice if the effect doesn't rely on ability scores. 2) The prerequisite feat must be of value worthy to take on its own players would like to have even if they don't take the next feat in the chain.

[Mitchellnotes]

Honestly, good riddance to feat chains. As others have mentioned, it required a lot of pre-planning to make them work. While this was fun from a "lets see what i can do" peespective, it was annoying to actually play. Balancing feats to use, with what was needed for prestige classes, etc ended up making feats feel more like a tax then a choice.

The only feat chains i liked in 3.x were the few lineage feats. If i remember, there were a group of feats that required a lvl 1 feat, but you didnt have to take a chain. I feel like the more you got, the more powerful they were too which incentivized picking more up but didnt require a series.

All told, 5e does a much better job at making playing characters more fun and less complex in a good way. There are "feat chains" embedded in other features like invocations which just feels like a better way of doing it all around

[Monster Manuel]

I think that things which you would build as feat chains would be better suited as charms, boons, or other narrative-progression rewards. You want a feat chain for a cool martial tradition taught by the Knights of Formal Regalia? Have those who want to learn those techniques seek out the Knights and join their ranks as a squire to learn the first one. Impress them by achieving great things in their name or on their behalf to have a teacher teach the next one to you. The third one comes when you go on a quest that they set for you which unlocks the connection between sartorial and martial prowess, and you gain the understanding necessary to master their secret art.

Such things are much like magic items in terms of their place in the reward structure of 5e.

I really like the way they handled this in the Mythic Odysseys of Theros book with the Piety mechanic; you are the champion of one of the Theros gods, and this grants you a minor boon, but as you take specific actions that please the god you get piety points, and these points unlock better and better boons as you progress. Not all of the Piety chains were as good as others, and some of the "major" boons were a little lackluster, but I thought the basic premise would be a good way to mimic this kind of narrative-progression "feat chain". You take a single feat instead of a multi-feat chain but, like in the Theros Piety mechanic, the effect grows as you progress with Achievements/Levels/Favor/whatever.

Something like this scratches the itch for a progression like you see with a 3e-style feat chain, but doesn't require that you re-write the whole Feat/ASI economy in 5E to do so.

[Psyren]

I really like the way they handled this in the Mythic Odysseys of Theros book with the Piety mechanic; you are the champion of one of the Theros gods, and this grants you a minor boon, but as you take specific actions that please the god you get piety points, and these points unlock better and better boons as you progress. Not all of the Piety chains were as good as others, and some of the "major" boons were a little lackluster, but I thought the basic premise would be a good way to mimic this kind of narrative-progression "feat chain". You take a single feat instead of a multi-feat chain but, like in the Theros Piety mechanic, the effect grows as you progress with Achievements/Levels/Favor/whatever.

Something like this scratches the itch for a progression like you see with a 3e-style feat chain, but doesn't require that you re-write the whole Feat/ASI economy in 5E to do so.

This sounds cool on paper - but per Crawford, they ran into issues with this approach. Designing unique reward systems like Dark Gifts or Guild Ranks or a Piety track takes a comparable level of effort as designing a bunch of feats, but gets a fraction of the return/usage by playgroups because they're so campaign-setting-specific. This was explicitly the reason they opted to move back to feats for Strixhaven, Dragonlance and Planescape, and in the case of Dragonlance they just gave players more of them, using "the world is at war" as justification for characters being more powerful. This got them a lot more bang for their design dollar, and much more feedback on the subsystems to improve their design process. So I can easily see that being the preferred approach going forward.

[GloatingSwine]

I think feat chains mostly double down on the "progress via overspecialisation" that martial characters already have.

[Segev]

This sounds cool on paper - but per Crawford, they ran into issues with this approach. Designing unique reward systems like Dark Gifts or Guild Ranks or a Piety track takes a comparable level of effort as designing a bunch of feats, but gets a fraction of the return/usage by playgroups because they're so campaign-setting-specific. This was explicitly the reason they opted to move back to feats for Strixhaven, Dragonlance and Planescape, and in the case of Dragonlance they just gave players more of them, using "the world is at war" as justification for characters being more powerful. This got them a lot more bang for their design dollar, and much more feedback on the subsystems to improve their design process. So I can easily see that being the preferred approach going forward.

This is one reason I think formulating them as boons or charms would work. They essentially become magic item style rewards, and you can get as specific or a general as you want.

