5E Does your group use feats?

Does your group use feats?


  • Total voters
    124
We have not, mostly because when we started they were all new players to D&D 5e, and any TTRPG. I wanted to keep things as simple and concise as possible, so I didn't add the "feat" optional rule. However, with them approaching level 10, I might introduce that rule, just to see if there is any added utility the players want from it.
 

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
It depends on the campaign or one-shot I'm running. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. They have to serve some kind of purpose in support of the campaign's theme or structure for me to use them, like any other optional rule.
 

TheSword

Explorer
Always. Feats are fun.

Also they get a free bonus feat at first level that have to be taken from the racial feats in Xanathar’s guide. Humans can pick any feat but I don’t use the variant racial human option.

Secondly I give an extra feat at 2nd, 6th, 10th and 14th that can’t be used for stat increase.

I find this deals with the accusations 5e doesn’t allow character customization beyond choosing subclass, that there aren’t enough skills and that some classes don’t improve key saves.
 

Ralif Redhammer

Adventurer
I allow them, though I find actual usage is pretty low, under than 50%. I always require point-buy or standard array, which generally makes ASIs more attractive. As much as I get annoyed when a player takes the same feat for every character they make, I tend not to monkey around too much with the default options when I DM.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen
I pretty much always allow them, and in fact, I’m considering utilizing their design space to help address some personal issues I have with racial features.
 

Shiroiken

Adventurer
Feats are always hit or miss; depending on the campaign length, most characters pick up 1 or 2. Primary casters tend to avoid them until their spellcasting ability is at 20, since the desire to maximize save DC outweighs the benefits of most feats. Fighters (obviously) generally take the most, since they get more opportunities. Variant human is very popular in our games, since it allows a character concept to emerge at level 1, but since we usually start at level 3, non-human options only have to wait a little bit.

What's sad is that they're so many bad feats out there, that I actually combined several of them into singular feats... and still no one wanted them. The problem is that a good feat has to compare to +2 in your primary ability, and only the "broken" ones normally do that. Many don't even compare to +2 to your secondary ability.
 

Undrave

Adventurer
Feats are always hit or miss; depending on the campaign length, most characters pick up 1 or 2. Primary casters tend to avoid them until their spellcasting ability is at 20, since the desire to maximize save DC outweighs the benefits of most feats. Fighters (obviously) generally take the most, since they get more opportunities. Variant human is very popular in our games, since it allows a character concept to emerge at level 1, but since we usually start at level 3, non-human options only have to wait a little bit.

What's sad is that they're so many bad feats out there, that I actually combined several of them into singular feats... and still no one wanted them. The problem is that a good feat has to compare to +2 in your primary ability, and only the "broken" ones normally do that. Many don't even compare to +2 to your secondary ability.
I think feats were overvalued (and their complexity overestimated) in 5e and the designers got cold feet after the feat bloat of 3e and 4e. They're a good tool of customization but they're so rare in the progression that it really depends on how long your campaign lasts.

And yeah, they're basically the only reason anyone picks human as a race. For some classes, level 1 and 2 feel very VERY generic.
 

Shiroiken

Adventurer
For some classes, level 1 and 2 feel very VERY generic.
I felt this a lost opportunity for 5E. During the playtest, they kept talking about how level 1-2 was the apprentice tier. This gave the impression that most characters will start at level 3, unless the DM wanted to run the apprentice tier. If this would have been the case, they could have fixed much of multi-classing by spreading the abilities (such as proficiencies) across all 3 assumed starting levels, so that the 1 level dip wasn't as amazing as it is now.
 

Sabathius42

Explorer
Always...however I am going to introduce a "multiclass or feats but not both" house rule for my next campaign to try to keep the characters close to the power level the game assumes they will be at.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
I would chosen "restricted or modified" if it was an option. It's extremely rare for feats to be dissallowed but common enough that some feats are banned or changed to warrant that answer.

That is awsome. :D
The only feats I alter at my table are GWM/Sharpshooter. Everything runs as-is and hasn't had any issues for our game play. My only change to those two is a pretty common switch from -5/+10 to -Prof. Bonus/+2x Prof. Bonus just to get a little of the "boom" and swinginess of it out of it at earlier levels.
 

Burnside

Explorer
I allow them, but as a DM I also always use point buy or standard array, which means players often, but not always, opt for ASIs over feats.

I also don't tell new players about them. If players are engaged enough to actually read a PHB and want to use them, I'm happy to allow them. If it's something I as DM introduce without the player asking for it, it's a good bet that the feat will end up being one more ability that player will forget their character has and/or need me to explain over and over again during sessions.
 

Advertisement

Top