D&D 5E Question about feats in 5e.

[tuxedoraptor]

Why does it seem like everyone assumes feats are included in most games? Why do all the guides assume the gamemaster would allow such a terrible mechanic into their games? I have banned feats from my game and will never lift that ban, the mechanic was awful in 3.5 and 4e, so why don't we just bury it and forget it ever happened? I see a ton of people complaining about how broken they are, like they are a core part of the game, they aren't, they are terrible beyond belief.

 

[happyhermit]

... I see a ton of people complaining about how broken they are, like they are a core part of the game, they aren't, they are terrible beyond belief.

Beyond belief? Well I guess you're right because I don't believe that. We mostly play without them, whether they are allowed or not, but I don't think they are terrible.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

@tuxedoraptor, I don't get the impression that this is a sincere "question about feats" so much as it is an expression of an already strongly held opinion. If this is the case, it might do the conversation a lot more good if you articulated, clearly and civilly, why you hold that opinion, rather than simply using nonspecific terms of abuse like "terrible" and "awful".

 

[Severite]

Overall, I don't think they are that broken, and they leave an interesting choice in regards to taking either an ASI, which many have as much as you do feats, I assure you, or a feat that does something interesting. As an example, I have taken linguist on my wizard, which many will say is a sub par choice, and, yeah, an ASI to a secondary stat would have also made sense for my character, it wasn't imo, as interesting. The feat system from mathfinder, or PF, are absolutely broken, and rather unfun, at least for me, but 5e has done a good, with minor exception, job, of creating feats that are interesting, not overpowered, and an expansion of choice over an ASI. That is why I allow them in my game, and find it a bit disingenuous when people complain about their overpoweredness, but than allow ASI's, like what? ASI's tend to be the optimal choice, for most builds. They also tend to be a bit boring, at least in my opinion.

 

[Li Shenron]

Why does it seem like everyone assumes feats are included in most games? Why do all the guides assume the gamemaster would allow such a terrible mechanic into their games? I have banned feats from my game and will never lift that ban, the mechanic was awful in 3.5 and 4e, so why don't we just bury it and forget it ever happened? I see a ton of people complaining about how broken they are, like they are a core part of the game, they aren't, they are terrible beyond belief.

So in your opinion "everyone" assumes feats but "a ton of people" complain?

I have the feeling that "everyone" and "a ton of people" is really just yourself.

Honest suggestion: forget about what you think others are doing, and keep doing what you think it's best for your game.

 

[tuxedoraptor]

This thread was an error, I apologise. I was just fustrated at the nonstop mention of feats everywhere.

 

[Horwath]

Why does it seem like everyone assumes feats are included in most games? Why do all the guides assume the gamemaster would allow such a terrible mechanic into their games? I have banned feats from my game and will never lift that ban, the mechanic was awful in 3.5 and 4e, so why don't we just bury it and forget it ever happened? I see a ton of people complaining about how broken they are, like they are a core part of the game, they aren't, they are terrible beyond belief.

Well,

because they are a part of most games.

But also most ppl take one, maybe two feats as +2 to a primary stat is almost always better, and +2 to secondary is usualy better.

Worst thing is that abilities and feats are on the same counter while leveling. Worst part of 5e design IMHO.

Feat are to give personal flavor to the character, but as you can take only one or two, that usualy is the same feat for same kind of characters: "feat tax".

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Why does it seem like everyone assumes feats are included in most games? Why do all the guides assume the gamemaster would allow such a terrible mechanic into their games? I have banned feats from my game and will never lift that ban, the mechanic was awful in 3.5 and 4e, so why don't we just bury it and forget it ever happened? I see a ton of people complaining about how broken they are, like they are a core part of the game, they aren't, they are terrible beyond belief.

The best I can figure is that it has to do with the types of players (mostly DMs, honestly) who frequent these forums, and who are most likely to create and reply to threads. The kinds of players who are happy without feats or multiclassing, also tend to be the types of players who don't need to go online and talk about it. Complexity breeds discussion, and the opposite is also somewhat true (although perhaps to a lesser extent).

TLDR; it's a sampling bias. Activity in this forum does not accurately reflect the game as a whole.

 

[Shiroiken]

This thread was an error, I apologise. I was just fustrated at the nonstop mention of feats everywhere.

Well, a lot of games DO use feats, and there are players who assume feats (along with multi-classing) will be allowed. While not an integral part of the game, they are a popular option, which is why they get mentioned here a lot.

As for your original post, I use feats in my games because they allow for very interesting diversity among similar characters. My issues with them have not been that they are too strong, but rather that many of them are too weak for the cost of +2 to your primary ability.

 

[TwoSix]

This thread was an error, I apologise. I was just fustrated at the nonstop mention of feats everywhere.

I agree, it's quite a feat to avoid feats these days, no matter how many feet you move away from them. Might be better to admit defeat.