It is weird that piety and dark gifts were seen as too setting-specific while feats that are blatantly setting-specific are not seen as too specific for general interest and use, though.

[Psyren]

This is one reason I think formulating them as boons or charms would work. They essentially become magic item style rewards, and you can get as specific or a general as you want.

Yeah, I'm totally fine with having this sort of thing intersect with the boons system. In fact, one of the boon options is itself a free feat, and you can get even more via the Training Reward from the DMG.

It is weird that piety and dark gifts were seen as too setting-specific while feats that are blatantly setting-specific are not seen as too specific for general interest and use, though.

Crawford was a touch oblique in his reasoning but it does make sense to me overall. Right before he talked about the move towards feats as rewards, he was discussing one of their core design principles being a budget of "complexity in to power out" and how they want to be very careful about every new additional thing they make DMs learn, rather than using existing frameworks. Feats definitely qualify for that as an existing thing rather than DMs having to learn a whole new subsystem for Piety or Guild Rank.

Another consideration that comes to mind for me - players are probably more likely to even just read or be exposed to feats in the first place. Consider that any book with new feats in it gets a lot of coverage online from content creators, threads, social media posts etc. Now compare that to people going in-depth on the Dark Gifts or Piety subsystems, it's night and day. Not only are players and DMs more likely to be exposed to new feats to think about using them in the first place, they're also probably more comfortable filing the serial numbers off a setting-specific feat and repurposing it for their own settings, because the power level of a feat is easy to judge.

For example, even if your setting doesn't have the Knights of Solamnia, you could take Squire of Solamnia -> Knight of the Crown and repurpose them as a special knightly training reward in your own campaign, renaming them both to something like Cavalier Initiate -> Heraldic Rally.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think the barriers to it in the base game are threefold, though I'm sure there are more to consider (like design space, dev intent, etc.).

1. Feats are too scarce
2. Feats have an opportunity cost

I don't agree that feats are too strong, but some of them are stronger than others.

Feats are scarce because ASIs are scarce, and they're strong because you need to give up an ASI to take one, or give up stats to take one (bringing us back towards that opportunity cost).

Nicely said, and it's the opportunity cost bit that I think is valuable. Player needs to make a choice that has a costs to it.

I'm glad we don't really have feat chains. {snip} I much prefer the option of having extended feats that automatically have a built-in improvement at a certain level threshold.

I concur with your concept.

In 5E, a feat is supposed to enable a different playstyle or specifically augment an aspect of your character, and is considered as an alternative to just taking your regular stat bump. It's conceivable that you could have a character with no feats at all. You'd have to completely rework 5E feats to do something like this.

"Like this" being feat chains and I agree with you. Not worth trying to rework 5e and balance for this reason.

For one dnd moving forward I could see level 1 background feats being pre requisite for leveled feats. (Exactly as dragon lance does it)

Or almost basically how racial feats work.

Given that I dislike both of these with almost equal vigor (I detest racially gated feats for a variety of reasons) I'd suggest that not using these as a template is the better idea.

Not really, because you get very few of them. Also, because 3e feat chains are terrible for three reasons. {snip} But feat chains were terrible in 3e and 5e is better for having gotten rid of them.

+1

Feat chains were terrible in 3e and are even worse in 5e, where feats are less abundant.

Can you restore them? Sure, they already have been in that phoned in Bigby's supplement.

Should you? Absolutely not. Locking people into semi-fixed progressions for several levels is counterproductive. It needlessly reduces the number of opportunities for players to make meaningful, distinctive choices about their progression.

He shoots, he scores!

DND hasn't shown that they care nor has the design space to make them work without going back to 3.X ivory tower BS

Also a good point.

The fact there are perceived mandatory options is all the proof I need they don't have the basic principles in place to include chains without making a mess of it.

+1

if we go really far back, Bards and Rogues (as descendants of the Rogue)

Descendant of the Thief.

would have prepared skills — apparently there was a version of the Thief before it got published in the Strategic Review that prepared which skills it could use similarly to how the Magic User got to prepare spells, which is... interesting.

Thief was never in Stat Review. It was in Greyhawk. I think I saw some notes way back of the pre Greyhawk Thief on note paper (Arnesons?) but I can't find it now.

Honestly, good riddance to feat chains.

Yes, the tax is bad.

All told, 5e does a much better job at making playing characters more fun and less complex in a good way. There are "feat chains" embedded in other features like invocations which just feels like a better way of doing it all around

Yes, and you can add and / or drop invocations as you level up.