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

[ccs]

Sure, all of my 5e games (wether those I run or those I've played in) have included feats. MC as well.

With that said? Not everybody has chosen to use feats. Some prefer the ASI, some feats. Wich is picked depends mostly upon the character. Though in a few cases it was brand new players making the safest choice (ASI) as they were learning.
Very few have done any MC

 

[Nebulous]

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!

We do use feats. It adds some needed customization to 5e characters. Some of them I think are way too powerful or annoying, but most are ok. I wish there were more, I think that would grant even more diversification, but I don't know if WotC will go that route.

On the flip side, I'm also a huge fan of adding monster talents and feats, it helps scale better with PC power.

 

[Coroc]

First approach to 5e was a ravenloft campaign (converted Hyskosa Hexad). I decided to not use feats. The group felt pretty strong still (Light cleric, dwarvern barb, fire sorc and protection champion)

The current campaign of mine went the other way, to test feats to the fullest I gave everyone a free feat at level 1. The group feels a different kind of strong, their survivability seems to be a bit higher.

I will presumably not use feats in the next campaign I plan (Darksun) but instead psi talents as an option instead of the ASI.

 

[Seramus]

I've done both. Games with feats are generally more fun than everyone ending up with multiple 20s because of ASI.

I do wish there were more feats like Actor and less like Sharpshooter. Some feats are a little too "must have."

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I think one of the greatest strengths for 5e is its simplicity, which makes the game run quickly and easily. Feats and multiclass, as well as any other options, have a tendency to create an extra layer of complexity. Sometimes its good. But if I`m looking for complexity, there are other games and editions that satisfy with much more choices and customizations. There is a reason these are optional in 5e.

 

[Li Shenron]

I always allow feats, which doesn't mean I allow every feat. In 5e I still allow all core feats, as I haven't had problems with them so far, but I haven't played with character material from other books yet.

Feats are a way to mechanically differentiate characters at the individual level, which is not something that every class can do on its own, so they are welcome in my games.

 

[JeffB]

I think one of the greatest strengths for 5e is its simplicity, which makes the game run quickly and easily. Feats and multiclass, as well as any other options, have a tendency to create an extra layer of complexity. Sometimes its good. But if I`m looking for complexity, there are other games and editions that satisfy with much more choices and customizations. There is a reason these are optional in 5e.

This is where my headspace is at.

5E sans feats and MC* sits in that "sweet spot" between T/OSR versions of the game, and the nuttiness of 3E/4E and PF **. This "sans options" ruleset is where 5E is strongest . If I/we want "more", I'll go elsewhere for that-4E, 13A, PF2 maybe for the future.


* I hate multiclassing with a passion. So glad 5E clearly made it an optional.
** as does C&C

 

[Horwath]

only thing I do not like about 5e are ASI/feat system.

more exactly the overlap of it.

much better system would be is we had dedicated "slots" for feats.

and also split them in "combat" and "non-combat" feats or "must-have" and "flavor" feats.

If you use feats then "must-have" category feats are:
Great weapon master, Polearm master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow expert, Heavy armor master,

close to that come:
Healer, Inspiring leader, Alert, Mobile, Spell sniper.

the rest I have not seen once :/

If we get separate "slots" for combat and flavor feats and separate for ASIs(that can be traded for feats normally) we would have more different character. Now, it's just primary stat to 20, one or two must have feats then if you still playing +2 to con or secondary stat.


I would also rework all feats to "half-feat" power level. split some feats into 2, if needed

then you could have;

1st level: non-combat feat
2nd level: combat feat
3rd level: +1 tool or language
4th level: ASI
5th level: +1 skill
6th level: non-combat feat
7th level:+1 tool or language
8th level:combat feat
9th level:+1 skill
10th level: ASI
11th level:+1 tool or language
12th level:non-combat feat
13th level:+1 skill
14th level:combat feat
15th level:+1 tool or language
16th level: ASI
17th level:+1 skill
18th level:non-combat feat
19th level:+1 tool or language
20th level:combat feat

 

[Vael]

Does anyone allow feats outside of class progression / variant human? Because IIRC, the DMG mentions to granting feats as another reward, something that can be learned during downtime.

I've thought about allowing character to start with a feat, or just allowing characters to gain them as an optional reward instead of a magic item. It'd be a bit more involved, a small side-quest that takes up a lot of downtime.

 

[Stoutstien]

Does anyone allow feats outside of class progression / variant human? Because IIRC, the DMG mentions to granting feats as another reward, something that can be learned during downtime.

I've thought about allowing character to start with a feat, or just allowing characters to gain them as an optional reward instead of a magic item. It'd be a bit more involved, a small side-quest that takes up a lot of downtime.

I do.they make great rewards. Just had a trickery cleric get the sulkers feat as a blessing from her God for retrieving a stolen relic