Are the core (PHB) feats enough?

[Quasqueton]

Are the core feats too limited?

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

They are too combat oriented for me.

 

[MerricB]

No, in my opinion they work just fine.

I think that they do the job of giving the core game the feats it needs. After that, the feats aren't really essential, but they allow a lot of customisation of your characters - more choices, more variety. That, of course, is the point of feats.

Cheers!

 

[morbiczer]

Are the core feats too limited?

Quasqueton

I'd say generally yes, the core books are more then sufficent to play good D&D. But if you have access to other books they can add to the experience.
The divine type feats from Complete Warrior should be a good addition to any campaign.

 

[Zappo]

Yes. Considering how little space a feat takes, I would add a bunch of combat-oriented feats and a lot of non-combat ones.

 

[pogre]

You know, I think my group makes so few characters in my campaigns the players have not fully explored the possibilities of the core rule's feats. I could see where folks who have played a lot of different character concepts might want some more options - we may be there in a few more years

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

For me, they are generally enough. Even if I have rolled-up a good quantity of characters lately, the way to make different one from the other has more to do with the way I play them than with the feats (or other mechanic option) I give them.

AR

 

[DragonLancer]

Are the core feats too limited?

Quasqueton

No. They are just right. Once you start adding more and more feats the game gets too complicated. Same goes with spells.

 

[drunkmoogle]

You can never have too many feats. More customization = good.

Of course, the DM gets his say. And if you take too long, I choose for you, ya bum.

 

[Ranger REG]

For a core ruleset, yes.

For a complete/comprehensive ruleset, it is never enough.