D&D 5E Feats: Do you use them? Are they necessary?

[airwalkrr]

The question is simple. Do you use feats in your campaign, and do you feel they are mostly necessary, or at least expected by the vast majority of players?

My Pathfinder group has agreed to end our PF campaign at the end of the year and start up 5e. I am already heavily involved in 5e via the Adventurers League (both home play with the published adventures and Expeditions gamedays) so I've had quite a bit of experience with the system already (as much as anyone can have for a system less than a year old). I do not think feats are necessary for the game. (In fact I don't think any of the variant rules presented in the PH are necessary, but that's not pertinent here). The reason I bring up feats in particular is because it seems to be the main thing my Pathfinder group wants that I do not (3/4 have requested it and the 4th doesn't care). I feel they add unnecessary complication, and in many cases modifiers (crunchy bits). These may shoehorn a character into a niche role (e. g. Polearm Master) which limits the character's flexibility in the future (flexibility being a key feature I enjoy about 5e). I feel this limits my tools as a DM; as an example, I might include a flametongue in the treasure, but because the party fighter took Polearm Master, the item is looked upon as "vendor trash."

Additionally, the whole point of "bounded-accuracy" is to do away with the notion that higher level means vastly higher bonuses, keeping even low-level characters able to contribute. But some feats grant more bonuses (including the dreaded conditional ones: see Shield Master) that fly in the face of this philosophy. I am somewhat concerned that balance might be disrupted (although that is not my primary objection to feats).

It seems the main argument from my players' perspective is that feats allow them to develop a character concept. There are already various and diverse means to specialize in certain styles of play within the races, classes, and archetypes as it is, so I see no need to take specialization a step further. I feel it will dissuade characters from ever trying to use an item that isn't "ideal" for their character.

I think 3e and PF have ingrained in some players that feats are necessary for the game. But 5e is such a different game. The classes and archetypes offer many different options. Styles that once required feats (e. g. Weapon Finesse) are worked into the RAW. One can specialize to a degree (an archery ranger) without feeling that it becomes the be-all, end-all of their character. But add in Sharpshooter, and the bow is in that character's hand almost 24-7.

I believe once the players see the game in play though, they will forget about feats. Only one of them has had any real experience with the system (he is a regular at our Adventurer's League game days). And even though he is one of the three requesting feats, he hasn't leveled a character beyond 6th.

So does anyone agree with me on this, or should I just allow feats and ignore the consequences. I'm willing to be flexible on pretty much every other variant rule in the PH, but I have seen feats in AL play and much prefer running the tables where players aren't using them. My own AL characters don't use feats because I like to keep the game simple.

Edit: A lot of people have asked me what I mean by "necessary." The simplest way to define it in this context is "would you view the inclusion of feats as a prerequisite for playing or running 5e?" Another way to think about it is whether or not you have players or a DM in your group who have either assumed feats are part of the game or never questioned whether or not to use them.

As an additional note, for those of you saying you are using feats, but that they are not necessary, why are you using them if you do not believe them to be necessary? Was it by popular demand in your group? Is it just because they are in the Player's Handbook and you believe everything in the Player's Handbook ought to be fair game? Did you wish to use them as a DM for NPCs? Do you feel there is a gap in the game if feats are not there? In other words, are feats truly optional in 5e or is everyone coming to the table with the expectation that they are going to be used?

Finally, I'd like to add an analogy if I may. Suppose you were to stat up Drizzt Do'Urden, one of the most iconic characters in D&D, as a PC. Would you find it necessary to give him the Dual Wielder feat to accomplish the flavor of the character? Or would other aspects, like him being a ranger with the two-weapon fighting style, or his possession of Icingdeath and Twinkle (his signature swords) be sufficient to describe him in terms of stats? (Personally, I think the ranger's two-weapon fighting style sufficiently captures the character enough so that the feat is just redundant. In fact, I think his weapons are more important than his fighting style, but that's just my opinion. What's yours?)

 

[Ashrym]

The shield master bonus is pretty restricted. Single target DEX save spells is too situational. Feats are meant to be a customization option and works in that regard.

