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

[Sunseeker]

I think they're expected and I do use them.

I don't think they're necessary to an optimizer, who will go for the best options regardless of what is available. I do think they're necessary for added creativity, especially as the levels progress and they certainly add more to the fighter than the fighter has without them.

 

[ranger69]

I do not believe feats are necessary. If they were not in the PHB the game is still very playable. However, the players and I discussed this before starting the 5E campaign. Some were for using feats, others were indifferent. The weight of opinion for feats meant that they could be introduced. As DM I reserve the right to allow appropriate NPC's to have feats also.

 

[TwoSix]

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.

If we ever get a book of new crunch, I hope "Cocaine Guy" is one of the new feats.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

I get it, but you don't need to be as permissive as me, if you don't feel like it. Feats by themselves don't bring that much weirdness to the table. But rereading your OP, I notice how you worry about loss of flexibility, but I don't see how removing polearm master will make a dedicated halberd player to just ditch it when a flametongue pops up in treasure.

Personally if I was the only weapon user and liked polearms and then the DM kept just giving magic sword after magic sword but no polearms I would start thinking he wants to tell me how to play my character. The truth is, as a DM you can give whatever you want to your players, but you can't force them to like it, if your fighter is just not interested in magic swords -maybe even from aesthetics-, every sword will be vendor trash anyway.

And who knows? maybe the rogue will like the flametongue if the fighter passes it. And bow users aren't likely to want to shift weapons just because, the bow is very iconic as a weapon. If you are still not convinced, then remove the offending feats but leave the rest, not all of them are about combat, many have uses for exploration, and some others bring passive benefits -like the one to train new weapons, or new skills, or ritual caster-. Losing the chance of having those perks instead of the compulsory boring +1 to a key stat is a pity.

Oh, and one more thing, sometimes you just want to build an archer using a non-fighting class, or a polearm user, or a dualwielder. In that case you can't ever get good at it without feats -or multiclassing-. The iconic rapier and dagger swashbuckler isn't possible either -though Dualwielder opens up the more powerful rapier/rapier combo-.

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.

But what if maxing the primary stat itself isn't attractive?

 

[pming]

Hiya.

I chose "No, I do not allow feats, even though I think they are considered necessary by most players", even though I *am* allowing Feats in the current game we are playing. I didn't allow them when we first played, then I allowed them, then I didn't, now for this mini-campaign I'm allowing them, but with some changes. I'm pretty sure my next and following campaigns will be flat out "No Feats".

We are finding them to be a mixed bag. One one hand, if you allow the optional Human thing where they get a Feat at level 1...it can REALLY make a difference. Now that the PC's all just hit level 4 in my current game, they all took a Feat, and I'm not seeing nearly as large a difference...although it does feel like the players are deliberately looking for some way to "make" an opportunity present itself so that they can use their Feat.

For example, one Cleric took the Heavy Armor Mastery Feat. Before, he would work with the other players to plan a means of attack against a room full of kobolds...but now, he just wades in and lets everyone else fend for themselves. I've found the other players change their characters "personality" as soon as they got a Feat. Maybe not on purpose, maybe subconsciously, but there is a definite shift in attitude/choice when their particular Feat may come into play. It is primarily for this reason that I'm not allowing Feats anymore after this campaign.

Actually...I shouldn't say "not allowing". I should say "By default, no...but...". I may allow a Feat to be obtained by a PC, but it will not be a simple matter of "Ding! I gained a level! I'm taking Uber-Feat Number 6!". Feats will be "special abilities that only a few rare individuals/groups/secret-orders/guilds/etc know". If you want to learn one of these things, you'll have to work for it though role-playing...not just killing stuff to get enough XP.

A lot of the Feats will be modified as well. Crossbow Expert, it takes two hands to load...I don't care what the rules say. Any of the -5/+10 Feats will be downgraded to -5/+5 and if used can NEVER be used with Advantage. With Alert, the second bullet point about never being Surprised is nixed. And many other Feat changes.

