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

[doctorhook]

Options are fun for players, and help them feel like what is on the sheet matches what is in their mind. I don't see myself taking any options off the table across the board. Except Dragonborn, they are uh.. not to my taste.

Generally, more options are better. Unfortunately, feats pre-5E don't make a great case for allowing an endless selection of minor choices that mostly tend not to make a difference by themselves.

I'd rather see WotC publish twenty meaningful, worthwhile, self-contained, flavourful feats for 5E than two hundred forgettable, underpowered, behind-the-scenes mechanical ones. I want each and every feat to make a significant difference to the character.

 

[Nagol]

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!

Not really. The point of stat bumps is to keep up with the opposition as you level. The critters will be built to assume better PCs every 4 levels or so.

"But Nagol! How can the developers know what to expect? I hear someone cry into my monitor."

Simple. They'll assume a character starts with something similar to the base array spends the first 2 of three bumps getting their primary stat to 20 and two more are spent somewhat optimally raising AC and saves a little bit. That gives a bit of wiggle room in case players are building different things, but gives a decent basis for designing challenging opponents.

 

[Nebulous]

I think you are ignoring the fact that, broadly speaking, players like having stats that go up as characters advance, as part of character growth. Stat bumps are there for that reason. Then, feats are used instead of stat bumps, in part to handle the bounded accuracy - you don't want feats *and* a stat bump, or the numbers start getting too big.

Or....strip out bumps AND feats and allocate them solely to magic items that the DM hands out that replicates them closely. Personally i like the feats and plan on using them. I'm glad that there are far fewer than 3e.

 

[Emerikol]

Except, as others have pointed out, the stat bumps are standard, and feats are optional. So, you have it backwards. The stat bumps are standard, and feats are there for people who find stat bumps boring, but want to keep up with their bumping brethren.

You are making an assumption about how the world works that I don't believe is true. I do not believe the way the rules are created necessitates your interpretation. I believe simplicity is another powerful factor. Yes they could have put nothing in basic but then the fighter would be weakened relatively so then you'd have to add some special rules. Instead, they put stat bumps as defaults and feats as optional. That has nothing to do though with their ultimate motives. It's completely logical that their motives are what I said they were and the end result rules.

If you can't see that then I do see it so we are at an impasse. Not sure where we go from here.

 

[beej]

By default, I won't tell my players that they can use feats.

If they ask me if they can use it, though, I'll let them.

I'll probably do it this way since some of my players aren't really into customizing builds, while others are very invested in it.

ADD: I think stat bumps should be kept in. Fighters get more statbumps compared to the wizard - I feel like removing it gimps the fighter.