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

[Psikerlord#]

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!

Except that... point buy is optional. Rolling is default.

 

[Li Shenron]

Concept -> Love it!

I absolutely loved the idea of feats since 3e as a way to customize/differentiate between (N)PCs. Ability scores don't differentiate enough IMXP: certainly a high-Dex low-Str character is very different from a high-Str low-Dex character. However after a while all e.g. high-Dex low-Str characters are very much the same. The main option to really differentiate characters before 3e was spells, but then non-spellcaster were too similar to each other. Skills and feats of 3e tremendously improved differentiation of characters of the same class, and I think it would have been a huge mistake not to include them in 5e.

Mechanics -> Fine.

I prefer smaller feats like in 3e. Smaller building blocks allow for a finer level of customization, and most importantly allow for smaller benefits to be delivered to a character who has a specific wish: the main example is proficiencies, which the big 5e feats cannot grant one-by-one, you always need to get multiple proficiencies or some additional feature you may not be interested in. I believe that the real reason behind bigger feats was that a minority or gamers don't like individual +1 ability bumps and wanted two +1 bumps at the same time, so to keep the equivalency between a feat and an ability bump they needed bigger feats. But IMHO it would have been much better to keep +1 bumps and smaller feats.

Anyway, having an equivalency between feats and ability bumps was a great idea. Furthermore it's a fairly easy house rule to allow two "half-feats" and/or +1 bumps instead of the default, and IIRC many PHB feats already do something like that by including one +1 to an ability score. This house rule is also useful to re-use some of the feats from old 3e books.

PHB feats -> Meh.

I don't have the PHB feats but from what I've heard the list is very short and particularly unimaginative, and they have even removed some of the most creative feats from the playtest. Bummer.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I have found the new feats great for customising PCs. Between subclasses, feats and BGs you can cover pretty much any concept of previous editions: kits, prestige classes, feat chains, paragon paths, etc.

They make you better at one thing, but having multiple rarely improve that power. They let you do something else, so stacking feats really is not a prob.

We like them so much we have developed Flaws to allow PCs to start with a feat. http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-flaws

 

[CapnZapp]

Except that... point buy is optional. Rolling is default.

Could you expand on that?

Yes, point buy is optional. So is feats. So what?

Point buy still makes for much improved play experience if and when you allow feats. A free pro tip from me to you: either use both or use neither

 

[ranger69]

I am a DM for one game, and a player in another. Both games allow feats. The game I DM is for mainly very experienced players who are at 2nd level. There is one variant human with a feat. It will be interesting to see what happens when they hit fourth level who takes a feat, a who takes stat increases. There are eight players in that group.
The group I play in I started late as a player so I am a level behind the rest. I am third level. As the majority in that game are newbies then the DM is advising stat increases, but not enforcing it. When my character reaches 4th level I am likely to take a feat, but as yet undecided on which one.
I do like the way feats are treated in 5E. They give yet another opportunity for customisation. However, if characters are allowed feats, then NPC's, especially major antagonists, should possibly have feats also.

 

[tuxgeo]

And yes, Magic Initiate makes a PC eligible for those feats. If you wanted to make a F/M type (without going EK) you could also keep taking the MI feat, by 8th level fighter you could have 3 (or 4 if human) 1st level spells and 12 Cantrips. That's a neat character, Captain Cantrip.

That would be a neat character if the rules allowed it, but they don't.

There's a limit on the number of times the same character can take feats.

You can take each feat only once, unless the feat's description says otherwise.

For example, the "Elemental Adept" feat says, "You can select this feat multiple times. Each time you do so, you must choose a different damage type."
However, the "Magic Initiate" feat does not say anything of the sort, so each character can only take that feat a maximum of once.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I prefer smaller feats like in 3e. Smaller building blocks allow for a finer level of customization, and most importantly allow for smaller benefits to be delivered to a character who has a specific wish: the main example is proficiencies, which the big 5e feats cannot grant one-by-one, you always need to get multiple proficiencies or some additional feature you may not be interested in. I believe that the real reason behind bigger feats was that a minority or gamers don't like individual +1 ability bumps and wanted two +1 bumps at the same time, so to keep the equivalency between a feat and an ability bump they needed bigger feats. But IMHO it would have been much better to keep +1 bumps and smaller feats.

Fascinating. I absolutely and utterly prefer the 5E version, where there are fewer but far more meaningful feats. I wouldn't ever want to go back to the old way.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Could you expand on that?

Yes, point buy is optional. So is feats. So what?

Point buy still makes for much improved play experience if and when you allow feats. A free pro tip from me to you: either use both or use neither

I just disagree that using feats means you should use point buy. The two options are not related. For me point buy = cookie cutter PCs, so I do not agree that point buy gives you a better play experience, whether or not you use feats.

 

[Li Shenron]

Fascinating. I absolutely and utterly prefer the 5E version, where there are fewer but far more meaningful feats. I wouldn't ever want to go back to the old way.

Why? What did you hate about them?

 

[CapnZapp]

I just disagree that using feats means you should use point buy. The two options are not related. For me point buy = cookie cutter PCs, so I do not agree that point buy gives you a better play experience, whether or not you use feats.

I understand. You dislike point buy, but you like feats, so you want to use the latter without the former.

And that's okay.

I'm just saying there is a definite reason why you might want to re-evaluate, and that is how feats make rolling an 18 go from the "really very good" of 5th edition right back into the "OMGWTFBBQ" territory of past editions. This is because feats allow you to effectively circumvent the hard cap on 20: normally once you've reached 20, you have to start increasing secondary stats (which isn't as valuable), but with feats, once you've reached 20, any future stat bump will definitely mean a feat. In short, roll an 18, gain two free feats compared to your friend who rolled an 15.

This is something I feel is often overlooked, hence my wish that WotC had put more emphasis on it. Of course, you can still choose to not heed this advice, but you don't have to dismiss it as unsound to do so

Cheers,