D&D 5E Feats: Do you use them? Are they necessary?

[treps]

IMHO Feats are a thing from the past (3.X, PF) and should no be used anymore, all it does is encouraging min/maxing at the detriment of roleplay (I take this feat because I gain the point in characteristic AND I have a bonus), backgrounds (more like kits in 2e) are great to customize the characters.

That's why I won't recommend using them at all, but if it's what the players want...

 

[Mephista]

Generally not necessary. However, in some cases, I think they are. Ranger and Blade Warlock rely heavily on their buffing spells to do damage as they level, and neither have any method of making good Concentration saves. So, Warcaster becomes a necessity for those classes. There are holes in the design that either feats or multiclassing are needed to patch to not be over-shined*. Or house rules.


*While the vast majority of players don't care about min-maxing, there's a significant portion that do care about having the occasional chance to have a spotlight moment. Being constantly outdone and under-performing isn't fun, which is a problem even if perfect balance isn't.

 

[ehenning]

As someone who is coming back after a long time, and who missed all the fun with 3e and 4e, feats are great ways to add flavor to characters. I'm more interested in RP than in min/maxing my stats. I'll take something like Alert so I can play the guy who seems like he's always just had several lines of cocaine. Or I'll take Observant and play the stumbling detective mage who sees everything.

It's a game. It's how you play, not just what your stats are.

 

[Aribar]

Personally I find them necessary for a fun game and this is probably the closest out D&D edition to doing feats "right", although they're still not there. There aren't many meaningful options to make in combat anyways, so more options besides "I attack" is always a plus. I also find them much better for fleshing out and customizing a character than ability scores, which are detrimental in making the character I want to play. I just wish they went further; take out half the spells and replace that page count with more feats and gain them more often.

 

[Crothian]

We have not used them at all for 5e and frankly no one misses them.

 

[Mercule]

Feats are not necessary by any stretch. They add some options, though. As a GM, I rarely bring up feats unless I know a player has a vision of their character that won't be met by the base rules (my wife's swashbuckler). Instead, I just talk as though there's an assumption of using the ability score improvement. I don't argue with the players about feats, though; I have nothing against the feat mechanic, just the arms race from 3E. I think WotC struck the right tone with feats in the PHB. They're de-emphasized and presented as an optional rule, but they're in the core rule book and have a well developed list out of the gate.

My experience is that 3E players will not forget about feats. I think one of my players has his full 20-level feat chain mapped out at 4th level. I haven't had a conversation about it, because I really don't care; the 5E feats are balanced with the ability score increase, IMO. We also invited my daughter to play, for the first time. Other than one feat (Tough, because it amuses us that the dragon-blooded sorcerer has the most hit points in the group), I expect her to stick with ability score improvements for most of the campaign. The other players are somewhere in the middle, and I figure they'll split pretty evenly between the two options, maybe favoring ability score increase.

5E feats are nice for flavor, but there aren't the stupid chains like 3E had. There's also a fairly limited list of options, especially since one feat tends to have three(ish) related abilities. They just aren't as critical as earlier editions. Also, they are different enough that I would never try to directly port a feat from an earlier edition. You could do one that was "inspired by" something from 3E, but it could be equivalent to either an entire chain or a watered-down single feat. Totally different measure.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Feats provide variety which helps break the 'all members of a given class are the same' complaint.

 

[airwalkrr]

I really appreciate the feedback so far. Please keep it coming. I've read every post so far, and I've given XP to some of the thoughts that were particularly compelling and/or reasonable. I'm still pretty hard on the side of "feats are unnecessary and I don't want to use them." But I feel to be fair to a group where 3/4 players want them I owe it to them to explore this more.

 

[Bayonet]

Honestly, an argument could be made that the Ability Score Increases are more OP and game unbalancing than the Feats. At level 6, my standard array human fighter could

a) know a few tricks with a shield (Shield Master) and be good at taking advantage of any drop in his enemies guard (Sentinel)

or

b) Be equally as strong as a Hill Giant or Hydra,and stronger than most Dinosaurs.

If you're looking for believability or thematically "not-OP" advancement, option "a" is definitely the winner here.

 

[steeldragons]

As someone in the distinct minority according to the poll (and frankly, more drastic than I was expecting. Though truthfully, I suspect, those that do not use them or are not interested in them would be unlikely to read this thread or answer the poll if did), I have to say, "No. I will not allow them." and "They are obviously not necessary." as we had 20 years or so without them and the game worked fine.

Equally obvious, those of a certain mind set and/or style of play and/or were enamored with the systems in which they weren't optional [whether because it was their first experiences -and so it is "the way D&D is supposed to be", in their experience- or simply liked those editions that used them], naturally, will believe them to be "necessary"...or at least prefer them to be used in the game.

They exist to allow those people to have a game -style and flavor and system mastery- that they enjoy and are familiar with. That style is not what I enjoy or am after out of a D&D game. So, no. They don't get used.

Thankfully, 5e had the good sense to say "You don't have to. These are optional." and any kind of specialized character that can be made with a feat can by role-played without them. No, you won't get your +whatever to your shield attack or advantage on your perception check or whatever, but that is not stopping you from playing an "observant" character or someone who fights with their shield or knows some rituals. Just work it out with your DM if that let's you do something unusual in game play every now and again. DMs who can't/don't want to be bothered can say "just use the feat"...others might have some little bonus or boon of their own...or just keep it in mind as trappings/aesthetics.

Now, the other question this seems to poke at or skirt around, it's not the necessity of them in question, but the consideration of "Do they add to/are they 'good' for the game?" and/or "Do they encourage a certain play style, flavor, focus on system mastery that is detrimental, on the whole, to the understanding/experience of a Role-Playing Game of creative fantasy and imagination?"

That is, of course, a much broader question and only answered on an individual basis, with no "true" single answer, and what one considers "good" for one's enjoyment of playing D&D [or any RPG, for that matter] or not.

For me, I don't use feats. I won't using Multiclassing [as written for 5e] either. It is, also, optional (though a much more longstanding concept in the game). I know I'm in the minority (if not the Lone DM, hahaha) on that as well.