So my group operates under a homebrew rule where they can talk to me about feats they would like to earn and then we come up with some sort of task that they have to perform a number of times in game in order to earn that feat. For some, it is one task, for others I have split the different bullet points into separate tasks.
For example, for the War Caster feat, the player had to forgo 15 opportunity attacks in order to earn the bullet point that allowed him to use his reaction to cast a spell, and then he was also required to hold his concentration 10 times in game, in order to claim that portion that talks about gaining advantage on Concentration throws. The player could earn each section separately and use the part that he unlocked as soon as it was completed.
Now a separate player has come to me and said they would like to work towards the Mage Initiate feat in hopes of choosing the Druid Class. They are playing a paladin, and I am struggling to come up with some in game task that they could perform in order to earn that feat. Ideally, it is something related to Druids and would offer them some sort of "strategy" element (like take the opportunity attack or forgo it and work towards my feat.)
Any ideas you all have are greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Wow, I have to say that you set the bar pretty high with that first feat in that it's a really cool idea that seems so simple the way you lay it out. Might not be for everyone but as someone who has played a ton of games but is just getting into DnD, the whole "Do Task X times to earn Y" format sounds really familiar but cool to me.
For your Paladin who wants to become a druid they could:
• have to put points into Wisdom to get to a certain threshold
• either renounce or give up some kind of damage (like fire or necrotic? donno if they use that but could be a change of heart about their methods)
• Change Paladin Oaths to one that's more druid friendly? I think Oath of the ancients is like that
• Stop using their non-druid-approved metal armor or shield?
• have some kind of druidic vision that forbids them from doing damage to 'animal' or 'plant' type enemies like bullettes or owlbears for x sessions?
Wow, I love the ideas, especially the last two. This paladin is definitely a heavy armor user and they are few sessions away where they are going to be into a semi jungle setting. I think I can definitely work with those ideas and make something out of it!
I'm glad that you like the idea! I think it has been popular with my players- they seem to like the extra strategy/layer it adds to the game. I would definitely recommend it as something to try out- though maybe limit the number of feats they can pursue at one time... one of my players is super into it and has like 3 going on at the same time. It is crazy! But thank you so much for the help!
Overall, I like your system very much - with some stylistic tweaks, perhaps.
This ties nicely into some things said by Matt Coleville on one of his recent impromptu Twitch chats, where he commented that 5E RAW - where all options are open to the Player all the time - leads to Characters being generic and easily portable between games, but at the cost of Character nuance, and Character development being a record of their actions within the game world. For that reason, he much prefers granting "boons" to Characters, rather than using Feats, so that a Character is the sum total of the Character choices, and not the meta-gaming choices of the Player.
I like how you're essentially turning Feats into Boons.
Personally, I think the method is bit crunchy and could be prone to the Player making the Character jump through narrative hoops for meta-gaming, and not RP, reasons. ( Where, by RP, I mean making game choices as if you were that Character, not acting, or voices, or any of that ).
Disclaimer: I don't mean to be critical of the house-rule idea - I think you've got the beginnings of something really interesting here, and my objections may be completely stylistically based, and your style probably doesn't match mine, so there's no issue at your table.
As far a "in world" justification for a Character being granted access to the Feat, the cause-and-effect seems backward to me. It seems to me that it should be "a Character does this in the game, and is given the ability to do that," as opposed to "a Player wants to add that to their Character, so they make the Character do this". It's a question of whether Character choices are driven by in-character RP, or tactical meta-gaming reasons.
Neither is wrong - just how you approach the game.
I prefer things to be driving by RP based Character choices, so if I was going to do this, I'd invert the cause-and-effect in your system. I wouldn't tell the Player what I think are the triggering conditions for a Feat. Heck, I might not even set specific conditions. When I see Character choices, in-game actions, and downtime activities which I think make it likely that they could gain access to a Feat, I'd offer them that option when they level up.
Could the Player still metagame, and try and aim at a specific Feat? Of course. You can't possibly rid the game of all meta gaming, and it's not desirable to do so, anyways. However, it's would also be possible for a Character to be offered access to a Feat that they never even considered aiming for, but that it flows naturally out of their Character actions and choices.
