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

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

but the fighter can always take something they want, even if it's not as powerful as +1 to hit and damage. When you give them options that are comparable to +1 to hit and damage, they just because way more powerful.

You have convinced me. The problem with D&D5 is that Fighters are way too powerful, especially compared to spellcasters. Something must be done to rein them in, and getting rid of Feats is an excellent beginning.

Anyway,

Ken

 

[Sunseeker]

I always allow feats, powergaming, creativity, whatever.

Short story is some classes are way too dull without them, and the option for players to not use feats if they don't want to is always available.

 

[discosoc]

Feats are one of the few ways to mechanically customize what your character is special at (unless you're a spell casting class, then you have the flexibility built in). I think one of the mistakes 5e made was in simplifying the options for feats, rather than expanding on them.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You have convinced me. The problem with D&D5 is that Fighters are way too powerful, especially compared to spellcasters. Something must be done to rein them in, and getting rid of Feats is an excellent beginning.

"Getting rid of feats" isn't a thing. You just don't take the active step of adding the feats option to the base game, which doesn't include feats by default.

The base game is relatively fine, especially in terms of power level. Fighters and casters are both very useful, and can contribute meaningfully, in their respective capacities. Adding feats increases the power level of all characters (which they don't need, given how pathetic the challenges are in this edition), and it skews the balance in favor of any build in direct proportion to how many useful feats happen to have been published which support it. Feel free to add the feats option your game anyway, if your preference for customization outweighs your preference for balance or elegance of rules, but you should be aware of the cost you're paying whenever you're changing the rules.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To use or not to use feats

--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The greatswords and arrows of outrageous optimization
Or to take arms against a sea of options
And by opposing end them.

I am removing feats this next time around and as far as I can see there should be no problems,

Heck, there should be fewer problems.

but I do have some concern for the fighter. I see people post here that without feats, the fighters really suffer.

They suffer with 'em. If anyone feels that strongly about it, they simply won't play a fighter in your campaign, right? :shrug:
but, if you are concerned on that point, you /could/ let the fighter (only) take feats, with either of it's two 'bonus' ASIs, only. That makes feats into a de-facto class feature of the fighter.

I don’t see it but I am open to hear the logic. Anyone here have more experience with and without feats?

I run for AL tables with feats in use and a Variant Human with just the right feat can certainly make a definite difference at low level. Outside of AL I run without feats and have seen no particular issues directly attributable to the lack (for instance, in one case there was a particularly sucky fighter - it had nothing to do with lack of feats, but with an inability to roll higher than 12 on 4d6-drop-the-lowest).

Feats may be optional, but I believe that the game is balanced around assuming they are present.

The game is designed to be theoretically balance-able around a 6-8 encounter day, beyond that, we're kinda on our own (and without that, feats aren't going to help).

I guess we need another thread on to use or not to use spells.

We do. I'm really thinking that removing slots entirely could create a pretty fair low-moderate magic game. Cantrips for combat, rituals out of combat.

 

[Caliban]

In general, I prefer more options when it comes to character building. I've always played with feats (since 3rd edition).

But, some players (and DM's) have trouble keeping track of things when a character has a lot of moving parts to it. They don't want to do a lot of math or remember which of various class features or feat applies to this particular situation. They'd rather spend their mental energies keeping track of plot points, character relationships, or just interacting with the NPC's.

If a lot of people in your group are like that, then it's probably best to leave out the feats and multi-classing.

 

[Sunseeker]

In general, I prefer more options when it comes to character building. I've always played with feats (since 3rd edition).

But, some players (and DM's) have trouble keeping track of things when a character has a lot of moving parts to it. They don't want to do a lot of math or remember which of various class features or feat applies to this particular situation. They'd rather spend their mental energies keeping track of plot points, character relationships, or just interacting with the NPC's.

If a lot of people in your group are like that, then it's probably best to leave out the feats and multi-classing.

I'd like to point out, as a DM I run on the honor system and explicitly tell my players that your character is YOUR character. Without something sounding seriously out of whack or another player calling shenanigans, I'm not going to spend any time worrying about my player's characters. I've told them the rules. Everyone gets one fair warning to play by the rules, after that it's the boot.

You're right that DMs don't have a lot of mental energy left after what is required to DM, but I feel that no DM should feel obligated to track all the parts of a player's character. If they trust that person enough to play with them, they should trust they're going to play the game right.

If however a player appears to have difficulty with tracking how their character works, I think every DM should be able to take some time, at least once, to realy sit down with them and help them out, or at least have a knowledgeable player do so.

I honestly beg the question of how well once can DM if they don't have a strong mind for "lots of moving parts".

 

[Greg Benage]

A player who wants diversity is obviously better off with Feats. Sure, that Battlemaster longbowman is going to take Sharpshooter and Dex 20. Now he's all of level 8, with 4 ASIs remaining.

Yeah, he gets the next one at level 12. Too bad the campaign is over by level 11.

Without feats, he's got Str 20, Dex 16 and Archery fighting style. He can fight effectively with a greatsword, sword & board, or a longbow. He can wear heavy or medium armor as the situation requires. He's versatile. He's a fighting-man, not a super-specialized archer with Str 8.

 

[Caliban]

I honestly beg the question of how well once can DM if they don't have a strong mind for "lots of moving parts".

That is not at all what I said.

 

[FrogReaver]

It could be play style, but I have allowed feats in my games. The players did have struggles from 1^st – 3^rd levels but after that they really started playing well above their actual level. The balance tends to weigh in favor a great deal toward the players. They were at 5^th level taking out 7-8 level (by the book) encounters without serious danger.

I am removing feats this next time around and as far as I can see there should be no problems, but I do have some concern for the fighter. I see people post here that without feats, the fighters really suffer. I don’t see it but I am open to hear the logic. Anyone here have more experience with and without feats? Do you add feats to your monsters or play them out the MM by the book?

It typically takes about 4 ASI's to raise both str and con or dex and con to 20 each. That puts a fighter at level 12 to get there and level 14 before he will notice he doesn't have anything to put another feat in. I think at that point there are a lot of houserules you can give to the fighter. Possibly more action surges. Possibly a higher strength or can cap. You could possibly give him some interesting out of combat abilities at the levels where he gets the extra ASI's that other characters don't get.

All in all if fighters are all that is holding you back then it won't be a problem for a long time and even when it is there are plenty of solutions.