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

[Ancalagon]

I don't use them in the campaign I am running, with a few exceptions.

While feats do allow for more options, they also increase the gap between great and suboptimal choices, resulting in an effective *reduction* of options.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Wiseblood]

I use feats in my game. I feel that it adds a layer of customization especially for non magic users. Spells are imo limited use feats. If you do not like the feats written. I would recommend talking to your players and maybe coming up with your own feats that really make the characters unique and bring them closer to the players concept. It is not so different from making a custom magic item or monster. The feats as written are like a springboard for ideas. When they are what you want, great. When they are not, mine them for all they are worth.

 

[Snoring Rock]

It is funny that it is an OPTIONAL rule, but there are those who would call it "denying" them if I choose not to. No one would be denied anything. I like the idea of keeping it as simple as possible, and without them, there are fewer reasons for disagreements or different interpretations of rules. That said, increasing monster HPs is a good option I have not thought of. More options for PCs is certainly good, but how many come with a little bit of a price. Thanks for all the input and ideas!

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I wasnt sure if I would allow feats in my LMoP run with a table with players with different level of optimization capacity. In the end I allowed them because I found they added flavor to existing characters and were less boring than straight +X to a stat. I even made a whole compendium of feats with those from the PHB, the ones from Feats for Skills and Feats for Races UA and even reflavored those of AiME to make them fit the different race in my setting. At level 4, the barbarian went for GWM and the bow guy for Sharpshooter, nobody cared for the feats that added flavor. Next campaign I wont allow them because my table only use them to powergame their chatacter.

 

[Snoring Rock]

I wasnt sure if I would allow feats in my LMoP run with a table with players with different level of optimization capacity. In the end I allowed them because I found they added flavor to existing characters and were less boring than straight +X to a stat. I even made a whole compendium of feats with those from the PHB, the ones from Feats for Skills and Feats for Races UA and even reflavored those of AiME to make them fit the different race in my setting. At level 4, the barbarian went for GWM and the bow guy for Sharpshooter, nobody cared for the feats that added flavor. Next campaign I wont allow them because my table only use them to powergame their chatacter.

That has been my experience is that it becomes a shopping spree for power-gaming. That can be fun no doubt, and it has killed flavor and setting at my table in the past.

 

[Immoralkickass]

It is funny that it is an OPTIONAL rule, but there are those who would call it "denying" them if I choose not to. No one would be denied anything. I like the idea of keeping it as simple as possible, and without them, there are fewer reasons for disagreements or different interpretations of rules. That said, increasing monster HPs is a good option I have not thought of. More options for PCs is certainly good, but how many come with a little bit of a price. Thanks for all the input and ideas!

You are denying fun by banning feats. Feats are fun, and a good DM does not need to ban feats for the sake of balance. Not saying you're a bad DM, but you are the god of your world, you have all the power at your finger tips, you have plenty of ways to challenge your players even if they take the so called OP feats. If you look at Matt Mercer or Matt Colville, they are very generous in terms of empowering the players, whether its magic items or interpretation of rules. Some examples would be: Mercer allows casting 2 spells using bonus action and action in the same turn, and Colville allows a full attack action from the Haste spell (instead of just one weapon attack). Colville mentioned that he knows he is bending the rules, but he lets the players have their fun, because he knows how to get back at their characters later.

I'll give you another example in my session. I had 2 players who took Sharpshooter when I was DMing a one shot. They steamrolled through most of the fights, until they reach the BBEG wizard. Every time they took the -5/+10, they would miss because the Wizard would cast Shield. They soon figured out that they were never going to touch him if they keep using that. The fight was certainly challenging for them, as 2 players were unconscious, but in the end they prevailed. This is me not only allowing feats, but also giving them one free feat, and allowing them to cherry pick one uncommon magic item. I'm not bragging, but just to drive home the point: You have plenty of options when it comes to challenging your players. Let the powergamers powergame, let the players have fun. What are you afraid of? You are the DM, you got this.

I still respect your decision if you chose to ban feats for simplicity, but you shouldn't be afraid of disagreements with your players, as long as you can explain your decisions/interpretations, whatever they may be. Just remember.... FEATS ARE FUN!!

 

[Warpiglet]

Do whatever feels right for your group.

For myself, I really like the added flavor some of them offer. When I want to play a variant human fighter/sorcerer I like being able to start with magic initiate because it meshes well with the concept. It really not powerful but I like the flavor.

I like being able to play a more armored up warlock (blade pact particularly) without having to multiclass. No one is going to tell you my single classed warlock is too powerful because of scale mail! However, I wanted an armored arcane magic user. Feats allowed it.

What I have found is that the difference in power is negligible in cases in which characters are not rolled or perfectly optimized.

Respectfully, the problem could be more of players having a style that is different than yours. I have found lots of tension in trying to take feats over ASI when I did not start with Godlike stats. For example, I want to play a Mountain Dwarf melee sorcerer (single classed). I would like to use a maul or greatsword and kick up my 15 str tp 16 (weapon master) but I also have a 14 Charisma. A 16 would be nice especially when I eventually get the Charisma bonus to fire damage.

If I started out with high scores either through having many dump stats or rolling high, feats are less of a tough choice.

The other thought is: the DM should make things appropriately challenging. If characters abuse their options in your opinion, turn up the heat. The DM can always win an arms race if that is the issue.

Lastly, if you like clean lines and more simplicity, just don't use them. Be prepared for some players to be less excited about playing though.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I wasnt sure if I would allow feats in my LMoP run with a table with players with different level of optimization capacity. In the end I allowed them because I found they added flavor to existing characters and were less boring than straight +X to a stat. I even made a whole compendium of feats with those from the PHB, the ones from Feats for Skills and Feats for Races UA and even reflavored those of AiME to make them fit the different race in my setting. At level 4, the barbarian went for GWM and the bow guy for Sharpshooter, nobody cared for the feats that added flavor. Next campaign I wont allow them because my table only use them to powergame their chatacter.

On the other hand, for an archer and a great weapon wielder, those feats are kind of the most flavourful. I mean, I do ban them, but I can see why players might want them...

 

[Gadget]

Feats have been the bugaboo of the past couple of editions, and the 5e ones are not particularly well designed. I have found that games with feats often contribute to a power gaming, min/max build type of play; though a lot of this is on the players. That said, the average fighter does benefit more from feats than the spell heavy classes, and the pseudo-multiclass feats do add some flavor, especially in a game without multiclassing. What I have done in the past for a more old-school feel is to place the benefits of a certain feats into magic items acquired by characters: a suite of magical plate armor has heavy armor mastery built in, a shield has shield mastery, special boots have mobility, etc. This gives more flavor to magic items while keeping feats in check, though obviously will not be for everyone.

 

[Ancalagon]

The balance problems are not between the party and the gm... they are within the party. If the party is more powerful, make the foes more powerful. Done. But if it's between the party members, all sorts of problems are created

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app