D&D 5E No Feats Allowed?

[Zardnaar]

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.

Allowing multiclassing but no feats is kind of an AD&D vibe.

 

[Delazar]

I'm toying with the idea of doing a Feat-less Birthright campaign, more or less. Instead of Feats, PCs can choose Blood Abilities (or an ASI, of course).

Also thinking of not allowing MC, more or less. I would create a new class, the Scion, based on getting more and better Blood Abilities, and this would be the only class the PCs can MC with.

 

[Psikerlord#]

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.

If you are not going to modify SS and GWM by removing the -5/+10, you are definitely better off running no feats, imo. Better still, go play an OSR game!

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

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

This alone would make me wanna drop feats and stick with your game!

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.

Actually, most people here are point buyers. I once made a poll that showed just how much of a prevalence you people have here
It's just that us rollers are usually more vocal

 

[feartheminotaur]

That's why we combine the best of both: Everyone rolls stats and we use the best array.

Actually, I was once "point buy is like participation trophies". After playing on-line and with new folks as I moved city to city - I realized that it wasn't that point buy was bad, it was that my playing group was great. "I rolled several 18s and max hit points" became the new "I have a girlfriend in Canada" - you might not have seen it, but it totally happened...

 

[FrogReaver]

That's why we combine the best of both: Everyone rolls stats and we use the best array.

Actually, I was once "point buy is like participation trophies". After playing on-line and with new folks as I moved city to city - I realized that it wasn't that point buy was bad, it was that my playing group was great. "I rolled several 18s and max hit points" became the new "I have a girlfriend in Canada" - you might not have seen it, but it totally happened...

I consider that the worst of both worlds lol...

 

[feartheminotaur]

Yeah, I was being slightly sarcastic (although most 3.5 games I played ended up being stat'ed that way).

But, I do see the need for an array - I was on Roll20 a couple weeks ago and the first thing the DM said was "either you get a camera and point it at the dice as they roll in such a way that we can see the results clearly and fairly or you use the standard array". One player logged out right there, one other complained that it was 'bullstuff' that the DM didn't believe he rolled 18, 18, 17, 14, 12 ,12 plus three 10s out of four levels (we started at 5th) and kept making snide remarks about how "weak and sickly" his Paladin was because he 'only had a 14 Con'.

 

[S'mon]

The idea of trusting players to roll their stats & hp sight-unseen utterly flabberghasts me. The ones who don't want to cheat are going to be aware that the cheaters will be cheating. It seems like a great way to ruin the game.

 

[Zardnaar]

I allow rolling stats but you do it in front of the DM.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I am thinking of running 5E with no feats.How many people here have actualy tried this?

Works fine, IMX.

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.

In both cases you'd just be cutting down on potentially problematic 'builds.' Obviously I'm lumping 'Variant Human,' - which, conceptually, I have no problem with - in there with 'problematic,' but it's really just feats that can be an issue when available at 1st level. Similarly, missing out on feats is hard on the fighter, whose best ('optimal build') options include feats.