D&D 5E Some feats/options are removing cool mechanical features of the game

[Madeiner]

Hi there.
This is a little rant about some mechanics of 5e, which has some cool features that can add to the depth of the game that rarely get used, mostly because of feats.

I feel that some feats (and possibly other options) are mandatory in order to have a character that is in line with the expected power level of the game.
Let me explain: the game has detailed (-ish) rules about cover/concealment and long distance fighting. Yet, if you are a ranged specialist, you basically HAVE to take sharpshooter (it's the best ranged feat you can get). That means you get to completely stop thinking about cover, movement to get around it, and distance to your target.
If you are an archer player, you are likely interested in the tactical ramifications that cover can have. Yet, if you are to be effective, you basically need to ignore them all.

Also happens with crossbows. What's the point of having the loading quality, which requires a different attack pattern (shoot/reload) and allow for some tactical thinking, if crossbows are completely underpowered unless you get a feat (that is, again, mandatory if you want to use crossbows effectively) that removes that tactical aspect?

It's like they said "hey, lets make a weapon that is a bit different from the others, that makes you consider loading time. Oh, but of course it's useless unless you find a way to remove that loading time".

I'm sure i can find other instances of this, even if i don't have anything on my mind right now.
Heavy armors are a minor offender: have you ever seen someone with low strength using a str-requiring heavy armor? No, and it's not an option, because the penalty is so big nobody would think about cost/benefit.

I think i read a thread in the past, where basically people said that when you get better at something, you get to think less about it, when you really are interested in the thing you are specialized in. Maybe it's the same issue (i can't find the thread).

Feats should mechanically enrichen the thing you want to do, by allowing you to think more about it, and do more with it, not less.

If i'm interested in archery, let me take a feat that allows me to choose different types of arrows for different situations, in order to be more a more effective archer while allowing me to think about more "archery".
If i'm interested in hiding, let me take a feat that makes hiding more interesting, by giving more obstacles that i can surpass in order to be better than someone that does not have the feat. Don't just say i can hide without cover. That's boring.
A Great weapon master should be given the option to use different weapons in different ways, so that he has a reason to think more about weapons!

Am i alone here?

EDIT:
Here's a random feat that i thought up in 5 minutes, just to show a concept.

Rifle expert:
You are an expert at using rifles and guns, and can prepare special ammunition for them.
At the end of each round, when you reload your gun, you may select a type of ammunition to load.
Heavy shot: advantage to hit, range reduced to 20/40
Pellets: your attacks are now a 15 foot cone in front of you
Tracing ammo: deals less damage, but negates disadvantage at long range. Also, you cannot benefit from concealment or hiding in any round in which you are shooting this ammo.
Subsonic ammo: deals less damage/disadvantage to hit, but you can shoot without giving away your position.

I believe this concept is way, way better than "ignore cover, add damage". (don't look at numbers/details)
You get to do more and be better, but only if you start thinking about what ammo you want to use next round.
Everyone else not interested in gunnery still use the normal rules. The one who takes the feat instead, is saying "hey, i like guns". The feats says "hey, here's some new tools so you can play with guns more"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think you're missing a couple of things which might change your perspective. Trust me, the game works perfectly fine without the inclusion of feats.

In regards to archery and cover, the penalty for partial cover (-2) is directly offset by the benefit of being a trained archer (a Fighter or Ranger with the Archery style). The only reason why Archery gives a bonus to hit, while no other style does, is because you will frequently be in situations where you would otherwise be affected by cover.

Crossbows are simple weapons, and work extremely well for both Clerics and Rogues (who aren't proficient in longbows anyway). You don't need to overcome the Loading limitation, because the weapon isn't meant to be used by anyone with the Extra Attack feature.

If you are using feats, then it is definitely an issue that most concepts have one or two feats that clearly make them more powerful. It's not usually an interesting choice, because the one or two feats you'll want should be extremely obvious. This is a typical problem of any game with feats in it.

 

[MarkB]

I think you aren't totally off the mark, but you're also making assumptions for other people that may not be justified.

