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

[Snoring Rock]

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?

 

[Diem]

I like feats if they make sense for the character and story. I tend to play more story driven games rather than powergaming.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using EN World mobile app

 

[Immoralkickass]

Its a non-question, yes to feats every time. You are either boring or stupid to deny feats.

 

[cmad1977]

You'll be fine without them I think. I started without and the fighter classes did fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Morrus]

You are either boring or stupid to deny feats.

This is not an appropriate way to talk to other EN World members.

 

[phantomK9]

Not only do I allows feats, I give everyone one a free one at first level. Yes that means humans start with 2 feats.

Honestly, feats are not the problem. They don't really add much more power to the characters. I have several characters in my game who have feats that don't even deal with combat.

No, the real problem is the CR of creatures. They really are not as hard as the CR would suggest. I've found that if I simply add about 20% to 50% more Hit Points to most creatures then the CR is much more appropriate to use as a metric to judge how tough a fight may be.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I tried a campaign without Feats. The players mostly did fine without. I think that, with all the other moving parts in the game, Feats don't add all that much complexity; five fighters with feats is quicker than five wizards without feats, and most parties fall somewhere in the middle. In terms of power, it really depends. I don't allow a couple (Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master). I've seen players take feats that were worthless in terms of power, but very potent in terms of suiting theme (e.g. Magic Initiate Druid on a 4 elements monk who wanted a bit of nature power). They're more interesting than straight number improvements, which is what the ASIs basically give. Many feats open up a style of character, at least more convincingly than they'd be without. For example, the Guy With Shield, or the Slippery Rogue both work better (thematically and mechanically) with Shield Master and Mobile, respectively. Since I don't allow Multiclassing, it's a fairly important tool for my players to mix flavour across classes. However, it's unfortunate that the feats available to casters are fairly dull, and don't really open doors in the same way.

Fighters get more ASIs than others, and I believe that the argument goes that, without Feats, they quickly run out of stuff that's worthwhile; if you're playing a guy with a Greatsword and Platemail, once you've got Str and Con 20, you'll basically stall; raising Cha is fun, but likely not that useful or beneficial for them. In a game with Feats, they could think about Heavy Armor Master, Great Weapon Master, Savage Attacker, Tough, even Tavern Brawler, all as ways to develop the character interestingly and focus on the 'theme' of the character, rather than just raising their numbers a bit.

Overall, I'd suggest that Feats are probably worth keeping on, even if you downplay them for a newer player who is struggling with choices. You want to go without, and I'd say equally that you'll be fine: nothing goes wrong without them. I certainly didn't have any of my players complaining about feeling constrained in the featless campaign, though that was their first 5e campaign so they hadn't gotten used to them.

 

[iserith]

When I want the campaign to feel more super-heroic, feats are available to the players. When I want it to be more gritty, they aren't available. In my one-shots and my current campaign, feats aren't an option. In my upcoming campaign, feats can be "unlocked" by joining organizations because I want to encourage that sort of thing.

Like any other optional mechanic, I strongly suggest using them only when it reinforces the theme you're going for with your campaign. They certainly are not necessary in my experience and no one suffers for a lack of them. I don't given feats to monsters.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I only have one character that has a feat, and that was with a variant human. As a DM, I’ve yet to see feats vs. ASRs dramatically swing the power level of a character one way or another. If your players are cool with it, I don’t see a problem with removing them. Although, since this leaves an ASR as the sole choice, what ability score generation method are you using?

 

[BrockBallingdark]

Never liked Feats and luckly only one of my players is thinking about it, my group is 6th level now and no Feats used yet.