D&D 5th Edition makes the New York Times

[Seerow]

I'm going to disagree on the "lots of feats that do lots of unique things".


If feats are everyone's primary source of cool things, then sure. But most everyone who says this ALSO wants cool abilities a la maneuvers/spells. In this case, most feats that would do something cool, would be better as a power. Why make Stand Still a feat when that would be a great buff, or immediate interrupt power? Why make power attack a feat rather than a core combat option? Why should whirlwind attack or rapid shot be feats rather than powers?


I think it would actually be pretty cool if feats could let you direct yourself towards a given role. Rather than having classes in stringent roles (something a lot of people complain about), have most classes capable of filling 2 or 3 roles via power selection, and then feats augment the passive things that make them better at that role. Things like "Upgrading a power to add a status effect is cheaper" or "When you hit a target, you can choose to make the attack apply to a small area" as controller focused feats. Standard damage increases, mobility, and power cost reductions for striker focused feats. Defense increases and things that discourage enemies from attacking allies as defending focused feats. A player can choose to mix and match the feats to taste, but are expected to choose to lean towards one role.



So basically powers = cool things, feats = passive things that increase baseline statistics or modify powers.