D&D 5E No Feats Allowed?

[The Crimson Binome]

In my experience, Strength based classes become more rare under such rules.

Out of curiosity, what's your sample size for that? It would seem to me that both Strength and Dex lose access to a -5/+10 feat, and that would increase the significance of the inherent damage difference between a heavy melee weapon and the Dex-based alternatives.

 

[Zardnaar]

Out of curiosity, what's your sample size for that? It would seem to me that both Strength and Dex lose access to a -5/+10 feat, and that would increase the significance of the inherent damage difference between a heavy melee weapon and the Dex-based alternatives.

It closes the gap between strength based melee and dex based melee though. Dex would be better than strength in most cases.

 

[transtemporal]

Amateurs. In my next game I'm banning classes.

Pffft. In my next game, I'm banning the game and watching sports instead. I don't even need to ban the game to watch sports, but I roll hardcore.

On the topic, overall dpr output for some classes will plummet so keep that in mind for encounters. Casters will really shine. You'll have less optimisation talk at the table (depending on what your players enjoy, that might be a bad thing).

 

[Lanliss]

Pffft. In my next game, I'm banning the game and watching sports instead. I don't even need to ban the game to watch sports, but I roll hardcore.

On the topic, overall dpr output for some classes will plummet so keep that in mind for encounters. Casters will really shine. You'll have less optimisation talk at the table (depending on what your players enjoy, that might be a bad thing).

Ha, Lightweight. In my next game I am banning Sentient Awareness of oneself.

 

[transtemporal]

Ha, Lightweight. In my next game I am banning Sentient Awareness of oneself.

Whoa! You're outta control Bodhi! You gotta go down!

 

[Jester David]

You might need a way for some of the weaker feats to stay in the game, like armour and skill proficiencies. Those could be replaced by training. And a couple feats are all but necassary for builds, like the two-weapon fighting feat.
But I imagine people will just consider alternate builds when those feats are not available.

 

[discosoc]

Amateurs. In my next game I'm banning classes.

I'm about to run one where spellcasters are banned, although classes with specializations that introduce magic or have very magical effects are fine (arcane trickster, eldritch knight, monk, etc). It's basically a world where magic is highly controlled by the ruling elite, and divine magic simply doesn't exist.

 

[discosoc]

You might need a way for some of the weaker feats to stay in the game, like armour and skill proficiencies. Those could be replaced by training. And a couple feats are all but necassary for builds, like the two-weapon fighting feat.
But I imagine people will just consider alternate builds when those feats are not available.

Dual-wielder isn't required for a two-weapon fighting build, unless you're dead set on not having to use a light weapon in your off hand.

 

[Flamestrike]

Dual-wielder isn't required for a two-weapon fighting build, unless you're dead set on not having to use a light weapon in your off hand.

And even then its better bumping Dex by +2.

The raw damage bump is the same (1d6+1 v 1d8 = both deal 4.5 average damage), however you also get a +1 to hit (in melee and ranged) which increases DPR higher than the feat. You also get the +1 to initiative, AC, Dex saves and ability checks.

Takes you an extra round to draw both weapons. Meh.

 

[S'mon]

My online 5e game doesn't use feats; it certainly works fine (PCs are 10th-13th level). Compared to my tabletop game which does use Feats, the PCs generally seem to have reduced damage output, but more durability from their high stats.

BTW I don't use the multiclassing optional rule in any game, it seems far more problematic than the feats. I can't see any reason to allow MC but disallow feats.