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

[Wormwood]

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.

You're not alone---well, in theory. I brought up not allowing them, but my players flat-out refused to play without feats and multiclassing. Apparently their character concepts hinge on never being surprised and being able to dip into fighter for Action Surge.

 

[MoonSong]

I just need to say I love Feats, some of them might come as kind of fiddly but most aren't. As a DM I really like to let players have their own characters how they want them, whether a plain champion with zero feats or an Aaracockra Ranger/Paladin/Monk/Cleric with 4 feats. Because well, as long as they don't slow down play with fiddlyness, player characters aren't my business as a DM.

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...

I find your judgment unfair, right now I have a spellcaster who gave up two ASIs for feats, one for sharpshooter and the other for magic initiate -to pick more utility-, I haven't wanted to increase her scores because I would no longer identify with her, are you implying this is munchking behaviour as opposed to someone who used their ASIs to max out dexterity?/Or charisma and just do alpha blast?

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.

Yes, Feats allow you to round down a concept. Or to do cool stuff not normally allowed by the rules, There is a 3-feat combo that lets you dual wield lances! How cool is that!! Or dual wield spears! talk about Timmy moves, it might obviously not be optimal, but I bet it will be fun.

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?

Necessary for the game to be worth it. Don't get me wrong, you can play with no feats, no extra frills and no extra classes and it is still fairly stupidly fun, but if you go out of the way to make the game B/X, why not go and play B/x? or any of the serviceable free clones out there? Just like playing 2e, but bards are not allowed and we aren't using NWPs, and rangers are houseruled to be like AD&D, why not go and play AD&D?

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.

I need time before giving XP, but +1 to this.

 

[neobolts]

In 5e, feats are there if a player has a specific concept the feat helps them represent. Generally, I think the pure stat bump is a better deal. They are absolutely not necessary, but are an option I am very comfortable with allowing.

 

[airwalkrr]

...There is a 3-feat combo that lets you dual wield lances! How cool is that!!

I would argue it is not cool at all, just patently silly. Unless you are trying to run a game where RAW allows you to fly in the face of common sense and historicity or resemble a wacky anime series more than Sword & Sorcery novels, I don't see why this ought to be acceptable on a general basis. But since you don't seem to mind the idea of an Aaracockra Ranger/Paladin/Monk/Cleric, I suppose the former sounds right up your alley.

I didn't bring up AD&D or B/X, but I'll explain why I'd rather play mostly vanilla 5e (no feats and very few other optional rules). I enjoy the old-school roots of 5e with a streamlined system for core mechanics like ability score modifiers, spell/ability save DCs and proficiency by level (as opposed to older versions of the game where every class, ability score, and weapon had an enormous diversity of different tables of rules). It allows for the STORY to be the focus of the game as opposed to the numbers. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy a 50/50 mix of action-packed combat and deep, thoughtful puzzle-solving or roleplaying. But 3e, 4e, and PF all focused the game way too much on the former IMHO, such that I had to cut out portions of the core game. 5e (supposedly) tells me as a DM that there are rules I don't have to use, but when it seems like virtually every player expects some of these rules to be available (for whatever reason), I feel like the game design philosophy of 5e missed the mark. I'd rather have a few more archetypes for the classes that lack more than two (barbarian, druid, ranger, sorcerer) in the PH than rules for feats (and multiclassing) which I feel as a DM I ought to be able to ignore. If they had been in the DMG, I feel that would have been a better design. But including them in the Player's Handbook seems to suggest that they are available by default, and I am having difficulty coming to terms with that.

I feel player characters most certainly ARE my business as a DM, because the types of player characters I allow in my campaign sets the tenor and mood of the game I want to run. As a DM, I ought to enjoy myself as well. Striking that balance between what the player enjoys and what the DM enjoys seems compromised from the DM's perspective when an "optional" rule is viewed as more or less mandatory by the players.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I feel player characters most certainly ARE my business as a DM, because the types of player characters I allow in my campaign sets the tenor and mood of the game I want to run. As a DM, I ought to enjoy myself as well. Striking that balance between what the player enjoys and what the DM enjoys seems compromised from the DM's perspective when an "optional" rule is viewed as more or less mandatory by the players.

I'm sympathetic. Everybody should play at a table that has a compatible style. If the DM/players don't enjoy the same things, you should think hard about finding a different table to play at. (As a DM, this can also mean just saying, "Here's how I run things" and letting the players leave or not.) There's not enough time in the 21st century to play a D&D implementation that you don't really enjoy.

(And yes, I would say exactly the same thing to players who had a DM that banned feats contrary to player desires. It cuts both ways.)

 

[Staffan]

In 5e, feats are there if a player has a specific concept the feat helps them represent. Generally, I think the pure stat bump is a better deal. They are absolutely not necessary, but are an option I am very comfortable with allowing.

My back-of-the-envelope analysis is that +2 to your main stat is probably better than most feats, but once that's maxed feats look more attractive than +2 to a secondary stat.

 

[Syntallah]

Feats shift the balance towards fighters and away from casters.

I think feats are fun and that you mainly see the negative side, and I have included them.

That said, I wish the two -5+10 feats were caught before publication, and I wish there were a few solid feat options for casters (good enough to be considered even before you hit 20 in your main attribute)


One thing though: don't use feats and allow starting stats above 15. Either use the default point buy rule, or make up your own alternate roll for stats procedure that doesn't allow the dice to roll 16 or more. Just a friendly heads-up

I will be enforcing the following rule for my next campaign (have toyed with changing it now, but I only have one PC with the Sharpshooter feat so it isn't out of control yet):

- limit the penalty to hit to a PC's proficiency bonus and double the penalty for the bonus (e.g. a 4th level fighter can take a -2 penalty to hit and get a +4 bonus on damage)

 

[ad_hoc]

I will be enforcing the following rule for my next campaign (have toyed with changing it now, but I only have one PC with the Sharpshooter feat so it isn't out of control yet):

- limit the penalty to hit to a PC's proficiency bonus and double the penalty for the bonus (e.g. a 4th level fighter can take a -2 penalty to hit and get a +4 bonus on damage)

That actually makes the feats more powerful as they start becoming a huge problem after level 11 with the multiple attacks and spell buffs allow for multiplying of damage. Now you can get -6/+12 per attack.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

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.)

Yeah, I'm going with roll 2d8, drop the lowest, +7 (8-15).

 

[Syntallah]

That actually makes the feats more powerful as they start becoming a huge problem after level 11 with the multiple attacks and spell buffs allow for multiplying of damage. Now you can get -6/+12 per attack.

Yes, technically -6/+12 is higher than -5/+10, but think about it: the feat as I intend is less powerful until 13th level when their proficiency bonus finally hits +5, then it is marginally better at 17th level when the proficiency bonus hits +6. By the time that fighter hits 20th level and can use Sharpshooter on all attacks... he's adding a maximum of eight points of damage over and above the feat as written... at 20th level. Critters at that point are going to laugh if they even notice the eight extra points.