Tying this all back to your original question: Maybe you don't need to come up with specific actions at all. You could push that back to the Player. You could tell them that if their Character works toward learning more about magic/Druids, acting in a more Druidic fashion, etc. that they could get access to the Feat, and leave the specific choices and actions up to them.
Essentially, you end up looking at the unfolding narrative, and when you can say to yourself, yeah, if this was a novel, movie, or a streaming show, I could totally buy _____________ suddenly developing the ability to use basic Druidic magic, then you allow the Player to unlock the Feat.
Putting the cause and effect in this order puts the creative work on the Player, not you.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think that is a totally valid criticism of the way my table is playing. When I decided this rule, it came more from the fact, for example, it didn't make sense for someone to be able to take a feat without ever having done things character wise to really justify having that feat. If I am understanding you correctly, I think one possibility is you could totally have list out a requirement for each feat and then if and when a character does that, perhaps naturally, through gameplay, they receive the feat. That might be a lot of tracking for you as a DM, and whether that is something you really want to do is totally up to you. Or as you say, "hey, I have seen how you have run your character, here is an option for you," and give them the feat. I think either way could definitely work, especially with a little extra work from the DM.
I think for my table, I have a lot of players who like to plan out their character path a few levels ahead so they are constantly looking at where they want to go with their character so I think the way we are running it makes the most sense. Also, I think they like the "progression" aspect of achieving their goals. Just like how players like seeing their XP rise, they also like seeing themselves slowly achieving this Feat goal that they think will be totally badass for their character.
I agree with you that I think it ultimately comes down to your style and I would love to hear more about how people might decide to run this system or a variation of it, and how it works out at their tables!
It's not meant to be criticism ( well - yes, a critical evaluation, but not a complaint ) just an alternate way of viewing it, from a Character/Story/RP perspective.
Since you have Players which seem to be game oriented ( planning out their Characters a few levels in advance - real people don't do that, or at least not successfully ), having a "game move checklist" probably fits your table, and a "what is a natural consequence of the Character's in-world actions" approach wouldn't allow them to do that.
The way I'm picturing it, it's actually less work for the GM. There is no "tracking", or listing out of criteria for a feat at all. Trust your gut :) When a Character goes up a level, you can just scan through the Feats and say to yourself "if this was fiction, would it make sense to the reader/viewer that this Character would develop this ability. Does it fit in with the Character as they're being played". There's literally no pre-work by the GM at all. I'd also allow a Player to ask whether or not their Character is being played in a way that they could access the Feat, to prompt me to make that evaluation - but I don't need to do any more work at it than evaluate the narrative as if I were in the audience.
I agree 100% with your initial motivation: " it didn't make sense for someone to be able to take a feat without ever having done things character wise to really justify having that feat". Under the alternate approach I'm proposing, the Character actions still precede the gaining of the Feat. The Player can still set out aiming at a particular Feat.
Your point about visibleprogression toward that Feat is well made. I'm still concerned about Players making their Characters do completely artificial out-of-Character actions, or actions which don't fit the Encounter, or tactically stupid moves in Combat, for the sole purpose of checking off a meta-gaming box on a list. I haven't examined how many Feats would be open to this, but perhaps the Character could gain partial benefits of a Feat, or unlock the benefits individually. This would demonstrate progression to the Player. I think there might be some Feats ( most? ) where this would be very difficult to break up like that.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My mistake on not being clear how I used the word criticism- I definitely didn't think you were complaining but rather as you say, doing a critical evaluation of that was meant to help and push for a better system.
I definitely understand where you are coming from. I think that would be a great way to reduce the load on the GM and is definitely great in terms of role playing. Ultimately, as we have discussed, it comes down to GM style and what works best for their table!
I prefer things to be driving by RP based Character choices, so if I was going to do this, I'd invert the cause-and-effect in your system. I wouldn't tell the Player what I think are the triggering conditions for a Feat. Heck, I might not even set specific conditions. When I see Character choices, in-game actions, and downtime activities which I think make it likely that they could gain access to a Feat, I'd offer them that option when they level up.
