D&D 5E 5E Feat Option = D&D On Easy Mode?

[Zardnaar]

More or less, the -5/+10 feats a problem if you build around them but Healer, Resilient:Con and Warcaster are bigger problems on a casual level. Makes healing and concentration rolls trivial.

Rather than rewrite monsters might be worth shaving 1-2 points off their CR for encounter building purposes. 2-3 points if your players are min/maxers.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Feats add options, and those options are only taken if they are better than the alternative. If you add feats to the game, then characters who do not take feats will not be more powerful, but characters who do take feats will be (because they wouldn't choose to take those feats unless they were better than the existing option). Thus, the characters will be more capable, and have an easier time of things.

The degree by which feats make things easier is going to vary, but if the DM reacts to this addition by empowering enemies in equal measure, then it may all end up as a wash.

 

[Shiroiken]

Feats, by definition, make certain things easier in the game. However, it is often overlooked that they come with an opportunity cost (ideally +2 to primary ability score), so while some things become easier, other things that should have do not. I'll use my first 5E character for an example of this.

Upon reaching 8th level as an Elven Rogue, I was considering Sharpshooter as a feat. I was mostly ranged, using a longbow and hiding between attacks, so it seemed like a good option. I had an 18 Dex, however, so I thought that moving to 20 might be a better choice. So I considered the benefits of each. Sharpshooter removed range (not really an issue in the campaign, but you never know) and cover (i.e. it was +2 attack for most of my attacks), and the -5/+10 (increasing the possibility of not getting Sneak Attack). Increasing Dex would give +1 Attack (half the cover benefit), +1 Damage (a little bit of the -5/+10), +1 Initiative (something I consider overrated), and +1 to all my Dex checks (which came up often). Given this comparison, raising Dex by 2 was by far the superior option. However, in other circumstances SS is by far the superior choice.


My big issue with Feats is that everyone forgets the opportunity cost of taking them. Unfortunately most feats come nowhere near being worth that cost, leaving everyone complaining about the "broken" feats (i.e. the ones actually worth the cost) that everyone takes.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I’ve yet to see a feat break the game. But then again, I mandate standard array for my games, so ASIs have more of an impact.

 

[Oofta]

I think other aspects affect effectiveness of the party just as much if not more than feats. Do you have abilities scores starting at 20 or light up your PCs like Christmas trees with magic items? How many PCs are in your party? How good are they at strategy?

Then on the DM side of the screen you have the DM's ability to run monsters strategically and set up the environment to favor one side over another. How many encounters do you have between short/long rests? Can they plan ahead for encounters?

A lot of things affect difficulty, including feats. Ultimately it's up to the DM to balance encounters to meet the expectations of the players.

 

[iserith]

The power of feats are not an issue for me - I got infinite dragons.

Whether or not feats support the kind of game I'm trying to run is the real issue for me. To that end, sometimes I use feats and sometimes I don't.

 

[mortwatcher]

I don't know about you, but most guides advise to take ASI before any feats, so you could say that rolling for stats and getting that 18-20 main stat at level 1 is way more impactful than allowing feats - and rolling is the first thing that the rules offer you to do (on the other hand, I pretty much rolled standard array on my last 2 characters)
so no, I would not say feats make the game "easy mode" (so many negative connotation with this one), it just adds more options to make up for what you are missing in the party or in your build

 

[Oofta]

I mean ... talk about an option that calls out to you!

If the snark shoe fits ...

 

[dave2008]

Feats add options, and those options are only taken if they are better than the alternative. If you add feats to the game, then characters who do not take feats will not be more powerful, but characters who do take feats will be (because they wouldn't choose to take those feats unless they were better than the existing option). Thus, the characters will be more capable, and have an easier time of things.

This is not universally true. People make sub-optimal choices all the time and for a variety of reasons.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Feats, by definition, make certain things easier in the game. However, it is often overlooked that they come with an opportunity cost (ideally +2 to primary ability score), so while some things become easier, other things that should have do not. I'll use my first 5E character for an example of this.

That's only true if your primary stat is not yet at 20. Your Elven Rogue faced a dilemma at level 8, but your path is much more obvious when you reach level 10.

The real balance issue with feats is that, in the long run, the opportunity cost vanishes. Sharpshooter may be worth +2 to Dex under many circumstances, and choosing between them can be difficult at first, but you're eventually going to end up with both. In a game without feats, your level 10 dilemma is between +2 to Con and +2 to Wisdom or Intelligence; if you could take +2 to Dex or Sharpshooter, then you'd jump at the opportunity, because either one is vastly superior to bumping a secondary stat.