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

[Blue]

OD&D and AD&D didn't have skills at all in their core books. While 3.x and 4e did, and 5e is a very different game, it has them as well. Why? It was widely seen an an improvement to the game. Feats are the same thing. Not every player will take them, and not ever character that takes them will do so at the first opportunity. But the option to take them I think is necessary.

ASI are small changes to existing numbers while feats are new options and abilities to be unique. A friend of mine hated the "math feats" in 3.x - the ones that gave you a bonus to hit or damage, because they didn't bring anything new. Stat increases are the same level of boring. "Oh look, now I have a +5 instead of a +4 to hit and damage" will make a difference over time, but Actor being able to mimic people effectively opens up whole new avenues. Having preternatural Awareness speaks more to your character than +1 to WIS mod to notice things a bit more and make willpower saves. The second is nothing underpowered at all, but doesn't speak to you like the former.

Not saying that some of the combat ones can't be abused, but that's problems with "a feat", not with the concepts of feats.

 

[ad_hoc]

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.

That's like saying that people enjoyed 1e so we should keep playing it. Some people should and others can play 5e because they like it more.

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.

I started in 2e and I like feats.

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.

It might seem like they get used for system mastery because of the builds that people post and talk about on boards. I think that is the minority of use. I think most people take feats because they are cool for their character.

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.

Yes, I am glad they are optional. That said, it's murky if you want your monk to cast some rituals. How do you do that? Sure you could just say, okay your character now has that ability. I think a feat handles the problem elegantly.

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.[/qquote]

Yeah, they are good for some games and some characters. I am glad they have been included.

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.

I don't use multiclassing. One of the major triumphs of 5e is that it makes multiclassing unnecessary. I have always disliked the idea. I like being able to branch out, but I also think the chassis that each class gives at level 1 should be set in stone. You should only have 1.

I think the good feats generally serve 2 purposes.

1. They allow for a smidge of multiclassing. Armour proficiency feats are great. Ritual caster, battlemaster maneuvers, etc.

2. They allow you to do something that is outside of what classes let you do. Actor, Keen Mind, Linguist.

Feats I don't like are ones that are already covered by classes that just add more to it. They are feat taxes like Great Weapon Master and War Caster.

I am on the fence about feats like Resilient.

 

[redrick]

When I initially started 5e, I intended to ban feats, because I was looking for a more B/X influenced style of play. (Mainly because I was converting over all my old B/X modules.) However, I ended up wanting to let the players stretch out the whole system, so I allowed everything in the PHB. Even Dragonborn, a species I cannot imagine in my campaign worlds.

At 7th level, feats haven't been a big problem. Some of them, like Toughness, are just hacks that give up some offensive power in order to get some more defensive power. Others, like mobility, open up a different approach to combat. Hell, there's a feat that just gives you more skills for the player who wants to be a skill-monkey. I might take that with my Thief in AL, because I enjoy doing all the weird skill-based stuff. These feats will definitely make your character better at something specific, but they won't force the player to completely give up their flexibility.

Pole-arm master, GWM and Sharpshooter type feats will definitely make those weapons much more attractive to the player in question. When I first saw pole-arm master in action, I was a little shocked, because that feat definitely opens up a lot of possibilities for the halberd-wielder. (Though, as with any bonus-action attack, it doesn't scale much as the extra attacks start piling on.) On the other hand, all of my weapon-specialized warriors have put down their feat-supported weapon at some point for the situational benefit of another weapon. Is the pole-arm master fighting in a space too small to properly bring his pole-arm around? He'll pull out a smaller weapon. Is the GWM fighting against a creature with vulnerability to fire-damage? He has a flaming battle-axe as a backup weapon. Double damage on every attack is worth way more than +10/-5. -5 to hit is a big penalty. Obviously, at close range, the sharpshooter is pulling out her short swords.

If you're worried about characters welding their hands to a certain weapon type, just increase the number of situational encounters where one weapon or another is at disadvantage. Don't do it all the time, but just every once in a while. I've also amended all the resistances in the monster manual so that resistances to a certain type of damage affect magical weapons as well as non-magical weapons. (For instance, if a creature is resistant to slashing damage from non-magical weapons, I'll extend that to all slashing damage. If a creature is immune to slashing damage from non-magical weapons, I might give resistance to slashing from magical. Werewolves are immune to damage from non-magical and non-silvered weapons, but I've made them resistant to damage from magical non-silvered weapons.) Your 7th level fighter will realize that he still kicks ass in those moments where he pulls out a longsword and a shield, even if he doesn't get his GWF bonuses.

So. Feats are totally not necessary. But I use them and I haven't had any problems. That being said, the recommendation to not roll stats if you plan to use feats is a good one. Rolled stats almost always lead to a higher prime stat, and once you max your prime stat, the trade-off between feat or ability boost becomes much less interesting. (Or find a way to cap rolls at 15.)

 

[SkidAce]

I like the feats for the purpose that used to be filled by Prestige Classes.

Even Pole Arm Master can be a member of a group trained in such a fashion yada yada yada.

I leave it up to the character, but I highly recommend those taking a feat find some type of affiliation with others with the feat. (Obviously doesn't apply to things such as Alert...or could it?)

 

[fjw70]

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.

Of course you can play the cocaine guy or the stumbling detective without the feats too. I don't see how feats are more RP acceptable than stat increases. Both serve one purpose, to make your character better.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I'd just like to say how grateful I am that the warlock took Spell Sniper in the game I run. Combat runs so much smoother in quick "theater of the mind" fights now that I don't have to figure out if something has cover from her. It was one of those things that bogged the game down as she struggled to choose whether or not to go after a wounded guy engaged with one of her friends or an unhurt one out in the open. Now we can just focus on describing the scene and actions and worrying less about the numbers.

Thus far, no one has taken one of the -5/+10 feats. Then again, there's no cleric in the group, so bless isn't omnipresent.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Feats are a fairly necessary rule for me to play 5e at least, and that's about as close as any rule in any RPG comes to being necessary.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

FWIW, I prefer feats in 5E, but I vehemently hated their predecessors in AD&D Skills and Powers. It's not necessarily about "what you're used to." Some things fit in certain game contexts, and 5E is a different game.

In particular I'd argue that without feats, 5E fighters suffer greatly under the new saving throw system. In AD&D of course this wasn't an issue, fighters got awesome saves over time automatically.

Banning feats would kill my desire to pay a 5E fighter. I'd go mountain dwarf wizard or something instead.

 

[Dausuul]

Necessary for what? They are obviously not necessary to play the game, since you can play without them and people do. I'm not sure what else "necessary" would mean. Necessary for the game to be fun?

 

[Ashrym]

A person could always allow noncombat feats and disallow combat feats. The choice doesn't need to be so absolute.

Feats are not required but they do open up options. The fighter combat medic with a healer kit kind of sucks without the feat.