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

[FrogReaver]

It could be interesting to give players a set amount of "stat points" each time they would receive an ASI and they can save them or spend them whenever they like. Set different costs for different things. Allow some variance in how much feats cost as well.

For example you could get 10 "stat points" each time you would normally get an ability score increase. It would behave kind of like point buy where higher scores cost more than lower scores. Feats like Sharpshooter could cost a lot more than feats like Actor or Linguist. In the new system we may even have it weighted to where Linguist and Actor could both be taken for the same price as Sharpshooter.

It would add more flexibility for a DM to allow feats but to help curtail the "overpowered" ones and give some extra incentive to taking the "bad" ones.

 

[Draegn]

Our "feats" are house ruled and are more akin to shadowrun's positive and negative qualities.

 

[Barolo]

"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.

I know that strictly according to the wording in the basic rulebooks the above statement is correct, but I still find it somewhat curious. What exactly makes some portion of a RPG system optional, or for that sake, non-optional? When I think about how I use the rules of any RPG I play, I could say many rules and options presented are optional, regardless of how they are labelled, as I opt them in or out of campaigns according to my gaming group personal tastes and expectations regarding that specific campaign. In GURPS this issue is self-evident. Back to D&D, when I DM Dark Sun, for instance, I "disallow" several race, class, equipment and spell options based off setting (I also add some options not present in any book), and I also rule out several monsters from the roster of available threats to my players.

It seems ruling some options presented in the basic books to be out of a game to be bothersome to a lot of people, and I believe this is the one big reason feats are labelled as optional, instead of being just present in the book, without any labels, to be ruled in or out according to each gaming table discretion. This way, folks playing at home, that are uncomfortable with, see a problem in or simply dislike feats can rule them out without feeling pressed or bothered that they took something out of the game. After all "this option is excluded by default". Curiously, the main "neutral ground" for playing D&D, adventurers league, allows feats (by default, it seems ).

 

[Barolo]

Edit: Double post

 

[mflayermonk]

You don't have to play the same campaign all the time.

Try a few games without feats and a few games with feats and see what you think.
The advantage of feats is that you can rush through lots of monsters and by 8th level you can handle pretty much everything in the Monster Manual, which lowers your prep time considerably.

The advantage of no feats is you can really get a feel for the classes as designed and build on the archetypes.

 

[Ancalagon]

Feats are counter-productive. In my experience, going from 2E to Skills & Powers and through 3E to Pathfinder, adding character customization options tends to detract from the actual game itself by shifting a lot of focus to the character building mini-game. With basic 2E, players were encouraged to stick with their characters through thick and thin, because the only course of advancement or getting new abilities was through actually playing. As more options were added, I noticed a lot of players looking for any excuse to ditch their current character so they could bring in a new character with a new gimmick; they could get new abilities just by dying and trading out old abilities. With 5E, we have the option of just bypassing that whole mini-game and focusing entirely on the actual game.

Hear hear! I've never seen it as bad as ditching PCs to try new "combos", but the fact that some players saw the game as a tool to prove how awesome their PC was and how better they were at optimizing than others... ugh.

Many classes care about 3 stats: Wizards (Int/Con/Dex), Paladins (Str/Cha/Con), Sorcerers, Warlocks... but the classes that get more than 5 ASIs care about only 2. They need Feats.

This is a good point. I seriously considered, in my campaign, having the "bonus feats/ASI" be *the* way to get Feats. So a fighter could get a single feat at level 6, which made said feat very special.

... However, no one chose rogues or fighters so....

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I know that strictly according to the wording in the basic rulebooks the above statement is correct, but I still find it somewhat curious. What exactly makes some portion of a RPG system optional, or for that sake, non-optional?

In 5E (or GURPS), we don't have to guess, because the books tell us what part of the game is essential to the core and which parts are designed to be optional. In 5E, at least, there are two different parameters by which something may or may not be allowed - some things are not considered to be optional (without getting into house rule territory), but some things are both optional and assumed to be included. They actually go over this whole topic... somewhere... probably in the DMG.

• Feats are optional and unassumed. Never bring a character with feats to an unknown game unless the DM specifically tells you that this option is in effect. Even then, individual feats are still optional, and can be included or discluded by the DM (or setting designer) as they see fit.
• Multiclassing is optional and unassumed, as with feats. The DM has every right to say that paladin/warlock is specifically disallowed, if that makes sense for their setting.
• The class construct is not considered optional. Every single class in the game is individually optional, but assumed. Unless the DM (or setting designer) specifically says otherwise, you can probably play a monk or warlock or whatever.
• The race construct is not considered optional. Each individual race is optional, but only the common races are necessarily assumed. If you want to play a gnome or half-orc, you should ask first. Regardless, any specific race may be disallowed by the DM (or setting designer).
• The background construct appears to be optional, but assumed. You don't have to pick a background, but if you don't, then you still have to pick the features that would otherwise come from your background.

This is the intent of the designers, which they have codified in the rulebook. In theory, that means we should all be on the same page about this, and anyone who assumes feats by default is being a self-entitled jerk. In practice, it operates a lot more like an echo chamber: players use the options they want, and play with others who use those options, so their personal experience teaches them that those options are considered normal, and they very reasonably expect those options by default. It's a type of cognitive bias for which few people practice compensating.

 

[schnee]

I know that strictly according to the wording in the basic rulebooks the above statement is correct, but I still find it somewhat curious.

It's funny you surround 'according to the rulebook' with all these qualifiers like it's some sort of thing you think should be ignored by it being too strict, or too odd to consider. As if it's unfair.

It's a rule book. Rules are strict. That's what they do, they restrict.

What exactly makes some portion of a RPG system optional, or for that sake, non-optional?

Player's Handbook, Page 163
Chapter 6: Customization Options
Multiclassing and Feats:

"Your DM decides whether these options are available in a campaign."

 

[schnee]

To answer the OP, we use feats, from the official books and UA.

Our players have the understanding that if something is too OP, it will get nerfed.

It doesn't really matter, because our table doesn't powergame. It's almost disconcerting...it seems of all of them, I'm the most likely to be the powergamer.

 

[Zardnaar]

Hi,

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

Without feats, rogues and especially fighters take it hard, and are probably never worth playing all the way through. Who needs 6 or 7 ASIs if all you can do with the last few is raise tertiary attributes?

Similarly, the loss of Warcaster totally guts the possibility of trying to both fight and cast spells with your hands full.

The loss of possibilities just keeps going.

Feats are not overpowered. Lose them to achieve old-school "martial characters are boring but solid" (except D&D5 doesn't really support that) and strong (rigid?) niche protection flavor.

I can't quite call the game broken without feats, but I feel comfortable calling it damaged.

Anyway,

Ken

Its more balanced around them notbeing present. People who complain about monsters are to easy and allow feats kind of explains it. The -5/+10 feats, pole arm master, and resilient con/warcaster have massive impacts on PC power.