D&D 5E Lets Discuss Feats. Do you like them? Plus, some questions!

[Sword of Spirit]

My only concern is that is seems that the two classes that get the most ability increases (and thus most options to trade them for feats) seems to be the two classes taht just need one ability anyway, while many classes that rely on having at least two abilities with high values only have to do that with five increases (and are thus at a disadvantage when it comes to also wanting feats). That is mostly just an impression I have, maybe it will not bother me as much when I actually play for long time and have seen how it really feels when having high level characters.

That's part of the class balance. A fighter will have better stats (or more feats) than other classes. It allows him to max out his primary stat and then drop extra points into Con for more hp and saves, or Wis for saves, or Cha for social skills, etc.

The only thing I don't like is Crawford adding rule changes not in the book after the fact. I'm starting to reach the point where I plan to ignore what he has to say other than rules clarification for truly unclear rules. Not adding crap like "You can't cast a reaction spell when you cast a bonus action spell in the same round." Something I didn't see anywhere in the book and is him making up a rule on the fly that shouldn't exist.

Actually he said in the same turn, not the same round. That is according to the normal rule for casting spells with a bonus action as found in the Basic Rules and PHB. You can cast them in the same round.

and actor really grates my cheese because it 'allows' you to do something that you should be able to do without the feat, and therefore implies that you can't do it without it.

Agreed! I completely overrule such nonsense. I don't think feats or class abilities have any right to override the basic rules for ability checks and action resolution--especially since the only way you'd know that you need such a special feature to do that is by reading that special feature. I tend to say that the feats or class features either allow it to automatically work in most situations, give it advantage on rolls, or both.

 

[MoonSong]

I am not a big fan of feats. People say they like them to differentiate characters but in my experience it is a tool to make characters more powerful. As far as feats go I like 5e feats more than other edition feats.

In certain hands that might be true. But experiences are hardly universal. For example I doubt any of my characters has ever been really overpowered because of feats, in one case I ended up wasting a feat by training my sorcerer in halberd use, as I later multiclassed into paladin, which wasn't my original intention, but the plot drove me that way. Anyway, carrying that around and using it to combat was fairly cool, and marked my PC as an individual, even later I had a quite different brand of paladin because if it all. And among my favorite feats in 3.5 was Stigma, a way to hurt yourself long term for the immediate welfare of the party.

In 5e I like the feat that lets you grab battle master maneuvers, in order to give my healbots commander's strike, so I can get away with being more harmless and weaker without the others having to suffer for it. or you know using the magic intitiate to let my sorcerer have a familiar and a couple more of utility cantrips -because you kind of need to dedicate some of them to combat it seems-, or to patch that same class with the feat granting weapon proficiencies so I can still go with spears, sickles, maces and hammers so I can use my spell choices into fun stuff instead of combat. Not all players are the same, just because the people you play with are into optimization doesn't mean people defending the customization aspect are hypocritical or covering a hidden agenda. Unless you have clear evidence that most of the enworlders who defend feats for customization actually actively indulge into optimization, you are being unnecessarily harsh.

 

[SirAntoine]

Without explaining where you learn them, they can be a little off. Classes that need ability score increases in two or more abilities would also be at a disadvantage, so the feats should be something everyone learns automatically, without having to use an ability score increase instead.

 

[Connorsrpg]

I noticed a couple of posters wishing there was a way to get feats at 1st level. Did they check out our Flaws Page?

 

[CapnZapp]

Classes that need ability score increases in two or more abilities would also be at a disadvantage, so the feats should be something everyone learns automatically, without having to use an ability score increase instead.

I disagree.

Making you abstain an ability increase in order to take a feat is what makes it possible to have such flavorful and desirable feats. The cost is high so the benefit can be substantial.

Having to choose between ability increase and feat creates an interesting decision point to building your character.

And it seriously makes any "feat tax" go away: few feats are so mind-blowingly good that you can argue you "have" to take it, now that doing so means not taking an ability increase. (This argument doesn't hold well once you've reached 20 in your primary stat, which is why it's such a good idea to restrict starting character scores to 15)

I also like how each feat makes a real impression, much like some previous posters have explained. In order to make each feat do this, having a great opportunity cost in the form of an ability increase is a huge design help.


The problem with MAD classes requiring more high ability scores can be solved in other ways that doesn't touch feats.