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

[Bryk]

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.

Well, I think that's the issue they are trying to address with Basic. New players should 100% start out with a basic, and even then probably a pregen. Once they learn how to play, maybe make a custom basic. Then by their third character once they get a feel for it then perhaps add the PHB AND feats.

 

[Umbran]

How about you?

I think I'll wait to see the actual PHB, and the actual feats, before I make any decisions.

But, in general, just as I am not a one-game person, I am not a "one set of options" person. I don't usually designate things as always or never. Once I see the feats, I'll choose on a campaign-by-campaign basis whether I'll use them. Same goes for any particular optional rule.

 

[Mirtek]

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!"

Good that you don't scream it out loud. DR equal to Con mod is worth much more than +1 hp/level from +2 Con. Getting a free attack every crit/kill is easily worth as much as +1 hit/damage from +2 Str

 

[Thalionalfirin]

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!

I'm really hoping this is the case.

I may give everyone access to one feat at the beginning just to give people a chance to customize their characters a little bit.

I want my players characters to concentrate on what their characters accomplish, not what their characters can do mechanically.

 

[Agamon]

I like what came in the playtest, so I'll be allowing them. The bigger, less frequent, less necesssary feats are better than what has come before.

 

[jadrax]

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.

True, but that kinda messes with Fighters and Rogues who get more Feats/Stat Bumps than Clerics/Wizards.

 

[Emerikol]

Let me clarify.

I did say and stand by the comment that the primary reason for that stat bump option was so that players not wanting to use feats could stay in the game with the feat users and not feel like they didn't get something.

Of course, I am not saying that as DM you wouldn't have to account for the lack of feats in setting up your challenges. Your PCs will all be a bit weaker. If you feel the fighter is made too much weaker because of extra occurrences then you might have to tweak that a little.

I've never really felt the balance of the game was that precarious. I'm not balance obsessed at all. I could probably just ban feats and stat bumps and carry on and my group wouldn't notice the difference. Some of you may feel that doesn't work for you because you are not as tolerant of small differentials in balance. If so then you might have to figure out something. You could just compute the number of extra feats a fighter would normally get and give him those stat bumps at character creation.

 

[Mercule]

I expect that I'll use feats, but I'll present the attribute bump as "core" with feats being something to customize with. Context is important. If it's presented as feats being assumed, but stat bumps if you want, then the players will tend to take stat bumps only after they've searched through every listing of feats known to humanity and come up dry and/or confused. I've only got a couple of players who really want complexity, anyway; the rest would prefer to keep it simple. Those who want complexity don't need to be told it's there. Those who want simplicity tend to do whatever is presented as "default", even if they're creative in character personality.

Note: I'm talking about mechanical complexity. IME, there is little to no correlation between the two except that brand new players tend to possess neither (which I find totally unsurprising).

I'm really hoping this is the case.

You could probably get away with it, with a couple of caveats.

Only remove the standard bumps. The extra feats/bumps the fighter gets, for example, are part of the class balance against other classes. If you left in stat bumps for the fighter, or gave them a +1 attack or damage with a weapon of their choice, it'd probably work out just fine. Maybe some tweaking could be done to find the right balance. Or, just make feats fighter-only. Depends on how committed you are to eliminating feats.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Let me clarify.

I did say and stand by the comment that the primary reason for that stat bump option was so that players not wanting to use feats could stay in the game with the feat users and not feel like they didn't get something.

I'll admit I am still not understanding this. Based on what we've seen, feats will be optional -- an opt-in that the DM has to allow. Stat bumps are default rules: if they are absent from the game, it is because the DM has disallowed them.

Given that, I don't see how stat bumps can be defined in terms of keeping pace with the people who use feats. Why is a default thing helping people keep pace with a thing that won't be in many games?

Perhaps that's clearer.

 

[doctorhook]

If the final feats are anything like the ones in the recent playtests, then the best thing to note in favour of %e feats vs. 3.5E feats is how few of them the average character is likely to have. If 5E feats continue to have approximately the same scale and scope of influence on a character as in the playtest, most characters should be easily manageable. It was always the fiddly bits that'd kill ya.