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

[The Crimson Binome]

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

"Matching your concept" is a perfectly valid metric, if you want to follow that. Your fighter may be looking at a feat that grants them proficiency with stringed instruments and Expertise on Perform checks, but the only reason they would take is if it fits their concept better than +2 to Charisma does. You're never worse off, for having the option available.

 

[dave2008]

"Matching your concept" is a perfectly valid metric, if you want to follow that. Your fighter may be looking at a feat that grants them proficiency with stringed instruments and Expertise on Perform checks, but the only reason they would take is if it fits their concept better than +2 to Charisma does. You're never worse off, for having the option available.

Agreed, but that doesn't make the game "easier" as the OP is using the concept.

 

[Kobold Stew]

No.

"Easy mode" (for good or ill) comes from players only taking ASIs. So many people think they're essential -- that it's necessary to get your prime stat to 20 as soon as possible -- that feats don't even come into play for them. It's almost always numerically more advantageous to take the ASI, except (arguably) for GWM, SS, Lucky, and Inspiring Leader.

When a player chooses most feats, they are choosing to build towards an ideal (or making a mistake), rather than taking the easy option.

 

[Shiroiken]

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.

Oddly, events had changed dramatically by the next time I got an ASI, and took Mobile instead.

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.

Agreed. This is why rolled stats are actually a bad thing. With point buy and array capping your starting ability at 17, you shouldn't "run out" until level 10 (except fighters), and the average campaign comes to an end around that point. If Feats were valued equal to +2 to secondary abilities, no one would ever take them until their primary was maximized, which would realistically defeat their purpose. If you allow rolled scores, use a modified point buy/array, or run a high level campaign, then Feats are going to be much more common.

This is an unfortunate aspect of tying ASI and Feats together. I did not care for it when revealed, because I generally like rolled characters. If there are no Feats, then someone who rolled well will start off better than someone who rolled average, but they would eventually both cap at 20*. With Feats, the person who rolls well will *always* be better, since they can just take Feats instead.


*I also wish they would have capped ability scores at 18, but that's because I'm a crotchety grognard.

 

[FrogReaver]

I wish there was some kind of rule gaining ability scores organically through play rather than by level. Maybe some kind of tally a DM could keep track of behind the scenes that he sometimes uses to roll whether you increase a stat by +1.

I also wish feats would have had an organic feel to them. I wish you started with 2-3 feats (and got no more) and they had minor effects but as you leveled their effects got stronger.

 

[ccs]

I also wish feats would have had an organic feel to them. I wish you started with 2-3 feats (and got no more) and they had minor effects but as you leveled their effects got stronger.

So you want organic, but you want all officially mapped out before the dice even roll?
That's even worse than the players who plan their entire build from the get go & will stick to it regardless of how plays actually developing.

Organic is turning in a character sheet in the 1st session that's merely the starting point we find the PC at the beginning of the tale.
And then building upon that as the story progresses in ways that make sense based upon play.

 

[Horwath]

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.

I played Elven rogue with SS and I can say that for a rogue it's terrible feat.

It is a net DPS loss if you are using it or not as you miss out on +2 dex.

SS only goes little overboard with crossbow expert and battlemaster with precision attack so you have clutch attack bonus if needed for a semi-bad attack roll.

For elven rogue Elven precision is the holy grail of feats(more so for wood elf, more places to hide).


But, on topic;

Feats give more options and versatility, and rarely more direct power.

 

[ccs]

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.

For me there is no opportunity cost, only the opportunity to better realize the character I'm envisioning.

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.

Hmm. In my experience any feat I've ever taken here in 5e has been 100% worth taking as without them my characters would be less than how I'm envisioning them. Afterall, I took them to represent something that a mere +2 to a stat couldn't.
What the non-"broken" feats are worth depends heavily upon the character (not build or class) your playing & the games your playing in.

 

[CubicsRube]

I've never seen feats make a game to easy. It's really too easy to scale.

Sharpshooter is commonly quoted, but ime I've really seen DMs use copious cover (+2 to ac) and darkness (disadvantage not covered by ss and it still applies to pcs with darkvision!)

GWM is more easily countered with tactics, such as a couple of monsters tying up the gwm fighter and using dodge.

And, if you want to really make things fun, give monsters fests too! Theres a small horde of orcs charging you, but the grizzled and scareed veteran at the back pulls out his axe and does a mighty sweep for a -5/+10 on you!

That'll even the odds.

 

[Li Shenron]

This poll is inspired by the many, many threads that have brought up (or been hijacked by) discussions on the use of Feats and their impact on game balance, and the design intention of the 5E developers.

Many see Feats as being a great source of options for a PC, and a great way to individualize their PC, and I think that's accurate. But does this option come with a cost?

Is the use of Feats actually a form of "advanced play"? Are Feats better for players who have a strong understanding of the rules and the game system? Or would those players be better off in games that don't utilize Feats?

Essentially, is activating the Feat Option the same as activating Easy Mode? Select an option in the poll and then post your reasons.

I voted 'no'. I think in general the game is more complex with feats, because you have a larger array of choices to weight against ASI, and because most feats aren't passive or at least require you to remember their benefit.