D&D 5E Question about feats in 5e.

[jaelis]

It would be interesting to actually know what fraction of games in the real world use feats and what don't. I doubt that the ENworld community is very representative.

That said, my impression is that the majority of people in the ENworld community do play with feats. So if, for instance, you are making a guide on ENworld, then probably it ought to include feats.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I quite like feats in 5e. Gone are feat chains and I do not miss them.

To me adding an ASI just makes me better at stuff I can already do. A feat on the other hand could also make me better at something I already can do, or it could let me do something new!

Take Tavern Brawler for example. I don't think anyone would call it overpowered, but it can completely change the playstyle of a character, but perhaps more importantly it helps change the idea of a character. It's easily one of my favorite feats.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Feats are fun.

Plus they're an easy way to add customization to a campaign. A friend is running a game where the sun god opposes magic, and therefore there is a small chance of spell failure whenever you cast a spell while in sunlight (there are a few exceptions). He added a feat that allows a caster to designate a handful of spells that ignore this penalty, as a result of being attuned to the moon (and the moon goddess, who is the patron of magic). It's by no means a powerful feat; but it does tie my bard more closely to the campaign world and beg the question of what is his relationship to the moon goddess? Is he a worshipper, or simply one who has been blessed by her? (I'm still working that out; he's replacing my previous character who was Donjon'd last game.)

Besides, there are only a handful of feats that might be too powerful with the right setup (Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, and MAYBE Polearm Master). It's easy enough to ban or tweak those feats to suit your preferences.

I'm not suggesting that all groups do or ought to use feats. Do whatever's fun. These are simply the reasons that we use feats in my groups.

 

[Mephista]

Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are really the only problem children as far as I'm aware. Crossbow Master and Lucky provoke some dislike based on the nature of their abilties granted, but that's a preference call more than breaking the game, imho. Polearm Master is generally only quoted a problem when combined with GWM.

Though, honestly, I see more people paring Polearm Mastery with Sentinel and Heavy Armor more than GWM in my games. Something about holding the line appeals to my players, I guess, more than pure damage.

 

[Immoralkickass]

Because feats are fun. You hate fun, don't you?

Honestly, can you tell me a +1 mod to your ability score is more interesting than a feat? Feats are a way to customize characters. The feat you take tells me more about your character more than any mechanic. It rounds out the character that you envision.

For example, a super vigilant guy would have Alert/Observant, A natural leader guy would have Inspiring Leader, a guy who hates mages would have Mage Slayer, etc.

I guess we assume feats are in because it seems to be the norm. I personally have not met a DM who disallows it yet, and I would not want to play at his table if i do. Because if he disallows feats, who knows what else he might ban. I want a DM who is my friend, not my discipline teacher.

 

[tuxedoraptor]

I am not a discipline teacher. I just have followed one motto for a very long time when running D&D games and it hasn't failed yet: balance before fun. Any game can be fun, not every game can be perfectly balanced. Cutting feats out of the equation means one less tool to break the game and one less source of a headache. The only reason I haven't cut guidance yet is because I can't figure out what to do with it. Otherwise I would have thrown guidance into the dumpster where it belongs.

 

[Sunseeker]

I am not a discipline teacher. I just have followed one motto for a very long time when running D&D games and it hasn't failed yet: balance before fun. Any game can be fun, not every game can be perfectly balanced. Cutting feats out of the equation means one less tool to break the game and one less source of a headache. The only reason I haven't cut guidance yet is because I can't figure out what to do with it. Otherwise I would have thrown guidance into the dumpster where it belongs.

Well yes, mathematically, less options typically means more balance. Assuming the remaining choices are balanced themselves.

It also means less mechanical creativity and versatility.

Personally, I wouldn't ever play a martial character in a game without feats unless the game was severely restricted in levels.

 

[Immoralkickass]

I am not a discipline teacher. I just have followed one motto for a very long time when running D&D games and it hasn't failed yet: balance before fun. Any game can be fun, not every game can be perfectly balanced. Cutting feats out of the equation means one less tool to break the game and one less source of a headache. The only reason I haven't cut guidance yet is because I can't figure out what to do with it. Otherwise I would have thrown guidance into the dumpster where it belongs.

Then you are wrong. You assume the game is balanced without feats, but removing feats actually make the game more unbalanced. Fighters and most of the pure martials are severely nerfed without them. The gap between martials and magic users widen.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I am not a discipline teacher. I just have followed one motto for a very long time when running D&D games and it hasn't failed yet: balance before fun. Any game can be fun, not every game can be perfectly balanced.

I would argue that if the game is fun for everyone, balance is irrelevant. You don't play games to have a balanced time.

 

[Wulffolk]

I prefer players to choose Feats over ASI's.

Absolute balance and parity between character's is boring.

Diversity and creativity are the seeds from which fun sprouts.

If every choice were perfectly equal then there really would be no point in choosing. At that point why bother playing at all.

Think of it this way . . . If every football team had a perfectly balanced roster, then all teams would end up with an 8 win and 8 loss record, or maybe even just 16 ties. Why both watching, when the Cleveland Browns and the New England Patriots are exactly the same. Instead of the Super Bowl they can play in the Mediocre Bowl, or the Meh Bowl.