As far as my group goes... nobody ever liked Feats in the first place (talking about 3.x and PF). I think one of my players didn't much care one way or another, initially, but once we had been playing for a few years even he got sick of them. Alas, it was pretty much impossible to get rid of Feats in 3.x/PF so we were forced to play with them. When some ridiculous combo showed up (usually not on purpose), it was like getting a dozen paper-cuts and then pouring lemon juice on them. Ugh! So, now that Feats are OPTIONAL in 5e, I'm taking full advantage of that and just saying "No!"...mostly.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Thyrwyn]

Curious. The groups I tend to play with (5E anyway) have all been very feat heavy. Not because it optimizes a PC for combat but because they open up options across all three pillars of play - not all of them, true, but a great many of them. Feats liked Skilled, Linguist, Keen Mind, Lucky, and many more. These feats broaden a character's abilities, rather than focusing them. Yes, there are feats that focus a character's abilities or schtick as well (GWM, Sharpshooter, etc...). They let character's shine in one of the pillars (Combat), which gives the other characters space in the other pillars. I have yet to experience any of the feats allowing one character to completely eclipse the rest of the party.

I allow them and see them as 'necessary' (for a more interesting, enjoyable game experience).

 

[ehenning]

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.

Absolutely! I just look at fears as another way to express yourself in the game that isn't strictly stats-focused. Stat increases are general improvements, while feats are more specific.

If I up my DEX from 16 to 18, I'm generally more nimble and quick, and do more damage with finesse and range weapons. But if I take Alert, I'm saying that I am focusing specifically on one aspect of this stat, namely I am always aware of my surroundings. And if I choose Mobile, I'm getting a combination of benefits that are not directly equated with stats.

Like I said, feats add flavor to a character's personality and abilities. At least for me that is the case.

 

[Morlock]

The last system I mastered was 2e, so take this as you will, but one of the things I found most interesting about 3e is the addition of feats. Helps players differentiate their characters and break out of the class mold a bit.

That said, I recently took a brief, closer look at a couple of PF feat chains and found them about 1/2 good, 1/2 absurd. The absurd part being 1) what I saw as an excessive emphasis on feat chains. Just to hazard a guess, I'd think maybe 3 levels is enough. I.e., no feat has more than 1 feat as prerequisite that itself has a feat as prerequisite. And 2) more than a few feats that shouldn't be feats at all. IIRC it was some fighter feat, something to do with being able to treat your target as flat-footed or something. Whatever, the point was it there were like 6 feats the player had to have first, just to be able to buy this feat. It felt like a bridge waaay too far, felt like something fighters should just automatically get if they have the first few feats.

I like the idea of feats, but I also like the idea of keeping them short, sweet, and relatively few in number. And they should mostly go to the classes that don't get a lot of abilities to work with, like fighters. I see no sense at all in giving spellcasters just as many feats to choose from as fighters.

 

[DaveDash]

The last system I mastered was 2e, so take this as you will, but one of the things I found most interesting about 3e is the addition of feats. Helps players differentiate their characters and break out of the class mold a bit.

That said, I recently took a brief, closer look at a couple of PF feat chains and found them about 1/2 good, 1/2 absurd. The absurd part being 1) what I saw as an excessive emphasis on feat chains. Just to hazard a guess, I'd think maybe 3 levels is enough. I.e., no feat has more than 1 feat as prerequisite that itself has a feat as prerequisite. And 2) more than a few feats that shouldn't be feats at all. IIRC it was some fighter feat, something to do with being able to treat your target as flat-footed or something. Whatever, the point was it there were like 6 feats the player had to have first, just to be able to buy this feat. It felt like a bridge waaay too far, felt like something fighters should just automatically get if they have the first few feats.

I like the idea of feats, but I also like the idea of keeping them short, sweet, and relatively few in number. And they should mostly go to the classes that don't get a lot of abilities to work with, like fighters. I see no sense at all in giving spellcasters just as many feats to choose from as fighters.

The great thing about 5e feats is there's a real decision you have to make in taking them. There are a few feats for certain classes that are "no brainers" and potentially unbalanced, but they're very specific. Other than that, for 90% of the time it's a REAL trade-off.

I've spent weeks deliberating over whether to take a feat or not to take a feat, and that's a really good thing in this edition.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

But what if maxing the primary stat itself isn't attractive?

Bump non-primary.