D&D 5E Question about feats in 5e.

Frankie1969

Adventurer
I just have followed one motto for a very long time when running D&D games
<dino> It is not physically possible for a teenager to have run D&D games "for a very long time". </dino>

Anyways, most people on gamer discussion boards are D&D veterans from either 3.x or 4E, where feats were not just allowed, but mandatory. I think it's great that 5E is playable without feats, but I never even considered doing so at my table except maybe for short experiments.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Yama Dai O

First Post
Because the majority of people here would love for Feats to be present in every game, as it allows them a vestige of the character optimization minigame that made up about half of 3.5 and then let them dominate the other half of the game because their PCs ended up being much more effective than the other players'.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Because the majority of people here would love for Feats to be present in every game, as it allows them a vestige of the character optimization minigame that made up about half of 3.5 and then let them dominate the other half of the game because their PCs ended up being much more effective than the other players'.

If that were actually true, then why are those people not playing 3.x or Pathfinder? Those games have a much deeper and richer character optimization minigame than 5e could ever hope to provide.
 


Fanaelialae

Legend
Limited availability of games being run in the area and/or their friends playing 5e, in most cases.

I admit that I don't follow such things closely, so my information might be out of date, but last I'd heard Pathfinder was still the second most popular game out there.

I think you may be mistaken in your assumption that it's about optimization for most people. Customization, I'd agree with. Optimization, I would say is likely a fairly limited subset thereof.
 

Severite

First Post
Because the majority of people here would love for Feats to be present in every game, as it allows them a vestige of the character optimization minigame that made up about half of 3.5 and then let them dominate the other half of the game because their PCs ended up being much more effective than the other players'.

As I typed out in my first reply in the thread, a +2 to a secondary stat is almost always better than one or two combinations of feats, it just so happens that a +2 to Con, Dex, Str, Wis, Cha, or Int, is also less interesting. And that doesn't even take into account that depending on rolls, or DM's choice or point buy or array, your primary stat may ALSO need boosting, which is easily the most optimized choice. So while I agree whole heartedly that there are absolutely valid reasons to "ban" feats as a whole, game balance isn't one of them.

Also: balance before fun? I think you may have actually found an immediate turn off for your game, that statement, out of the many I have heard, leaves almost no room for benefit of the doubt. Usually I give people a couple sessions to see if their games were fun/compatible, but man. Hearing that, I think I would have to pass.
 

TwoSix

Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
I admit that I don't follow such things closely, so my information might be out of date, but last I'd heard Pathfinder was still the second most popular game out there.

I think you may be mistaken in your assumption that it's about optimization for most people. Customization, I'd agree with. Optimization, I would say is likely a fairly limited subset thereof.
Agreed; I like the customization minigame purely because the customization is FUN, in and of itself. If I can dominate other players, that's really just a happy coincidence. :)
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
Agreed; I like the customization minigame purely because the customization is FUN, in and of itself. If I can dominate other players, that's really just a happy coincidence. :)

Nowadays it's purely about customization for me, but even back when I played 3.x (when I was an optimizer) it was never about dominating other players. I just wanted my characters to succeed and not die. I was happy to help any player who asked for help making an optimized character.

If there are players out there who truly seek to dominate other players (I've been fortunate to never encounter such) then I think I can see why they have trouble finding games to play in...
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
I am not a discipline teacher. I just have followed one motto for a very long time when running D&D games and it hasn't failed yet: balance before fun. Any game can be fun, not every game can be perfectly balanced. Cutting feats out of the equation means one less tool to break the game and one less source of a headache. The only reason I haven't cut guidance yet is because I can't figure out what to do with it. Otherwise I would have thrown guidance into the dumpster where it belongs.

If you reduce the outcome of any contest to a coin flip, it is even more balanced. But I'm sure moe would also say subjectively less fun. Prioritizing balance over fun because "Any game can be fun" does not mean that making choices purely on balance can not reduce the amount of fun.

Frankly, I like balance a lot. Because it gives people equal chances to take the spotlight and be awesome - in other words, chances to have fun. This is a game I play as a hobby, for enjoyment. Consistent and recurring fun can be helped by balance, but does not spring forth from balance.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
It is not physically possible for a 14 year old to have run D&D games "for a very long time". Which one is true?

Frankie, please no personal attacks. He may have been playing D&D longer as a percentage of his life than you or I, or not, but regardless let's focus on the merit of the ideas.
 

Remove ads

Top