D&D 5E Lets Discuss Feats. Do you like them? Plus, some questions!

[trentonjoe]

Normally now people don't really choose feats till 12th level ......

I don't find this true. Maybe my groups are different but more than 1/2 (7 out of 12) of our 4th level characters took feats over the ability score.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I love feats, and think they are a wonderful method of individuating characters for those who want them.

It's really tough deciding between a feat or a stat increase, at least at 4th and 8th level (and 6th for fighter). I find it a cool mechanic that makes each character differnt.

This is why. Some people sitting around a table can boost their prime stat, and get a regular buns to every combat roll. Awesome. At the same time, players can give their characters a back that will sometimes be useful, or gives them an ability others don't have. Once feats have been allowed, it's the player's choice when and how they use them.

Feats are just fine IF you play 5E with a eye toward balance from the start. Normally now people don't really choose feats till 12th level and if they do they do so without maxing their stats.

As a player, I have no interest in seeing who's the first-to-20. I happily stick with my 16 in hopes of working towards the next feat.

Neither approach is "right", but I really like that they've found a way to allow both to coexist in the same game at the same table.

 

[painted_klown]

Interesting responses here. They certainly give me a lot to think about in regards to feats. I kind of like the idea of perhaps limiting the amount of feats that be used, but not sure how my players would react to such a limitation after slapping down a "no multi-class" rule.

I had a player who was all about rolling up a dragon born paladin/warlock. I was like "nope" and I don't think he was too excited about the answer, but was ok with picking a class and sticking with it.

I did admit to him that the #1 reason I really didn't want to allow multi-classing was due to all of us being new, and not fully understanding how multi-classing works. I did say that after we all had some experience, and I had a firm grasp on everything, I would consider allowing it.

I am thinking that I am not going to put a stop to feats as well, considering that. I want them to enjoy their characters, and have fun. Not resent me as a DM for "not allowing them to do anything fun".

 

[Nergal Pendragon]

As long as you are having fun and they are having fun. That's what ultimately matters.

 

[Bayonet]

Grappler just doesn't work right so you should either change it or advise against taking it.

.

Honestly, I'll probably house rule it so that Grappler and Tavern Brawler are the same feat.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The magic giving feats are completely fine. The majority of classes have some magic anyway. I don't even use multiclassing, I find subclasses and feats are enough.

The feats that are the most controversial seem to be Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master, and Sharpshooter.

Grappler just doesn't work right so you should either change it or advise against taking it.

A couple other feats are a bit weak too and could maybe use a +1 attached to them.

Yeah I think all the feats are basically fine. If you are looking at modifying any, I suggest the following:

Crossbow expert - delete the part about removing disad in melee when firing
GWM - substitute +1 str for the -5/+10 damage option
SS - substitute +1 dex for the -5/+10 damage option.

Best of luck!

 

[Psikerlord#]

Interesting responses here. They certainly give me a lot to think about in regards to feats. I kind of like the idea of perhaps limiting the amount of feats that be used, but not sure how my players would react to such a limitation after slapping down a "no multi-class" rule.

I had a player who was all about rolling up a dragon born paladin/warlock. I was like "nope" and I don't think he was too excited about the answer, but was ok with picking a class and sticking with it.

I did admit to him that the #1 reason I really didn't want to allow multi-classing was due to all of us being new, and not fully understanding how multi-classing works. I did say that after we all had some experience, and I had a firm grasp on everything, I would consider allowing it.

I am thinking that I am not going to put a stop to feats as well, considering that. I want them to enjoy their characters, and have fun. Not resent me as a DM for "not allowing them to do anything fun".

I dont allow MCing bec I feel the base subclasses, plus feats, allows for more than enough character options already.

 

[CapnZapp]

My players were NOT happy with the point buy method at all. They felt like wimpy versions of their previous characters and so really pushed me for rolling 4D6 and rerolling 1's.When I agreed they all ended up with maxed out main stat scores ect ...combine that with a feat choice if picking human(variant) and another at 4th and 8th and suddenly I had some VERY overpowered characters to deal with. Add in a couple of magic items and well.......they just flat out massacred even boss's 6+ levels higher in a round.

Once I got my feet under me as the DM I realized my many mistakes and ended up just killing them all off in a epic adventure that we all agreed would be cool.

So really what I guess I'm saying is.....

Feats are just fine IF you play 5E with a eye toward balance from the start.

Thank you for sharing, and I'm glad you 1) realized the mistake and 2) had the balls to fix it!

Yes, feats really need point buy.

Rolling stats is (obviously) less balanced in itself, but when you add feats this imbalance becomes a HUGE deal.

Why? Because without feats, rolling good means perhaps +1 or +2 to hit and damage. Good but not game-breaking, since everyone will catch up around level 12 or so.

But with feats? Then each 16 or 17 you roll means "a free feat". And each 18 you roll means "free feats for the rest of my career", since after racial mods, you hit the maximum already at level one.

This simply breaks the game; having the choice between taking a feat and taking an ability increase break down into "another feat please".

I really wish the PHB contained much stronger advice regarding this, saying something like IF YOU ADD FEATS, MAKE SURE YOU USE POINT BUY AND A HARD STARTING CAP OF 15 in capital bold letters!

 

[Celtavian]

I like them. Character customization is always a quality option.

The only thing I don't like is Crawford adding rule changes not in the book after the fact. I'm starting to reach the point where I plan to ignore what he has to say other than rules clarification for truly unclear rules. Not adding crap like "You can't cast a reaction spell when you cast a bonus action spell in the same round." Something I didn't see anywhere in the book and is him making up a rule on the fly that shouldn't exist.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I like them. Character customization is always a quality option.

The only thing I don't like is Crawford adding rule changes not in the book after the fact. I'm starting to reach the point where I plan to ignore what he has to say other than rules clarification for truly unclear rules. Not adding crap like "You can't cast a reaction spell when you cast a bonus action spell in the same round." Something I didn't see anywhere in the book and is him making up a rule on the fly that shouldn't exist.

It's only his ruling though, you are free to make your own ruling.