D&D 5E Do you know the feeling of de-feat? (Playing a featless game.)

[DND_Reborn]

My experience with 3E is limited (less than a year, really) and 5E for about one-and-a-half years now (no 4E). I've always played games with feats used, usually with characters even getting a bonus feat at level one.

So, I would like to know about the playing experiences of tables without feats as I am thinking for the next game about not using them.

I am also curious as my sense tells me most tables play with feats, so vote if you do or not as well!

 

[Leatherhead]

We use feats, but I ban Variant Humans so nobody gets a feat at level one.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Did you vote? Please do if you didn't and thanks.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Most games I'm in use feats. It doesn't take long for ASIs to get really stale. Well, for non-casters. Casters don't have a lot of attractive feat options anyways, but they have plenty of toys via spell selection.

I have played in games that started without feats, but after a while the dm relented because it was obviously boring.

I've also played in games with bonus feats at level 1. This has mixed results - Certain weapon-boosting feats don't scale down well, so to speak.

 

[Shiroiken]

If I was teaching new players, I would not use feats or multi-class options. With experienced players, feats provide interesting choices to customize characters. Unlike most, I feel the problem with feats is that most of them suck. IMO Great Weapon Master, Lucky, Polearm Master, and the feat that grants a saving throw proficiency (forgot the name) should be the standard, not considered OP.

 

[Immoralkickass]

So far all the DMs and campaigns that i join do use feats. I don't think i can even try joining a feat-less game as i have not heard any are running near my area. Most DMs i know of stick closely to the core rules, some allowing the occasional homebrew or UA.

 

[atanakar]

No feats in my current 5e campaign. I had my fill of feats with 3e and 4e... we don't even use multi-classing. And we use gritty healing. All that in a effort to dial back the spandex super heriocs. Works really well. Characters are level 7 now. No one feels underpowered. We don't play every week so having less moving parts is beneficial. Less confusion when we play again.

 

[FrogReaver]

My experience with 3E is limited (less than a year, really) and 5E for about one-and-a-half years now (no 4E). I've always played games with feats used, usually with characters even getting a bonus feat at level one.

So, I would like to know about the playing experiences of tables without feats as I am thinking for the next game about not using them.

I am also curious as my sense tells me most tables play with feats, so vote if you do or not as well!

I've played in both featless games and games with feats.

I prefer featless games for a long term campaign. Why? Because the game is more balanced without feats and personally I care about making an effective character. So with no feats in the game I don't have to feel like I'm giving away power to play featless characters - which for me personally opens up a lot more characters as there are far more characters in a featless game at the same power level than there are in a feated game.

That said in one shots I tend to prefer access to feats. Balance is less of a concern and feats add some variety to the characters we play and see - especially if we are mostly playing one shots with lower level characters.

 

[Stoutstien]

Yes and I allow a lot of Homebrew feats with approval as well.
As far as players taking feats I'd say 80% take at least one feat

 

[DammitVictor]

I always allowed feats and multiclassing when I ran 5e, but I'm unlikely to ever run it again.

I strongly prefer playing with feats, but a compelling enough game can overcome this.

Lack of multiclassing is a dealbreaker. Full stop.