D&D 5E To feats or not to feats...

[Psikerlord#]

The section on injuries (DMG, p. 272) details some options for lingering injury triggers and effects (reminded me of injuries in Dragon Age when I first saw it). These options are on the grittier side of things: you've got three chances in twenty of losing an eye or limb, for example, which will require some high level magic to restore.

They don't mention using exhaustion, but it seems like a good alternative if you want some lingering effects for getting knocked out but don't want your party looking like a troupe of wound men by the time they reach level three.

Yeah we use a modified injury & setbacks table if you hit zero hp, to get rid of the whack-a-mole effect that otherwise exists. I do like the gain a level of exhaustion rule too. Serves the same purpose but is simpler.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I will say that removing feats has a pretty big negative impact on higher-level fighters. Once you max out your primary ability (str or dex) the rest aren't all that good, even con. And when you get to Wis, you are really in trouble. And (theory crafting here) that would seem to hurt fighters who get two bonus stat/feats quite a bit.

One other interesting thing (that sucks for me...) is that there just aren't a lot of good feats for a Dex fighter. Once you get the two-weapon one (which is fairly solid with the +1 AC), I just don't see a lot of good options. Lucky, sharpshooter, and defensive duelist are all fine. OK, sharpshooter rocks, but doesn't help with the prime attack mode. It's just that polearm mastery and great weapon master are just a lot better. And with no light armor mastery, there is no great pickup there. I think it works out okay as dex fighter have a lot of advantages over str fighters and the feat options counter balance that a bit. But would be nice to see some options.

I am a big believer in making your own feats. The examples in the book are just examples. If you play a dex fighter, and want some dex related feats - make one up and run it past the DM/table. We have made psionic feats and a whip master feat, for instance, it's awesome!

 

[aramis erak]

So the feat system in dnd 5ed. as most of you have noticed I'm sure, is completely out of balance. Lets consider for example the two feats; Heavy armor mastery and Medium armor mastery. The first is just about the best feat in the game, 3 damage reduction from almost all melee combat hits, really powerful, maybe even "overpowerd". Then look at medium armor mastery, +1 ac IF you already have 16 dex. or higher, and no disadvantage on stealth rolls when using medium armor, but only 2 types of medium armor even confers a disadvantage to stealth rolls. But it gets worse, heavy armor mastery also adds +1 str. the medium armor mastery doesn't. And lastly of cause, lets look at light armor mastery... It doesn't exist...

So, how do you guys get around this, do you just not use feats. Or are you okay with some players stacking all the crazy unbalanced feats on top of each other, when other players don't have access to the same type of powercreep.

Fx. a paladin with Heavy armor mastery, Polearm mastery, Great weapon mastery and sentinel, this isn't even bad roll-play, all of it fits well with a holy knight type character. Put on the other side a viking type fighter, Shield mastery.... and maybe medium armor mastery, he is in chain mail after all, he isn't stealthy and he has 14 dex. since he is a warrior, okay then what about... one handed weapon mastery(non existent), charger (really bad but hay..) ok i'm out of ideas. Maybe keen mind so he always know where north is...

My problem is, since we only have the "early access" to Dnd 5ed. We are in need of a lot of patches... or maybe house rules. What do you guys do?

Dude! He's at least 12th level. He's SUPPOSED TO BE A FREAKING BLOODY BAD-ASS!!!

He should be able to mow down ordinary knights like grass.

I've seen no issues with feats. They do what they are supposed to do - provide a viable alternative to a +2 attribute raise.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's more that adding feats has a strong positive impact on fighters.

Have you noticed that fighters are kind of the star of the show, at high levels? It's because feats are balanced against +2 to your prime stat, so fighters essentially get 4-6 boosts that are all as good as increasing their prime stat. Part of the balance of the way different classes gain stat boosts is that you hit 20, and then you get diminishing returns on any subsequent boosts. Including feats is a choice which removes that balance.

If your game decides to include feats, then you gain the dual problems of 1) Increasing the number of boosts that you have to sink into pure power; and, 2) Penalizing any class that doesn't have multiple useful feats that increase their power.

Eh, yes and no. That is, I have noticed that fighters are awesome at high level; I just haven't noticed them being the only ones who are awesome. Wizards are awesome at turning gold into power; druids are awesome summoners, battlefield controllers (Spike Growth!), and shapechangers; paladins are awesome at nova damage, defense, and healing; barbarians are awesome at tanking in melee; monks are awesome at scouting and mage-hunting; fighters are awesome at fighting. That's plenty of awesome and I'm sure I missed some--I know people who think assassins are awesome for example.

Not including feats prevents fighters from reaching awesomeness, and it somewhat impacts barbarians (no Polearm Master/GWM) and paladins (no Mounted Combatant/GWM), which narrows the number of awesome classes some. I don't know of any classes that struggle to find things to do with their ASIs, so "Penalizing any class that doesn't have multiple useful feats that increase their power" doesn't seem like an issue. There's hardly anyone who can't benefit from Lucky, for example (it's almost as good as Portent), and Alert is universally useful as well. If you can't think of anything else you need you can always take Tough.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not including feats, you probably mean?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not including feats prevents fighters from reaching awesomeness, and it somewhat impacts barbarians (no Polearm Master/GWM) and paladins (no Mounted Combatant/GWM), which narrows the number of awesome classes some.

Like I'm saying, Polearm barbarians and Mounted paladins are way better than greataxe barbarians and unmounted paladins, because they each have an extra feat that gives them a power boost equivalent to +2 Strength. For the characters who don't have a feat that specifically improves their fighting style, they have to diversify into things that aren't as good as +2 Strength.

If you remove feats, then you narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots. How boring is it that every barbarian uses a polearm, because the polearm feat is just obviously way better than anything else? Polearms aren't even iconic for barbarians - they're supposed to use axes.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Like I'm saying, Polearm barbarians and Mounted paladins are way better than greataxe barbarians and unmounted paladins, because they each have an extra feat that gives them a power boost equivalent to +2 Strength. For the characters who don't have a feat that specifically improves their fighting style, they have to diversify into things that aren't as good as +2 Strength.

If you remove feats, then you narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots. How boring is it that every barbarian uses a polearm, because the polearm feat is just obviously way better than anything else? Polearms aren't even iconic for barbarians - they're supposed to use axes.

Hmmm. So you're not talking about classes, you're talking about instantiations within a class? Your perspective is that people choose classes first and then choose fighting style as a secondary concern instead of choosing a holistic package like "fighter/fiendlock" vs. "GWM barbarian", right? Because fighter/fiendlock's offense is almost totally unaffected by the loss of feats, since he leans more on spells.

I do think Mounted paladins are fairly iconic (it's why they have Find Steed), but I take your point about barbarians--although I do question where the axe stereotype comes from. Conan used a halberd in Red Brotherhood to good effect, though he was more of a weapons generalist than a specialist.

BTW the barbarian at my table uses GWM but not Polearm Mastery. He wields a glaive anyway.

 

[Kalshane]

Like I'm saying, Polearm barbarians and Mounted paladins are way better than greataxe barbarians and unmounted paladins, because they each have an extra feat that gives them a power boost equivalent to +2 Strength. For the characters who don't have a feat that specifically improves their fighting style, they have to diversify into things that aren't as good as +2 Strength.

If you remove feats, then you narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots. How boring is it that every barbarian uses a polearm, because the polearm feat is just obviously way better than anything else? Polearms aren't even iconic for barbarians - they're supposed to use axes.

My Barbarian uses a longsword and shield with the Shield Master feat (and I'm planning on going Bear Totem for added tankiness). He's an absolute blast to play.