It's also possible those feats are banned for being absurdly overpowered in mechanics distorting waysFIFY.
When you see people picking the same feats as a reason to ban feats, it follows that people picking the same spells is a reason to ban spells.
Really, your solution to the 'problem' of 'same-y'ness'....is to force ALL fighters to increase Str/Dex/Con?
I think even without feats, the choice of weapons for fighters will still distill down to a handful of optimal choices that players will gravitate to. The variety may be slightly more broad, but you're still not going to see many fighters with nonmagical tridents outside of pure roleplaying choice. We see this with armor already.When simply looking at it between two or three characters, it looks diverse. But extrapolate that out to the NPC's and campaign world at large... and every fighter is using a 2h weapon, polearm or composite longbow.
Especially considering the Trident has the SAME stats as the Simple Weapon Spear. It's heavier and more expensive but it has the same damage and special attributes. By all account it didn't need to exist as a separate game unit and just be some a spear could just... ya know, BE!I think even without feats, the choice of weapons for fighters will still distill down to a handful of optimal choices that players will gravitate to. The variety may be slightly more broad, but you're still not going to see many fighters with nonmagical tridents outside of pure roleplaying choice. We see this with armor already.
It's just so dependent on how the dm maps things.IME Charger is a must.
Class guides generally declare this feat to be subpar, but I used it at the start of more than 50% of my encounters (as a fighter) and probably more than 75%. I went from level 1-13. +5 damage isn't worth losing an attack, but I don't have the feat I could lose attacks. I used it whenever I couldn't "single move" to a target and multiattack at the start of a battle (or even during a battle, if enemies are spread out).
Some of the players were uninterested in feats. However we were different classes, so no "apples and oranges" comparisons.
We had no multiclassing, although a bard (we had one) is practically multiclassed out of the gate.
feats doesn't really expand the character's options since the only ones that are really good are just too obvious, to the point they become mandatory whenever they are available.
Man I really need to cook a nice dinner for my players, now that we can play in person again (I live in CA where we have the lowest cases in the country, and we are all vaccinated as are all of our relatives that we see with any regularity).Again, the problems with 5E feats are that they complete with ASIs, you get so few of them, and the power distribution is way out of whack. So when a player is finally thinking about taking a feat, they are most likely going to gravitate towards a very small subset in order to maximize their choice.
I said no mc on one game because I was such of having the same one or two players playing the same totally different but identical in all the ways that matter sorlocks. Those players left and some of the other players pushed for the return with good reasons offered so I quickly had a different sorlock player. Playing the same totally different sorlock
In a different game I basically said no feats with the idea of using the individual bullet points as magic item attachments. Unfortunately it didn't really work any better because there are only one or two that any class/build needs(usually the same ones as other classes) & they provide such a night & day difference that it made the problem even more obvious.
it only takes 2 levels for agonizing repelling EB. That can hurt if your game is not going very far, but lost of my games run to low-mid teens & the loss is much less significantdue to the way spell slot progression tapers off the higher you get.I've had a one or two sorlocks in my games, but they've all asked to retcon the PC when played next to a single class caster.
When the Wizard is getting access to Fireball, Counterspell, Fly, Haste and Hypnotic Pattern, and you're still running around pew pewing with EB's, and stuck with a few 2nds, it gets really sucky, fast.
Featless: My first campaign was featless, and my next will be eventually.The page 163 of the Player's handbook says:
However, even they are an optional rule, feats and multiclasses are allowed in the Adventure League's plays, and some claim they as a core part of the edition. Thus, I want to know how was your experiences without theses optional set of rules. This include gaming balance, martials against spellcasters, fighters without feats and so on.
Thanks in advance.
Well you can put asi into charisma as well, so your fighter gets better social skills.it makes the MAD characters bit less stresful to play, as you remove the do I ASI or feat on those
makes fighters a tad worse, as you wont be able to use those extra ASI on anything else than more HP/+1 to wis save
would say multiclassing won't be that noticeable, a lot of players are more likely to shoot themselves in the foot with that then to actually improve their character
That's all well and good, and I'm glad to hear it.My experience, and comments I've seen from the design team bck this up, is that most players are not optimizers.
Most players, and this is not from me but from both wotc and dndbeyond, play optimized characters. Non-variant human and champion fighter are the most popular choices. Rangers aren't even in the bottom half of classes, in terms of popularity.That's all well and good, and I'm glad to hear it.
But it certainly doesn't mean the system doesn't need improvements and that those feats are way out of balance.
Sample size and all that.
THIS! There are some optimizers, but there are plenty of others that aren't.My experience, and comments I've seen from the design team bck this up, is that most players are not optimizers.
Again I don't get it. The "standard bike" gives you all the choice of Henry Ford. You can have any colour you like as long as it's black. Having feats makes the difference between weapons much more meaningful - and there's enough of a spread of feats that anything that without feats is good enough to use has feats to support it.
It's a massive deal.it only takes 2 levels for agonizing repelling EB. You only need level 6 for 3x 3rd level slots & dropping 2 levels is not a big deal
|Level / CR||CR Exp.||Exp. per Player||Exp. for next Level||Exp. to next Level||Encounters to next Level (Raw)||Daily Exp. Budget||Encounters Per Day||Days to Level|
I mean if the player thinks feats are too complicated they don't need to take them?Pro:
Simplification, which is always a good thing if you got players who are into RP as much as into fighting.
That STILL makes no sense... Your argument, putting aside how realistic it is or not, doesn't tell me Feats are bad, it tells me the Fghter is sub par!Hiya!
Well then ...I guess you just don't get it. That's ok. Use Feats/MC if it enhances your enjoyment, but for me and my friends, it just doesn't.
Do a test yourself. Your next Fighter, don't take ANY Feats and don't MC. Now see how you feel about your Fighters capabilities. Now look at what Feats/MC you want to take because it will make you "feel like your Fighter is equal to others in the party". See that? The instant you read those sentences your mind probably already flashed one or two Feats and maybe a second Class....and you didn't have any clue as to what personality your Fighter had. It was purely an instinctual "I gotta take this Feat" or "I gotta take this Class"....not because of interest in crafting a unique, individual Fighter PC, but because you know that without one of those Feats or Class level dips, you would feel like you 'suck'.
That's a problem. That's why we don't like or use Feats/MC. They don't "expand the capabilities", they do the exact opposite....at least for us. YMMV.
Hope that makes more sense.
Paul L. Ming