I'm fairly sure there are a lot of people who take these feats specifically to make their job easier, and they should stay as they are for those who want them. But that's not to say that introducing other feats which add tactical depth to characters wouldn't be a welcome addition. It sounds like a neat idea.

 

[TerraDave]

I agree with the core premise.

Since pretty much their inception, feats where seen as "a way to break the rules without cheating". I also think this is a problem. Albeit not a new one.

 

[Argyle King]

I think the "problem" with some of the feats is lack of granularity.

Without Sharpshooter, attacking at range can sometimes be tough. With Sharpshooter, you're suddenly ridiculously good at dealing damage from far away; especially considering how easy it is to hit monsters in 5E.


That being said; even without feats, ranged weapons are good to have. Consider the range of a crossbow compared to melee. How many turns are you shooting while the melee guy is still trying to cross the battlefield? It's also worth noting that you can carry a preloaded crossbow. A tactic I employed along with a friend's character was to work as a team with two crossbows. He'd shoot; hand me a crossbow. On my turn, I'd load the crossbow and hand it back to him. Then, on his turn, he'd fire again.

In theory, you could also put a crossbow on a sling and carry multiple. Action: shoot; drop crossbow; equip second crossbow

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think the "problem" with some of the feats is lack of granularity.

Without Sharpshooter, attacking at range can sometimes be tough. With Sharpshooter, you're suddenly ridiculously good at dealing damage from far away; especially considering how easy it is to hit monsters in 5E.

It's definitely a trade-off between this implementation and what they had in the 3.x era. We lose granularity, but we also don't have to deal with micro-managing feat progressions over the course of a character build.

Even within this system, there are still trade-offs to be considered. Sharpshooter isn't necessarily an obvious pick, even for an archer character, because you need to balance that with +1 to hit and damage and initiative and Dex saves. The archer who takes +2 to Dex instead of Sharpshooter is going to be somewhat more impressive all the time, at the expense of not being quite as awesome in extreme circumstances.

 

[Argyle King]

It's definitely a trade-off between this implementation and what they had in the 3.x era. We lose granularity, but we also don't have to deal with micro-managing feat progressions over the course of a character build.

Even within this system, there are still trade-offs to be considered. Sharpshooter isn't necessarily an obvious pick, even for an archer character, because you need to balance that with +1 to hit and damage and initiative and Dex saves. The archer who takes +2 to Dex instead of Sharpshooter is going to be somewhat more impressive all the time, at the expense of not being quite as awesome in extreme circumstances.

You have some good points.

I suppose it's a matter of taste.

Still, my opinion is that sharpshooter is one of the best feats. If you take Archery style, you're already at +2 to hit. Sharpshooter takes away cover's usual effects; so now you're up 2. Not taking the DEX bump puts you down one, but you're still effectively at +1 above what you'd normally have. So, in reality, you're only taking a -4 penalty for a possible +10 to damage.

Is -4 a big penalty? Sure, but this all assumes you never find a magic item or get a DEX bump from anything else.

I'm not a power gamer, so I dont know the odds or dps ratings or whatever. All I know is that it appears to work out pretty well in play. The Wednesday game I'm in has two rangers both using Sharpshooter, and it's not uncommon to see an enemy killed before the enemy is anywhere near either of them. One player is a fighter/ranger Halfling using the combo of stealth for advantage, Champion Archetype, and Archery style with the Hunter Archetype. The other is a single-class beast master ranger who uses his bird animal companion to Help for advantage.

As for granularity... I have a few ideas, but I don't yet have them mentally hashed out enough. One idea is to base the penalty on your proficiency bonus and the damage boost on (proficiency X 2).

 

[Psikerlord#]

I believe a common house rule is to remove the -5/+10 mechanic from both SS and GWM because it is OP. You then get a more competitive spread of interesting feats.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm questioning whether feats like Sharpshooter and GWM should even exist in 5e. If you want to get an extra bonus to the main thing you're already good at, well, that's what the ability points are for.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm questioning whether feats... ...should even exist in 5e.

There is, after all, a reason that feats are present as an optional rule rather than as an assumed default.