Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6662275" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya!Disagreements are what makes life interesting! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Although I have to say, it's not a kneejerk reaction. Originally we weren't going to use Feats at all.  I didn't use them for the first two or three "mini-campaigns" I ran when we were first getting our feet wet with 5e. None of us really liked how Feats worked in 3.x nor in PF...but those systems *forced* us to use them; you can't really play the game without significant modification if you drop all Feats from them.Anyway, we tried another mini-campaign in which I originally said no, but then figured we might as well see if it actually is as bad as we remember (or expected). One thing with 5e...it plays differently than it reads. So, I told them "we can use feats". At 1st level there was only one human. A Thief. Taking the "optional" human stuff (we figured we were allowing feats, may as well allow other stuff too...). Bar none, she *easily* did the most damage per round, at a distance, with Crossbow Expert. She did even more when she was in close combat and could attack with her rapier. The wyr (kinda like a dragonborn) paladin did decent, but couldn't keep up with her damage-wise. It really gave us a bad taste right then and there. If one feat, in one situation could instantly unbalance the whole shootin' match... what would several humans with feats do? What about when they gain some levels and get even more abilities, spells and feats? Not a prospect we looked forward to. In the end, that mini-campaign ended up in a NTPK (nigh-TPK; everyone but 1 died). This current campaign, again, we were hinging towards No Feats. But, again, we decided to use them...but with some major overall "tonal changes". The main one was "You can take it, but it will not make you significantly tougher; feats are going to be basically zero-sum additions to flesh out your character". Everyone agreed, and everyone is happy.In your example, the difference is that the DM, me I guess, would be handing out the +3 sword. I don't have to do that if I see it as being too tough. No point to put a +3 sword into the game if all I'm going to do is "re-balance everything" to make that +3 sword zero-sum. However, allowing Feats is definitely not the same thing. With Feats, I, the DM, have no choice in the matter of if a PC 'gets' some particular Feat. I could just say "no to these feats: [insert list of feats]", but at that point there would likely only be about four or five feats left to choose from. Better to just say No Feats at that point.So...my players agreed to my solution. Feats are in, but don't expect them to make a huge combat (or otherwise mechanical) difference. They are to be used mainly for "flavour and characterization". We take into account story-based benefits from some particular feat. For example, someone with Great Weapon Mastery would really know his Great Weapons; quality, type of material, what region it was likely made, maybe the name of the weaponsmith that made it, how often some particular weapon may have been used, how "skilled" someone wielding one is, etc. Basically, all the really cool non-mechanical stuff that is completely ignored since day one with Feats. Feats could have been really awesome to add depth to a campaign and a character...but the 3e designers figured "Naaa...let just slap on some mechanical adjustments and rules exceptions and leave it at that". Wasted opportunity. *sigh*PS: I'd also hardly call "using a magic sword that doesn't give any bonus to hit or damage"..."screwing themselves". It's magic. That means it's harder to dull/break, maybe it glows, it likely has a past to it, maybe a name, and it can still hit creatures only "hitable" by magic weapons, etc. Just because it's not going to be useful for a better chance to hit and more damage doesn't mean using it is "screwing yourself". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f635.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="o_O" title="Er... what?    o_O"  data-smilie="12"data-shortname="o_O" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification