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

[Barolo]

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.

Not at all. As I have stated, we practice even more restrictive rulings regarding what goes in our gaming table around here. Nothing unfair or badwrongfun in that.

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

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

The thing is, the same way a DM can decide that feats and multiclassing are in or out, or that in their campaign only a handful of feats are available, or that some specific multiclass combination is out, they can also decide that access to the raise dead spell is restricted to clerics of life and death deities, or that elves don't exist in their homebrew, or whatever. That there is no labeling on these other game options hasn't prevented gaming tables around from doing just that.

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.

It seems to me more of a marketing strategy (which, of course, is part of game designing) decision than a "system engine" design decision to label some non-essential elements of the game as optional but not others. And I point Adventurers League as evidence, as there, the optional and unassumed feats are actually legal. I could even say that getting rid of racial penalties to ability scores, or that the average range of ability scores giving positive modifiers are a marketing strategy too.

Let me clarify my position. If a set of (non-essential) rules are likely to turn off a part of the gaming community, but suppressing these rules could upset other part of this same community, just label them as optional. Folks who like these options will add them and never care about the label, but folks who dislike don't need to do anything in the game. This is exactly the same, to me at least, as to present these same rules without any label, and letting the folks who dislike them to ban these options (as I already do with a lot of other options in the game), but for somebody else, the first scenario might feel more comfortable, as it avoids the negative of subtracting something from the game.

Similarly with ability scores, if PCs had smaller numbers (from, say, smaller racial bonuses or even because of racial penalties, and resulting in overall smaller modifiers that go deeper into negative territory) and monsters had proportionally smaller numbers, the game could be exactly the same. After all, the difference between a -2 modifier and a -1 modifier is the same as the difference between a +1 and a +2. But negatives seem to upset people, so just adjusting the whole baseline mathematics of the game up (by making positive modifiers more common but also inflating monster HPs, for instance) seems to make everybody happier.

Oh, and I am not criticizing any of those design decisions, it seems they work quite cleverly from a marketing standpoint while not really affecting gaming experience in any significant way.

 

[Ancalagon]

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.

This paragraph confuses me. Wouldn't feats increase prep time? Characters take longer to design and the DM has to work harder at making challenging encounters... what am I missing here?



Sent from my SM-G930W8 using EN World mobile app

 

[Horwath]

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

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

Any DM who claims that he is DM only without feats and multiclassing is no true DM

 

[Miladoon]

Feats, no feats, I have run both. Now I use a limited feats list.

Besides Skill Feats from the UA article, I allow these:

Alert
Actor
Dungeon Delver
Durable
Inspiring Leader
Keen Mind
Linguist
Lucky
Magic Initiate
Observant
Resilient
Ritual Caster
Skilled
Skulker
Tough

Essentially removing combat feats:
It is pleasing to see players get into the other two pillars and immerse their characters into the political and social plots and hooks.

Feats are not fun, magic items are fun. When I drop phat loots, the items make sense to the environment and are not based on player entitlement. I am not limited to dropping to a specific combat build, for instance.

I get more mileage from my monsters in combat and more mileage in what I drop.

YMMV

 

[hawkeyefan]

Let me preface this by saying that I don't really have a problem with feats, generally speaking. I allow them in my game, and their impact has not been negative at all.

But I have seen issues with feats in the past.

What's the difference between a Fighter with GWM and a Greatsword and one with a Greatsword but no GWM feat? There are two ways to look at it. Mechanically, the GWM feat gives the -5/+10 option to that Fighter. Narratively, though, there's no real difference....both are Fighters using a Greatsword and likely fulfilling the same role within their respective parties.

So the difference is purely mechanical. Sure, we can say that the mechanical difference is representative of some kind of advanced training with the Greatsword...but I don't know if being reckless is really some form of advanced training. Views on that will vary from person to person, I'm sure.

But really...what variety has been added here? Don't the two Fighters play exactly the same? It's just that one may do some more damage from time to time. Is that really variety?

Once you create a feat that allows one character to do more damage than another, that's a potential issue. It certainly depends on player perception...but there are many players who will see that feat as a necessity. That doing less damage than a GWM Fighter means that his character is not "optimized".

So when this happens, some players start to view certain feats as "required", which then, somewhat paradoxically, removes options.

I think it would be better to have feats that have other combat effects rather than just an increase in damage. Maybe knocking a target back 5 feet on a hit with a great weapon, or grappling a target with a whip, or something along those lines. This will actually make the character function a little differently than similar characters. That seems more like the variety everyone seems to think feats promote.

Why not simply allow ANY Proficient character using a Great Weapon to have the -5/+10 mechanic at his disposal? Make that a product of the weapon?

Because the damage boost feats don't alter the way the character actually functions.

 

[Warpiglet]

I hate to offer an incredibly conditional recommendation but it is what it is.

1. If your group does NOT power game, feats should be OK

2. If they DO power game, feats could be an issue

I believe that standard array and feats do not ruin balance. A player may only take a few feats lifetime OR have low-ish stats at high level. If they have low-ish stats, I do not think that things like greatweapon master will make up for it. If it does, there will be an exploitable deficit somewhere--which is fine! GWM is not a big deal if you are charmed or asleep or whatever.

If you roll high and have feats and powergame, I can see an issue. But even still it might not be bad if there is no multiclassing.

My biggest concern is rolled stats, with multiclassing, with feats with powergaming. That combination can get nutty. Drop one of these things and feats are less of an issue.

Frankly, without powergaming as a focus, you can pretty much have all the other without messing up balance IMHO. If I take a variant human for example, I like to take magic initiate if they are going to take a spell casting class later. I like the whole to be present from the start from an RP and flavor perspective. That is a big downer for me to have to explain a sudden magic ability later in the character's life.

Currently, I want to take a Mountain Dwarf Sorcerer that spams greenflame blade and Booming Blade with metamagic later on so he can hit with it twice. I am going to have a hard time improving strength and charisma and con. In fact, it won't happen. I really can take maybe two feats lifetime if I want to improve in any of these areas. Think of it---I might have only a +2 in my two big stats. Since I want the flavor and effectiveness of elemental adept (for fire with greenflame blade and his forge inspired flame powers!) I cannot take an ASI until 8th level.

I would be sad if I could not take elemental adept and I do not think this is a game unbalancing decision. I may take that or the much reviled weapon master. It would allow me to hit with a maul and improve my strength to a 16. If I take both feats, I am not improving any ability until 12th level! I may never get there and 16th is even more doubtful.

TLDR: I think the combination of things with feats and playstyle can be problematic. In the right group, not having feats is a loss of customization that some people like me really enjoy but do not abuse. Talk with the group...consider jointly agreed upon limitations as needed.

 

[Miladoon]

...

Why not simply allow ANY Proficient character using a Great Weapon to have the -5/+10 mechanic at his disposal? Make that a product of the weapon?

...

Exactly. I would rather redo the weapons chart and add 'specials' for weapons. Base it on proficiency bonus. So a character proficient with weapon would unlock specials as their proficiency bonus increases.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What's the difference between a Fighter with GWM and a Greatsword and one with a Greatsword but no GWM feat? There are two ways to look at it. Mechanically, the GWM feat gives the -5/+10 option to that Fighter.

Not all it does, no, just the controversial bit. But, it is significant in that it is an additional option for a class that's decidedly short on options, so there's that...

Narratively, though, there's no real difference....both are Fighters using a Greatsword and likely fulfilling the same role within their respective parties.

Narratively the one with the feat mows through lesser foes faster, and can 'bring it' vs big-but-not-invulnerable (high-hp/low-AC) monsters.

So the difference is purely mechanical.

Nothing is ever purely mechanical in 5e, natural language sees to that. And, mechanics do support narrative. So a bad-ass greatsword fighter with access to the feat who /doesn't/ take it is less bad-ass than if the feat were unavailable to anyone, but also less bad-ass than the non-fighter who's got some other class feature that synergizes with the style, but can't afford to pick up feats as fast as the fighter.
In a sense, removing that particular feat lowers the bar (pressure) on a greatswording fighter to be as good as other (even hypothetical) greatswording fighters, but also reduces his ability to be as good as other greatswording non-fighters.

It's a dusty little rabbit-hole to go down.

But really...what variety has been added here? Don't the two Fighters play exactly the same?

They do not, no. One has a distinct advantage vs two quite different sets of enemies, and that will inform/expand his choices in play.

It's just that one may do some more damage from time to time. Is that really variety?

By the standards of the Fighter class, yes, a significant increase in versatility/choice/variety. By the standards of most other classes, trivial.

So when this happens, some players start to view certain feats as "required", which then, somewhat paradoxically, removes options.

A real danger. Adding options is nice, adding imbalanced options can net reduce the total number of viable options. 5e design does not seem to generally prioritize balance, and optional rules seem to receive even less scrutiny in that regard.

I think it would be better to have feats that have other combat effects rather than just an increase in damage. Maybe knocking a target back 5 feet on a hit with a great weapon, or grappling a target with a whip, or something along those lines. This will actually make the character function a little differently than similar characters. That seems more like the variety everyone seems to think feats promote.

Certainly wouldn't hurt. That's getting very much into the 3e 'mistake' of making feats 'small'/fiddly/late-blooming/whatever, and the 4e 'mistake' of making up shortfalls in class design with 'feat taxes.'

Why not simply allow ANY Proficient character using a Great Weapon to have the -5/+10 mechanic at his disposal? Make that a product of the weapon?

A 'reckless attack' would be a fine option - since the feats work with weapons as different as big honking greatswords and teeny pinpoint-accurate hand crossbows, why not just open it up to weapons in general?

Because the damage boost feats don't alter the way the character actually functions.

A flat damage boost, like a +2 from weapon specialization or whatever, arguably doesn't change the way a character plays (beyond it contributing a bit more quantitatively, maybe dropping a given enemy a round early some minority of the time), but a trade-off option like -5/+10 does, nor is that the only thing either feat does.


Full Disclosure: All that said, I'm still not inclined to switch on feats in my home games. I'm not particularly miffed about putting up with them when running AL, but, like MCing, they call out 3e more than 1e to me, and my nostalgia sweet spot is closer to AD&D.