@Vedexent – do you mind giving some examples of ways you have tried this? I really like both what you're proposing as well as the System that Cardinal laid out as well, and I like the idea that some rewards are the ones that players work towards and choose, and other ones might encourage them to think outside of the box or consider their out of combat actions to be more important in shaping their characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So my group operates under a homebrew rule where they can talk to me about feats they would like to earn and then we come up with some sort of task that they have to perform a number of times in game in order to earn that feat. For some, it is one task, for others I have split the different bullet points into separate tasks.
For example, for the War Caster feat, the player had to forgo 15 opportunity attacks in order to earn the bullet point that allowed him to use his reaction to cast a spell, and then he was also required to hold his concentration 10 times in game, in order to claim that portion that talks about gaining advantage on Concentration throws. The player could earn each section separately and use the part that he unlocked as soon as it was completed.
Now a separate player has come to me and said they would like to work towards the Mage Initiate feat in hopes of choosing the Druid Class. They are playing a paladin, and I am struggling to come up with some in game task that they could perform in order to earn that feat. Ideally, it is something related to Druids and would offer them some sort of "strategy" element (like take the opportunity attack or forgo it and work towards my feat.)
Any ideas you all have are greatly appreciated! Thanks!
Wow, I have to say that you set the bar pretty high with that first feat in that it's a really cool idea that seems so simple the way you lay it out. Might not be for everyone but as someone who has played a ton of games but is just getting into DnD, the whole "Do Task X times to earn Y" format sounds really familiar but cool to me.
For your Paladin who wants to become a druid they could:
• have to put points into Wisdom to get to a certain threshold
• either renounce or give up some kind of damage (like fire or necrotic? donno if they use that but could be a change of heart about their methods)
• Change Paladin Oaths to one that's more druid friendly? I think Oath of the ancients is like that
• Stop using their non-druid-approved metal armor or shield?
• have some kind of druidic vision that forbids them from doing damage to 'animal' or 'plant' type enemies like bullettes or owlbears for x sessions?
Wow, I love the ideas, especially the last two. This paladin is definitely a heavy armor user and they are few sessions away where they are going to be into a semi jungle setting. I think I can definitely work with those ideas and make something out of it!
I'm glad that you like the idea! I think it has been popular with my players- they seem to like the extra strategy/layer it adds to the game. I would definitely recommend it as something to try out- though maybe limit the number of feats they can pursue at one time... one of my players is super into it and has like 3 going on at the same time. It is crazy! But thank you so much for the help!
I think i will try this system as well!!
Enjoy my magic items, spells, monsters, my race, and a few feats. And GIVE ME FEEDBACK... or else.
Like what I say?
⬐ Just press this little guy right here.
Overall, I like your system very much - with some stylistic tweaks, perhaps.
This ties nicely into some things said by Matt Coleville on one of his recent impromptu Twitch chats, where he commented that 5E RAW - where all options are open to the Player all the time - leads to Characters being generic and easily portable between games, but at the cost of Character nuance, and Character development being a record of their actions within the game world. For that reason, he much prefers granting "boons" to Characters, rather than using Feats, so that a Character is the sum total of the Character choices, and not the meta-gaming choices of the Player.
I like how you're essentially turning Feats into Boons.
Personally, I think the method is bit crunchy and could be prone to the Player making the Character jump through narrative hoops for meta-gaming, and not RP, reasons. ( Where, by RP, I mean making game choices as if you were that Character, not acting, or voices, or any of that ).
Disclaimer: I don't mean to be critical of the house-rule idea - I think you've got the beginnings of something really interesting here, and my objections may be completely stylistically based, and your style probably doesn't match mine, so there's no issue at your table.
As far a "in world" justification for a Character being granted access to the Feat, the cause-and-effect seems backward to me. It seems to me that it should be "a Character does this in the game, and is given the ability to do that," as opposed to "a Player wants to add that to their Character, so they make the Character do this". It's a question of whether Character choices are driven by in-character RP, or tactical meta-gaming reasons.
Neither is wrong - just how you approach the game.
I prefer things to be driving by RP based Character choices, so if I was going to do this, I'd invert the cause-and-effect in your system. I wouldn't tell the Player what I think are the triggering conditions for a Feat. Heck, I might not even set specific conditions. When I see Character choices, in-game actions, and downtime activities which I think make it likely that they could gain access to a Feat, I'd offer them that option when they level up.
