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

[Sunseeker]

I don't know. If the DM isn't setting DCs to "counter the experts" so that I could accomplish things without needing proficiency and a 20 in my stat to have a decent chancd with skill uses, then a champion could be loads of fun, and the extra ASIs could go to my Wis or Cha and still be effective.

You're suggesting the game should be mediocre or less challenging because some classes are poorly designed and can't hack it while other classes can rock it either way?

Some classes need feats. Some classes don't. Lets not kid ourselves on which classes these are.

A Cleric, Druid, Bard or Wizard is an Expert with or without feats (in 5E i'd probably include Barbarian and Paladin too). They don't need feats, multiclassing or any of the additional splat material to be rockin. They don't even need to be level 20 either to get there. These classes will stop the normal DCs and they're completely annihilate DCs that are lowered for "the poor kids" classes.

Indeed, seeing as I've found that my gnome battlemaster's starting Dex, Str* and Con are effective enough I would likely be upping my Cha and Int first in a featless game. It should help me contribute more to the rest of the game beyond combat.

Okay? The contribution of stats to a game, especially from a fighter, especially in non-combat portions of the game, doubleplusespecially in Cha-based areas is absolutely meaningless. Sure, you might not get suckered by the local shell game as often, but you're not even going to touch the Rogue's contribution to any of the face-skills, much less the Bard.

I mean enjoy your character however you want, but don't try to sell me a bridge on it.

 

[snickersnax]

I only allow feats for Fighters and Rogues. Fighters get a feat at level 6 and 14. Rogues get one at level 10.

 

[Satyrn]

Okay? The contribution of stats to a game, especially from a fighter, especially in non-combat portions of the game, doubleplusespecially in Cha-based areas is absolutely meaningless.

Even if I had a high Charisma and proficiency in several Charisma based skills? When the Rogue has focused on stealth, and the bard has chosen to be a scholar?

Or if the bard has chosen to be the face, I don't see why my fighter would be a useless scholar if I upped Int and chose knowledge skills. Unless the DM is setting all the DCs so that Expertise is required.

So that's why I advised (I think I advised this anyway) that the DM not set the DCs on skill checks so that Expertise is required to be successful.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Not to get too statistical or abstract, but you can really reduce every option (ability score or feat) to a number in order to rate their total effect on the game. Multiply the magnitude of each bonus by the number of times the bonus applies, and that gives you a value that directly reflects the impact of that option. Advantage is worth +5.

For example, if your fighter takes +2 Charisma as their option, then the net benefit is equal to 1 (the magnitude of the bonus) times the number of Charisma checks that fighter will make before the end of the campaign (maybe twice per level, as a rough estimate), so its final score would be 24pts if you take it as your level 8 option.

As another example, if your fighter wants to take +2 Dex at level 8, then its value is equal to 1 times the number of attack rolls the character will make with Dex after level 8, plus the number of damage rolls they will make after level 8, plus the number of initiative rolls and Dexterity saves and Dexterity-based skill checks. As a rough estimate, that's probably about six times per round, times twenty rounds per level, times twelve levels, for a final score of ~1440pts.

If you're using feats, then you have the choice to take Resilient for Wisdom instead of +2 Wisdom, and their values can be compared to determine which is objectively better. The flat bonus is equal to 1 times the number of Wisdom saves and Perception checks and Insight checks you'll be making, so that's probably on the order of a few dozen; let's be generous and say that's 50pts. The feat gives you half of that value (from the +1 to Wisdom) plus your proficiency bonus multiplied by the number of Wisdom saves you attempt. If you have two Wisdom saves per level, at an average of +3 proficiency to each, then you're already coming out ahead at 97pts.

It gets worse when you consider something like Skilled, and compare it to just increasing the relevant stat outright. If you want to play a fighter with social skills, the difference between +1 to Charisma checks and +proficiency to Deception/Insight/Persuasion can be an order of magnitude. I'd estimate the impact as going from 50pts to 500pts.

The "goal" of the character creation mini-game is to maximize the value of each choice. You want to take the things that will increase your over-all chances of succeeding by the most. Even though the simple formula I suggested fails to account for the relative weight of checks (failing a Wisdom save is usually worse than dealing one less damage), and even though there's no way to get exact numbers until the character is retired (and even that would involve a lot of record-keeping), the basic mental process should still be enough to get a general feeling for which options have a bigger impact on the game. Multiplying a small number by another small number (Charisma +2) is less valuable than multiplying a small number by a large number (Dex +2) or multiplying two medium-sized numbers (Skilled or Lucky). Almost nothing is worth as much as increasing your prime stat, but having access to feats allows you to keep taking moderately-valuable options instead of forcing you into lower-value options - feats directly and quantifiably make your character more powerful. (Great Weapon Master is almost unique in that it does compare favorably with Strength +2, since -5 hit and +10 damage is still a net gain over +1 hit and +1 damage, and other Strength-based checks are rare.)

 

[Sunseeker]

Even if I had a high Charisma and proficiency in several Charisma based skills? When the Rogue has focused on stealth, and the bard has chosen to be a scholar?

Or if the bard has chosen to be the face, I don't see why my fighter would be a useless scholar if I upped Int and chose knowledge skills. Unless the DM is setting all the DCs so that Expertise is required.

So that's why I advised (I think I advised this anyway) that the DM not set the DCs on skill checks so that Expertise is required to be successful.

But you really only prove my point. In order for a Fighter to be good at a "Face Skill" he has to try and even then he has to really try. The Fighter class does not provide proficiency in any Face Skill except Intimidate. So, you're either A: multiclassing (unlikely if your table doesn't run feats) or B: picking a background that gives it to you.

A Rogue or Bard can get proficiency in Face Skills without multiclassing and without taking a background. But if they did take a background, they're going to be better at those Face Skills than you, because they're designed to be better at it.

Your argument basically breaks down to: In order for me(the Fighter) to be good at Face Skills, everyone else has to choose to be bad at them.

Even then, for a Fighter to be good at Face Skills, assuming stats are finite resources and you cannot have a 20 in everything, you have to allocate your points away from what the Fighter was designed to be good at (hitting things and being hit by things). A Rogue, or a Bard does not. They can choose not to be a Face, and still walk away with good scores in Face Skills.

BUT (and this is a big butt!)​

I agree with not setting DCs with the expectation of expertise. Fully agree there.

But I'll add that AMT (at my table) I like to treat Proficiency more like 4E "Trained". So that people like you who want to be the Face will always be a step ahead of people who are just naturally inclined towards a task. I will at times even limit certain attempts to people only with proficiency, because I value the effort that people like you made to make your Fighter a Face, against all the odds, when McStabby the Rogue just happens to be good at it.

And I feel that is a better solution than artificially inflating the DCs. Just raise your DM hand and say "No, due to Bob's extensive training, only he can attempt this." I will even sometimes give different DCs to different players based on their backgrounds. McStabby may be more inclined towards lock-picking and thus a DC 18, but Joe the Wizard took the Locksmith background and he comes from a family line of locksmiths so he gets a DC 14.

But this is also why I don't tell players the DC they need to hit.

 

[Satyrn]

So . . . now I'm really confused. I was telling the OP that a fighter in a featless game would be not be unduly hindered by placing his ASIs in the not-combat ability scores. Then I suggested he could help ensure that by not inflating DCs to "challenge" expertise.

You're running your game in the way that I had suggested: let the character with proficiency be good at those skills.

You've even provided a more detailed description that expands on my suggestion with your giant but!

What are we arguing about?