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

[Leatherhead]

They are not necessary, but they are more fun.

 

[Li Shenron]

The question is simple. Do you use feats in your campaign, and do you feel they are mostly necessary, or at least expected by the vast majority of players?

Necessary > Absolutely no, the game doesn't need them. In fact the 5e game doesn't even strictly need a lot of its stuff which isn't labelled as 'optional'. For instance, during the playtest we played without using races, and we had no problem. Feats are explicitly optional so that's even clearer.

Useful > I think they can be very useful for differentiating characters. The important thing is that feats are personal in the sense that they are cherry-picked by each character, and that means they can differentiate between characters of the same class, subclass and race.

If you are undecided, just try allowing feats and tell the players you are slowing down level progression a bit (to have enough time to see how the first feats are working before the PCs can get more) and that you'll decide later on whether to allow more feats or not, next time the PCs earn an ability score bump.

Generally speaking, I don't think feats will cause any problem to the game unless you start having too many of them available, which isn't the case now by far. In previous editions, most issues people had with feats were (1) players taking ages to pick the next feat from a list of hundreds, (2) occasional poorly-designed feats which can be exploited by powergamers, (3) fiddly bits increasing complexity without really improving the game experience. Problem (3) might still be on the table in 5e, so as a DM you should have your say on when it's too much.

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

The players in my campaign love options that allows them to customize and develop their character concepts. As a DM, I never have to care about feats in the sense that NPCs and monsters don't use them. So as long as the feats are not overpowered and players who don't care about feats can pick ability score improvements instead, I'm 100% fine with feats.

 

[Bayonet]

Feats are fun ways to build a niche character. They certainly aren't necessary, but I don't see any reason to ban them. They're certainly not OP when compared to +1 in one or two Ability Scores, so they're not game breakers. I love 'em.

One cool way of using them is to give out magical items that give you a certain feat; A 'Champions Belt' that gives a character the Grappler feat when attuned, A Shield that gives one the Shield Master feat, etc.

 

[Celtavian]

They are not necessary, but they are more fun.

This is my experience.

You can run fine without feats. Your fears are well-founded. Both GWM and Sharpshooter lead to the player being heavily invested in their chosen weapons refusing to use anything else. You don't ever need to give them a magic weapon to be effective. Magic items aren't necessary either. If you allow both feats and magic items, be prepared to modify encounters to deal with them. Many creature CRs, especially for fiends and undead, seem to be based on their ability to resist damage from non-magical weapons. A magic weapon renders their defenses mostly useless. In my experience, magic items seem to imbalance the game more than feats in 5E.

 

[fjw70]

Not necessary. I don't use them when playing with the kids. I do allow them when playing with the adult group but that is just because they like having the options.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The question is simple. Do you use feats in your campaign, and do you feel they are mostly necessary, or at least expected by the vast majority of players?

My Pathfinder group has agreed to end our PF campaign at the end of the year and start up 5e. I am already heavily involved in 5e via the Adventurers League (both home play with the published adventures and Expeditions gamedays) so I've had quite a bit of experience with the system already (as much as anyone can have for a system less than a year old). I do not think feats are necessary for the game. (In fact I don't think any of the variant rules presented in the PH are necessary, but that's not pertinent here). The reason I bring up feats in particular is because it seems to be the main thing my Pathfinder group wants that I do not (3/4 have requested it and the 4th doesn't care). I feel they add unnecessary complication, and in many cases modifiers (crunchy bits). These may shoehorn a character into a niche role (e. g. Polearm Master) which limits the character's flexibility in the future (flexibility being a key feature I enjoy about 5e). I feel this limits my tools as a DM; as an example, I might include a flametongue in the treasure, but because the party fighter took Polearm Master, the item is looked upon as "vendor trash."

Additionally, the whole point of "bounded-accuracy" is to do away with the notion that higher level means vastly higher bonuses, keeping even low-level characters able to contribute. But some feats grant more bonuses (including the dreaded conditional ones: see Shield Master) that fly in the face of this philosophy. I am somewhat concerned that balance might be disrupted (although that is not my primary objection to feats).

It seems the main argument from my players' perspective is that feats allow them to develop a character concept. There are already various and diverse means to specialize in certain styles of play within the races, classes, and archetypes as it is, so I see no need to take specialization a step further. I feel it will dissuade characters from ever trying to use an item that isn't "ideal" for their character.

I think 3e and PF have ingrained in some players that feats are necessary for the game. But 5e is such a different game. The classes and archetypes offer many different options. Styles that once required feats (e. g. Weapon Finesse) are worked into the RAW. One can specialize to a degree (an archery ranger) without feeling that it becomes the be-all, end-all of their character. But add in Sharpshooter, and the bow is in that character's hand almost 24-7.

I believe once the players see the game in play though, they will forget about feats. Only one of them has had any real experience with the system (he is a regular at our Adventurer's League game days). And even though he is one of the three requesting feats, he hasn't leveled a character beyond 6th.

So does anyone agree with me on this, or should I just allow feats and ignore the consequences. I'm willing to be flexible on pretty much every other variant rule in the PH, but I have seen feats in AL play and much prefer running the tables where players aren't using them. My own AL characters don't use feats because I like to keep the game simple.

I think feats are fine with the following modifications:

1. substitute the -5/+10 mechanic for +1 str or dex
2. crossbow expert does negate disad on ranged attacks.

With these two amendments, feats are a great option, imo. Works for us at least.

 

[Shiroiken]

Player's like Feats, and some might say they "need" them (especially if they started after AD&D), but they really don't. Only a handful of feats open up options to make certain concepts work, and you can alter existing rules to allow for it. For example, you can allow a character to draw 2 weapons in the same turn, allowing TWF to work a bit better without the Feat.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I am not sure why you would want to not have them if players would like them. There is the Ability increase OR feats. Stick with the first and all your main scores go to the max's. Not sure why this is considered flexible and okay?

What is wrong with some specialisation in some areas though. Your PC might just want to be know as the best glaive wielder or mounted solder in the land. Feats help achieve this.

I say let players use them, but do not change your DMing (read treasure hoards to suit). Treasure can actually help PCs diversify or consider paths/options they may not have thought to take before finding that flamebrand. And if a polearm guy has a firebrand as a backup so be it. Maybe they can become exceptional with blades AND polearms.

We have NEVER had this problem. treasure is treasure. The bad guys don't know who is going to take it. To make is all useful/exactly what is wanted is ridiculous (at our table). Anyway, 5E supports this further, as you do not need magic +'s to keep up. (Not that we ever saw a prob with other editions either...not number crunchers obviously).

So, I would allow them, but let them know that treasure will not necessarily change to reflect the ever increasingly specialised PCs.

 

[Connorsrpg]

BTW. I voted for the top one. Of course they are not necessary to play. They are necessary for some concepts and the are a hell of a lot of fun and actually allow more diverse PCs.