Could the Player still metagame, and try and aim at a specific Feat? Of course. You can't possibly rid the game of all meta gaming, and it's not desirable to do so, anyways. However, it's would also be possible for a Character to be offered access to a Feat that they never even considered aiming for, but that it flows naturally out of their Character actions and choices.
Tying this all back to your original question: Maybe you don't need to come up with specific actions at all. You could push that back to the Player. You could tell them that if their Character works toward learning more about magic/Druids, acting in a more Druidic fashion, etc. that they could get access to the Feat, and leave the specific choices and actions up to them.
Essentially, you end up looking at the unfolding narrative, and when you can say to yourself, yeah, if this was a novel, movie, or a streaming show, I could totally buy _____________ suddenly developing the ability to use basic Druidic magic, then you allow the Player to unlock the Feat.
Putting the cause and effect in this order puts the creative work on the Player, not you.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think that is a totally valid criticism of the way my table is playing. When I decided this rule, it came more from the fact, for example, it didn't make sense for someone to be able to take a feat without ever having done things character wise to really justify having that feat. If I am understanding you correctly, I think one possibility is you could totally have list out a requirement for each feat and then if and when a character does that, perhaps naturally, through gameplay, they receive the feat. That might be a lot of tracking for you as a DM, and whether that is something you really want to do is totally up to you. Or as you say, "hey, I have seen how you have run your character, here is an option for you," and give them the feat. I think either way could definitely work, especially with a little extra work from the DM.
I think for my table, I have a lot of players who like to plan out their character path a few levels ahead so they are constantly looking at where they want to go with their character so I think the way we are running it makes the most sense. Also, I think they like the "progression" aspect of achieving their goals. Just like how players like seeing their XP rise, they also like seeing themselves slowly achieving this Feat goal that they think will be totally badass for their character.
I agree with you that I think it ultimately comes down to your style and I would love to hear more about how people might decide to run this system or a variation of it, and how it works out at their tables!
It's not meant to be criticism ( well - yes, a critical evaluation, but not a complaint ) just an alternate way of viewing it, from a Character/Story/RP perspective.
Since you have Players which seem to be game oriented ( planning out their Characters a few levels in advance - real people don't do that, or at least not successfully ), having a "game move checklist" probably fits your table, and a "what is a natural consequence of the Character's in-world actions" approach wouldn't allow them to do that.
The way I'm picturing it, it's actually less work for the GM. There is no "tracking", or listing out of criteria for a feat at all. Trust your gut :) When a Character goes up a level, you can just scan through the Feats and say to yourself "if this was fiction, would it make sense to the reader/viewer that this Character would develop this ability. Does it fit in with the Character as they're being played". There's literally no pre-work by the GM at all. I'd also allow a Player to ask whether or not their Character is being played in a way that they could access the Feat, to prompt me to make that evaluation - but I don't need to do any more work at it than evaluate the narrative as if I were in the audience.
I agree 100% with your initial motivation: " it didn't make sense for someone to be able to take a feat without ever having done things character wise to really justify having that feat". Under the alternate approach I'm proposing, the Character actions still precede the gaining of the Feat. The Player can still set out aiming at a particular Feat.
Your point about visible progression toward that Feat is well made. I'm still concerned about Players making their Characters do completely artificial out-of-Character actions, or actions which don't fit the Encounter, or tactically stupid moves in Combat, for the sole purpose of checking off a meta-gaming box on a list. I haven't examined how many Feats would be open to this, but perhaps the Character could gain partial benefits of a Feat, or unlock the benefits individually. This would demonstrate progression to the Player. I think there might be some Feats ( most? ) where this would be very difficult to break up like that.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
My mistake on not being clear how I used the word criticism- I definitely didn't think you were complaining but rather as you say, doing a critical evaluation of that was meant to help and push for a better system.
I definitely understand where you are coming from. I think that would be a great way to reduce the load on the GM and is definitely great in terms of role playing. Ultimately, as we have discussed, it comes down to GM style and what works best for their table!
@Vedexent – do you mind giving some examples of ways you have tried this? I really like both what you're proposing as well as the System that Cardinal laid out as well, and I like the idea that some rewards are the ones that players work towards and choose, and other ones might encourage them to think outside of the box or consider their out of combat actions to be more important in shaping their characters.