 

[schnee]

Let me clarify my position. If a set of (non-essential) rules are likely to turn off a part of the gaming community, but suppressing these rules could upset other part of this same community, just label them as optional. Folks who like these options will add them and never care about the label, but folks who dislike don't need to do anything in the game. This is exactly the same, to me at least, as to present these same rules without any label, and letting the folks who dislike them to ban these options (as I already do with a lot of other options in the game), but for somebody else, the first scenario might feel more comfortable, as it avoids the negative of subtracting something from the game.

It's not the same, though.

Maybe it is the same for a veteran grognard. For new players, the first scenario is much accessible - and often makes the difference between playing or not.

If you start with a small and simple core, people who get curious or bored can easily 'add on' to customize. The stuff that's being added on is clearly not necessary. The game worked perfectly fine without it. If you don't like it, then you can pull it off again and know the game will work.

But, if you take a complex game and then ask a new player to start pulling out parts, it's awful. First, the complexity is daunting, even just to play. Then, when house-ruling, you have no idea if it what you are changing will break, because you don't know if the game functions without it. You don't know what to put in it's place, because you don't know what a functional, simpler alternative even looks like. You could be barely affecting one class and ruining another. You're forced to burn a lot of analysis and time to make it.

Simple + build up is objectively better for new players, and is also perfectly fine for experienced ones. It's just a better way to do things.

Oh, and I am not criticizing any of those design decisions, it seems they work quite cleverly from a marketing standpoint while not really affecting gaming experience in any significant way.

They don't affect the gaming experience of veterans.

For new players the difference is huge.

I know, because half my table are new to D&D. Several of them tried Pathfinder and found it overwhelming and turned up their nose. In comparison, they all really like 5E.

--

If 5E had embraced the ethos of 'be complicated and let them pull out what they don't wan't' then our gaming group probably would have never gotten off the ground, and a bunch of them would still be playing Dungeon World.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not all it does, no, just the controversial bit. But, it is significant in that it is an additional option for a class that's decidedly short on options, so there's that...
Narratively the one with the feat mows through lesser foes faster, and can 'bring it' vs big-but-not-invulnerable (high-hp/low-AC) monsters.

Nothing is ever purely mechanical in 5e, natural language sees to that. And, mechanics do support narrative. So a bad-ass greatsword fighter with access to the feat who /doesn't/ take it is less bad-ass than if the feat were unavailable to anyone, but also less bad-ass than the non-fighter who's got some other class feature that synergizes with the style, but can't afford to pick up feats as fast as the fighter.
In a sense, removing that particular feat lowers the bar (pressure) on a greatswording fighter to be as good as other (even hypothetical) greatswording fighters, but also reduces his ability to be as good as other greatswording non-fighters.

It's a dusty little rabbit-hole to go down.

They do not, no. One has a distinct advantage vs two quite different sets of enemies, and that will inform/expand his choices in play. By the standards of the Fighter class, yes, a significant increase in versatility/choice/variety. By the standards of most other classes, trivial.

A real danger. Adding options is nice, adding imbalanced options can net reduce the total number of viable options. 5e design does not seem to generally prioritize balance, and optional rules seem to receive even less scrutiny in that regard.

Certainly wouldn't hurt. That's getting very much into the 3e 'mistake' of making feats 'small'/fiddly/late-blooming/whatever, and the 4e 'mistake' of making up shortfalls in class design with 'feat taxes.'

A 'reckless attack' would be a fine option - since the feats work with weapons as different as big honking greatswords and teeny pinpoint-accurate hand crossbows, why not just open it up to weapons in general?

A flat damage boost, like a +2 from weapon specialization or whatever, arguably doesn't change the way a character plays (beyond it contributing a bit more quantitatively, maybe dropping a given enemy a round early some minority of the time), but a trade-off option like -5/+10 does, nor is that the only thing either feat does.


Full Disclosure: All that said, I'm still not inclined to switch on feats in my home games. I'm not particularly miffed about putting up with them when running AL, but, like MCing, they call out 3e more than 1e to me, and my nostalgia sweet spot is closer to AD&D.

Fair enough, I focused too much on the -5/+10 mechanic. But I would throw in the additional attack on crit/kill into the same category. It evokes the 1e Sweep ability possessed solely by Fighters.

I stand by my point about the actual play not changing. The Fighter with or without still makes a melee attack. Sure, he can opt for the -5/+10 to be applied, but ultimately, you still get a fighter swinging a huge sword. This is my point....there's no actual difference other than one does more damage, and can get a bonus attack under specific circumstances.

Like I said, I'd make the -5/+10 option available for all Fighters with the right weapon, and also the Sweeping ability. These abilities are kind of extensions of what all fighters do rather than any kind of variance in what Fighters do. All Fighters seek to do damage and drop foes. This is why I'd say a Feat should have an additional mechanic of some sort, one that actually creates some kind of variety in play style.

Now, I say this purely as an analysis and not as a condemnation of the Feat or anything. I don't mind it in my game if anyone wants it.....but I do think that this kind of Feat can have a negative impact on the whole game and on variety depending on the players and the style of play.