The concern I would have is with options like blade pact warlock that require feat investment for competitiveness. It is possible to play without feats but blade pact weapon options fall behind agonizing blast without feat investment, for example, so removing feats can impact more options than just feats themselves.

Personally, I think feats are important if a person plays with all the standard classes.

 

[ad_hoc]

I would do 2 things:

1. Allow feats but treat each one individually as optional. Make decisions on a case by case basis. I wouldn't allow lucky at all or gwm/sharpshooter because of the -5/+10. Other feats depend on the goals of play.

2. Use point buy. Even without feats I would only use point buy in 5e. But with feats I believe it to be necessary. If players roll then they will max out their primary stat quickly. This leaves little trade off for feats.

On other variant rules:

I think multiclassing is detrimental to the class based system that is 5e. I relied on it in 3.x but in 5e I think that the subclasses are enough. Mixing and matching attributes from different classes defeats the purpose of the classes. It is also weird that a Class B/Class A character is different and often less powerful than a Class A/Class B character.

 

[CapnZapp]

Feats shift the balance towards fighters and away from casters.

I think feats are fun and that you mainly see the negative side, and I have included them.

That said, I wish the two -5+10 feats were caught before publication, and I wish there were a few solid feat options for casters (good enough to be considered even before you hit 20 in your main attribute)


One thing though: don't use feats and allow starting stats above 15. Either use the default point buy rule, or make up your own alternate roll for stats procedure that doesn't allow the dice to roll 16 or more. Just a friendly heads-up

 

[Mavkatzer]

We only use four classes: fighter, rogue, cleric, and wizard. Most races in the PHB are allowed. Then, we use the template for backgrounds ("Customizing a Background": PHB pg 124) to allow the choice of: two skills; two of languages or tools; and a feature. We then use feats to allow for a little more flexibility and character uniqueness. We have found we can make most character concepts we want, following this method with feats.

tl;dr: We use limited classes, and as such find feats useful for fleshing out characters, but not mechanially necessary.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't know what "necessary" means in this context. I allow feats, but so far at 11th level my players have focused about 2/3 on ASIs instead of feats, which is fine by me. I do think feats are fun and I personally wouldn't want to play in a game where they were excluded. (Some people don't like allowing feats in a game where stats are rolled instead of point-buy; I think it's fine.)

Edit: although, I do wish they had named them something other than "feats", like "perks" or "abilities". "Feat" has the connotation of "one-time achievement," and I found the term very, very confusing when I first came across it in a Skills and Powers-like context. D&D pretty much uses it to mean the opposite of what I thought the word was trying to convey.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I actually wish more of the customization aspects had been dumped into feats instead of subclasses and class features, but you should be fine running with or without. I voted "yes and necessary for most players" because I think most players enjoy that having another layer of customization to tinker with. You could play without it though. The subclasses offer enough different ways to differentiate between classes for the first campaign with the system for most groups. Although, players might start itching for them at high levels when they start bumping up their secondary stats (especially Fighters). Start without if that is your inclination and if you and your players want to allow them later, consult with them then and see how you want to proceed.

 

[Paraxis]

Yes I do, and no they are not necessary.

They provide another selection of options, every available option means you can customise/optimize your character more. I enjoy both customizing and optimizing so I like feats as a DM and as a player. But they are not necessary, I think high level fighters after they have maxed out strength or dexterity, and constitution could run out of good options for ability score increases.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

We aren't using feats in the game I run. One player laments the lack of customization, but the others seem fine with it.

In my opinion, feats aren't interesting, and thus add nothing to the game. Either there's a feat which is obvious for your character, in which case it's not even a choice and you just get one less ability boost with which to actually customize your character; or the feat is redundant with options that already exist in the game (such as multi-classing). The game where you get to decide which of your ability scores to boost every few levels is more interesting than the game full of obvious power grabs. Less is more.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

One thing though: don't use feats and allow starting stats above 15. Either use the default point buy rule, or make up your own alternate roll for stats procedure that doesn't allow the dice to roll 16 or more. Just a friendly heads-up

Yeah, I'm going with roll 2d8, drop the lowest, +7.