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

[Satyrn]

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's interesting. When I was first looking at feats to take for my gnome battlemaster I noticed something. Many of the feats seemed worse for optimization than just taking an ASI. I mean, it might have been because I was using Dex build, but Dual Wielder offered less than upping my Dex. Sure, it boosted my damage slightly more than if I'd upped my Dex, but the AC bonus was equal, and it didn't increase my to hit or my Dex save, or my skill checks.

I just kept finding most feats to be like that. Many of them are not better than an ASI. And they probably do not account for the jump in power you describe happening.

And I believe you'll find that without feats your players' characters will be just as strong as they are with them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I mean, it might have been because I was using Dex build, but Dual Wielder offered less than upping my Dex. Sure, it boosted my damage slightly more than if I'd upped my Dex, but the AC bonus was equal, and it didn't increase my to hit or my Dex save, or my skill checks.

I just kept finding most feats to be like that. Many of them are not better than an ASI.

They are meant to be 'balanced' with ASIs, in general, so an ASI to your primary is probably pretty hard to beat - but also has a cap at 20...

 

[Satyrn]

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.

I don't know. If the DM isn't setting DCs to "counter the experts" so that I could accomplish things without needing proficiency and a 20 in my stat to have a decent chancd with skill uses, then a champion could be loads of fun, and the extra ASIs could go to my Wis or Cha and still be effective.

Indeed, seeing as I've found that my gnome battlemaster's starting Dex, Str* and Con are effective enough I would likely be upping my Cha and Int first in a featless game. It should help me contribute more to the rest of the game beyond combat.




*Well, his 8 strength isn't actually effective for anything except maintaining the verisimilitude of those people here who balk at the idea of the he-man halfling

 

[Caliban]

They are meant to be 'balanced' with ASIs, in general, so an ASI to your primary is probably pretty hard to beat - but also has a cap at 20...

Also, when it specifically comes to Strength, Belts of Giant Strength exist. If you acquire a BoGS, any ASI's spent on your Strength are rendered obsolete.

A character who took a feat instead of spending an ASI on Strength wouldn't have that problem.

It may not be a factor for a lot of people, but it is something to consider if you know your DM tends to run a game with a higher than normal level of magic items. Or if you are in Adventure League.

 

[Satyrn]

They are meant to be 'balanced' with ASIs, in general, so an ASI to your primary is probably pretty hard to beat - but also has a cap at 20...

Aye. I was kind of expounding on that in my next post. But I do have a bit more to say.

It should be a while (barring great stat rolling) before those 20s are reached. It wouldn't be until 6th for my gnome battlemaster if I was upping his Dex, then not until about 12 for his Con. It would take longer for someone not a fighter.

The OP was encountering his problem at 5th.

As you say, feats and ASIs are rather equivalent, so I figure whatever is causing his problem isn't the feats.

 

[Snoring Rock]

Aye. I was kind of expounding on that in my next post. But I do have a bit more to say.

It should be a while (barring great stat rolling) before those 20s are reached. It wouldn't be until 6th for my gnome battlemaster if I was upping his Dex, then not until about 12 for his Con. It would take longer for someone not a fighter.

The OP was encountering his problem at 5th.

As you say, feats and ASIs are rather equivalent, so I figure whatever is causing his problem isn't the feats.

Yes and no I guess. I cannot see why every Player would not take GWM or some of the other 2 or 3 we have seen in this thread. I hear "options" but I do not see that. The same several power-gamer favorites keep coming up. So of all the "options" there are very few in use. Last campaign I had a PC using GWM and then Pole Arm Master, along with some other maximized fiddly bits and it became a shoot out in a barrel of fish.

I just thought I may not add feats this time around and figured I would ask here if the game seemed balanced without them. I had no idea that it would bring out so many emotions, insults and start two threads. But yes, the problem was I had a variant human and by 5th level he was breaking the game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes and no I guess. I cannot see why every Player would not take GWM or some of the other 2 or 3 we have seen in this thread. I hear "options" but I do not see that. The same several power-gamer favorites keep coming up. So of all the "options" there are very few in use. Last campaign I had a PC using GWM and then Pole Arm Master, along with some other maximized fiddly bits and it became a shoot out in a barrel of fish.

I just thought I may not add feats this time around and figured I would ask here if the game seemed balanced without them. I had no idea that it would bring out so many emotions, insults and start two threads. But yes, the problem was I had a variant human and by 5th level he was breaking the game.

It really does depend on the players and everyone's expectations. Combat is a big part of most games, so the combat related feats are going to tend to come up more often. Which isn't really a huge problem, generally; as others have pointed out, ASIs are a significant power boost in and of themselves, with a broader application. But when people really start to min/max the combinations they can exploit things, especially if the DM's style lends itself to exploitation.

This is why the answer to your original question is so different for each of us.

 

[iserith]

Yes and no I guess. I cannot see why every Player would not take GWM or some of the other 2 or 3 we have seen in this thread. I hear "options" but I do not see that. The same several power-gamer favorites keep coming up. So of all the "options" there are very few in use. Last campaign I had a PC using GWM and then Pole Arm Master, along with some other maximized fiddly bits and it became a shoot out in a barrel of fish.

I just thought I may not add feats this time around and figured I would ask here if the game seemed balanced without them. I had no idea that it would bring out so many emotions, insults and start two threads. But yes, the problem was I had a variant human and by 5th level he was breaking the game.

It's quite reasonable for players to take options that allow them to succeed in what they most face in the course of an average session. So if you see players taking all combat feats, that could well be a sign that they are only responding to how you are running the game. It's hard to be mad at the players or the game for that happening. It's a normal behavior in my view.

What you could do is start putting all the treasure in exploration challenges rather than as a result of a successful combat and make XP intersectional with gold such that they need half XP and half gold to level up (150 XP and 150 gp required for 2nd level, for example). I bet you start seeing them being more exploratory as a result which then makes feats that help with exploration challenges more attractive. Or at the very least you start to see those combat feats getting used less in terms of session time as they poke around to find gold.

Then you can make social challenges function such that the outcome makes combat and exploration challenges easier or harder. If they want either to be easier, they'll benefit from taking feats that boost their social abilities.

The DM reaps what he or she sows.

 

[Satyrn]

Yes and no I guess. I cannot see why every Player would not take GWM or some of the other 2 or 3 we have seen in this thread. I hear "options" but i do not see that. The same several power-gamer favorites keep coming up. So of all the "options" there are very few in use. Last campaign I had a PC using GWM and then Pole Arm Master, along with some other maximized fiddly bits and it became a shoot out in a barrel of fish.

Then I totally see changing something up. I don't think you'll get the effect you're looking for - powergamers are gonna powergame. But maybe. It's worth trying, anyway, of course.

I like feats, but I'd still play in a featless game. I'd still play a fighter in a featless game.

 

[Yunru]

Last two sessions - between 12 and 16 hours total - we had 0 combat encounters. GWF sure breaks the game there [emoji14]