Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 6614484" data-attributes="member: 12460">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.Edit: A lot of people have asked me what I mean by "necessary." The simplest way to define it in this context is "would you view the inclusion of feats as a prerequisite for playing or running 5e?" Another way to think about it is whether or not you have players or a DM in your group who have either assumed feats are part of the game or never questioned whether or not to use them.As an additional note, for those of you saying you are using feats, but that they are not necessary, why are you using them if you do not believe them to be necessary? Was it by popular demand in your group? Is it just because they are in the Player's Handbook and you believe everything in the Player's Handbook ought to be fair game? Did you wish to use them as a DM for NPCs? Do you feel there is a gap in the game if feats are not there? In other words, are feats truly optional in 5e or is everyone coming to the table with the expectation that they are going to be used?Finally, I'd like to add an analogy if I may. Suppose you were to stat up Drizzt Do'Urden, one of the most iconic characters in D&D, as a PC. Would you find it necessary to give him the Dual Wielder feat to accomplish the flavor of the character? Or would other aspects, like him being a ranger with the two-weapon fighting style, or his possession of Icingdeath and Twinkle (his signature swords) be sufficient to describe him in terms of stats? (Personally, I think the ranger's two-weapon fighting style sufficiently captures the character enough so that the feat is just redundant. In fact, I think his weapons are more important than his fighting style, but that's just my opinion. What's yours?)</blockquote>

Verification