D&D 5E I think I'll leave out feats

[Stormonu]

After the past couple of games I've had using the M&M 2E rules and looking at how well 5E seems to work without having feats in it, I think even in the future when feats come to 5E (via PHB), I'm just going to ignore them.

Back in 3E, I thought they were the bee's knees. Great ways to customize characters, differentiate fighting styles and allow for character specialization. Now, they annoy me. Can't do X unless you have Y feat. you can't tell what they do by the name - it's like looking up spells in 1E and 2E all over again. And they have become the min-maxxer's heaven. I just don't want to see them back in my game again.

How about you?

 

[Xodis]

Going to wait and see whats done with feats, I really love how they were presented in the playtest material though. Being able to turn my character into an Arcane Archer with a single feat and not the whole "crossclass ultra-spec mk4 TURBO" I needed in 3.5 is AWESOME!!

 

[Thaumaturge]

I'll almost definitely go with them at first, but there are styles of games I might leave them out for.

One possibility is a mix: let each character have no more than 1 feat. This allows for some customization, but severely limits the min-maxing and such.

Thaumaturge.

 

[jadrax]

How about you?

I really hate feats, they were by far the worst bit of 3.0.

However, the 5e ones look o.k., and I really do not like stat bumps, so I think I may well try and encourage my players to take the feats instead.

Dunno, I am quite conflicted right now.

 

[Abstruse]

It's hard to judge without seeing the final form they'll take. Considering how few of them you'll get over the course of a character and what you have to trade for it, I don't think they'll be able to break anything too badly.

 

[GX.Sigma]

This is a tricky issue.

On the one hand, my players like feats. On the other hand, they create problems in play (everyone has to constantly look up what their feats do, wasting time and slowing down the game). For new players, it's even more of a problem: they read that they can increase an ability score or take a feat, and they ask to see the list of feats, and in my head I'm screaming "No! It's not worth it!"

This actually applies to the Basic/Advanced split as a whole, really. In my playtest game, we have a Sorcerer, a Paladin, and a Monk, all using some pretty complex character options, and they're frustrated with how complicated the game is (and I'm frustrated when they keep asking me to look something up, since I'm the one with a laptop at the table)--but then they rebel when I bring up the possibility of using Basic options only.

I'm considering a simple table rule: If you have the PHB, you can use PHB options. If not, you can use Basic options. I wonder how much they'll complain about that.

 

[Abstruse]

This is a tricky issue.

On the one hand, my players like feats. On the other hand, they create problems in play (everyone has to constantly look up what their feats do, wasting time and slowing down the game). For new players, it's even more of a problem: they read that they can increase an ability score or take a feat, and they ask to see the list of feats, and in my head I'm screaming "No! It's not worth it!"

Based on what I've seen of the feats, they're not nearly as unwieldy as they used to be. More proficiencies and bonuses and fewer special abilities. And the ones they have are unique enough you're not going to forget them. For example, Arcane Archer was a feat in the playtest, letting you imbue a spell into an arrow. If you take that feat, you're probably not going to forget it.

 

[Emerikol]

If you ban feats altogether you don't have to give the stat bumps either. The point of the stat bumps is to provide balance against those players using feats.

I like the big feats myself but I think it's totally valid that you can play without them. It will likely bring some positives to your game. It's a weighing of priorities situation.

Good luck with your game!

 

[Kobold Stew]

Assuming the feats end up looking like what we saw in the last play test document, I see no reason not to include them.

I would want to use them myself; if I'm reefing I have no objections to players preferring that to the simple stat-bump. I fully expect that there will be players who never look at feat lists until they have a 20 in their prime stat, and others who will be perfectly happy with the 16 they started with who would much rather individuate their characters through feats.

And the great thing is, both player types can be sitting at the same table in the same game. Even if they players don't take them, I see no reason not to include them in what's available.

 

[Kobold Stew]

If you ban feats altogether you don't have to give the stat bumps either. The point of the stat bumps is to provide balance against those players using feats.

Can you provide a source for this view? Since feats are optional, it seems unlikely to be true.

I'd suggest that "the point of stat bumps" is to provide a balancing mechanism for meeting and overcoming level-appropriate challenges. Feats are an alternative (optional, apparently) way to do that.