Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 6614686" data-attributes="member: 5100">Feats are not necessary by any stretch. They add some options, though. As a GM, I rarely bring up feats unless I know a player has a vision of their character that won't be met by the base rules (my wife's swashbuckler). Instead, I just talk as though there's an assumption of using the ability score improvement. I don't argue with the players about feats, though; I have nothing against the feat mechanic, just the arms race from 3E. I think WotC struck the right tone with feats in the PHB. They're de-emphasized and presented as an optional rule, but they're in the core rule book and have a well developed list out of the gate.My experience is that 3E players will not forget about feats. I think one of my players has his full 20-level feat chain mapped out at 4th level. I haven't had a conversation about it, because I really don't care; the 5E feats are balanced with the ability score increase, IMO. We also invited my daughter to play, for the first time. Other than one feat (Tough, because it amuses us that the dragon-blooded sorcerer has the most hit points in the group), I expect her to stick with ability score improvements for most of the campaign. The other players are somewhere in the middle, and I figure they'll split pretty evenly between the two options, maybe favoring ability score increase.5E feats are nice for flavor, but there aren't the stupid chains like 3E had. There's also a fairly limited list of options, especially since one feat tends to have three(ish) related abilities. They just aren't as critical as earlier editions. Also, they are different enough that I would never try to directly port a feat from an earlier edition. You could do one that was &quot;inspired by&quot; something from 3E, but it could be equivalent to either an entire chain or a watered-down single feat. Totally different measure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 6614686, member: 5100"] Feats are not necessary by any stretch. They add some options, though. As a GM, I rarely bring up feats unless I know a player has a vision of their character that won't be met by the base rules (my wife's swashbuckler). Instead, I just talk as though there's an assumption of using the ability score improvement. I don't argue with the players about feats, though; I have nothing against the feat mechanic, just the arms race from 3E. I think WotC struck the right tone with feats in the PHB. They're de-emphasized and presented as an optional rule, but they're in the core rule book and have a well developed list out of the gate. My experience is that 3E players will [U]not[/U] forget about feats. I think one of my players has his full 20-level feat chain mapped out at 4th level. I haven't had a conversation about it, because I really don't care; the 5E feats are balanced with the ability score increase, IMO. We also invited my daughter to play, for the first time. Other than one feat (Tough, because it amuses us that the dragon-blooded sorcerer has the most hit points in the group), I expect her to stick with ability score improvements for most of the campaign. The other players are somewhere in the middle, and I figure they'll split pretty evenly between the two options, maybe favoring ability score increase. 5E feats are nice for flavor, but there aren't the stupid chains like 3E had. There's also a fairly limited list of options, especially since one feat tends to have three(ish) related abilities. They just aren't as critical as earlier editions. Also, they are different enough that I would never try to directly port a feat from an earlier edition. You could do one that was "inspired by" something from 3E, but it could be equivalent to either an entire chain or a watered-down single feat. Totally different measure. [/QUOTE]

Verification