D&D 5E No Feats Allowed?

[TwoSix]

I'll be impressed if you also get around to banning all races...

If you can only play human, and there's no actual racial benefits being selected from, would that count?

 

[DeathMutant]

I am running a game without feats and, while the players initially expressed concern, I significantly expanded the use of downtime days as an alternative to customizing/improving their characters. For example, Battle Masters can learn new maneuvers, Warlocks can learn new invocations and non-spellbook-based casters can learn new spells by "spending" downtime days (and gold). It is working so well, imo, that I would consider excluding feats from my next campaign too.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

While I haven’t banned feats, I’ve only had one player pick a feat over an ability increase so far. And really, there's been no problems. I do require the standard array stat generation method, so I think there’s more incentive to use that ability increase to either bump up your prime stat or get rid of a penalty, rather than a feat.

 

[Croesus]

My group has played since the starter set came out (July 2014), haven't used feats at all, and are having a blast. The highest level characters are currently 7th level (we use troupe play, so PCs get swapped out a lot), so I'm not sure feats would have made much difference so far. It certainly has cut down on Char Ops somewhat. Of course, it helps that three of my five players aren't all that concerned with maxing their power, so long as each character is effective.

Concerning races, I noticed that most PCs are not human. However, I've seen the same thing in 3E games, as I'm the only one in the group who prefers humans, and since I'm usually the GM...oh well.

Concerning classes, we have a broad mix, with barbarians, fighters, rogues and wizards the most popular. Only a couple clerics, which surprises me, as I think they are one of the more interesting 5E classes. We've had no issues with power balance between the classes - each gets to shine in its own way, and having a good mix is still a good idea, as it has been in every edition of the game.

 

[Kite474]

We haven't banned feats, but so far no one has really used them except myself and one other person and the feats we took were Tough, Magic Initiate and Lucky. I do think banning feats may have a chance at lowering players desire to play a fighter. Because without out them the fighter definitely regains its title as the most boring class in D&D. Mainly because unless your DM is willing to give you a bone your SOL in terms of things you can do.

Besides that though I can imagine the game can work very well. You also wont have to worry about the usual suspects (GWM, SS, and PAM)

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm planning a campaign with no races or feats allowed (initially, anyway). Also 3d6 in order. I'll let you know how it goes (spoiler: probably just fine).

 

[Ristamar]

I am surprised to see Magic Initiate in some of these lists. It's a good feat for specific character concepts, but it's not a "power" option (even with Eldritch Blast).

 

[Sunseeker]

The long and short of it is this: Classes that are simple will feel even MORE simple (Open Hand Monk, Thief Rogue, Champion Fighter, Barbarian) and likely have their damage, utility and overall level of options reduced (especially considering you get more feats as a fighter than any other class). Full-casters will see little effect. Half-casters will depend largely on the build, though I suspect you'll see Paladins, Rangers and Elemental Monks taking the more utility features than the damage ones.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am thinking of running 5E with no feats. I have not done this since we played the basic boxed set before the PHB released. I am interested to see what effect this would have on the following.

1. Class and race selection.
2. The various combat styles minus sharp shooter and great weapon master.

THe default human might look bad but I will be allowing 4d6 drop the lowest and multiclassing. Party like its 1989 (or 1978).

How many people here have actualy tried this? In one of our groups we had a lot of new players using feats and we have a barbarian doing ll the damage (18 str/con, 16 dex claims to have rolled 12,11,12,11 for hit point by level 4) my sword and board avenger Paladin and the rest have sily things do to not knowing what they are doing. So for newer players I was wondering if no feats is a better idea.

I love the concept of a featless 5e game. I think all classes would be much more closely balanced.

 

[Savevsdeath]

haven't run or played a featless game, but as someone who typically plays fighters and likes complex concepts and complex builds, and prefers playing humans since every group is always full of nonhumans, a featless game would instantly turn me away, no questions and no negotiations. But so would rolled ability scores, which the majority of the posters here seem to prefer, so i guess i'm not really the target audience for a change like this.

I'm an all-in feats and point buy kinda guy. Just don't see the need for mechanical constraints, and i've never encountered a problem with any feat as either a player or a DM. I prefer my players' characters to win more often than not.