[UPDATED] Most D&D Players Prefer Humans - Without Feats!

I've played in games that don't allow multiclassing, but never games that don't allow feats. Go figure.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My point was that the stated reason that some players don't want feats to be allowed in their game (for anyone not just those players who'd rather have the ASI) is because the very existence of feats means that those who didn't choose that feat are not allowed to do the things that feat lets you do

This is a fundamental misinterpretation of the rules. You can't design a game around stupid people. Well, maybe you could, the world is full of idiots.

 

[iserith]

...as I explained, a lot of very experienced DMs also don't allow them, and several have explained why.

For my part, as an experienced DM, I treat the optional feat rules the same way I treat the optional encumbrance and resting rules: Certain styles of campaigns need some rules tweaks to achieve the desired aesthetic and difficulty. For example, when I run dungeon one-shots, I always use the encumbrance rules because part of the challenge of a dungeon in my view is making choices between what you carry in and what you carry out. I don't use them in wilderness or city games because that consideration is not all that important in the situations that will come up in those kinds of games.

If I want a blood-soaked game full of carnage and heroic endurance (especially if time is short in the adventure), I use the Epic Heroism resting variant. For my current campaign, I needed something to make faction membership more desirable, so I implemented the renown rules and give access to feats for joining. The feats set apart those who don't join factions and those who do and the specific feats that a faction grants reinforce what that faction is about.

I imagine this is what the designers meant when they referred to the "dials" in the playtest - tune them to get the right feel for your campaign. Including feats in every campaign and one-shot I run doesn't make a lot of sense to me, just like putting encumbrance and resting variants for every campaign would be odd. These optional rules won't always fit the aesthetic and difficulty I'm going for.

For those including feats in every campaign and one-shot you run, what is this doing to help achieve your desired aesthetic? I believe it's worth thinking about, even if you don't ultimately change your position.

 

[Arial Black]

I imagine this is what the designers meant when they referred to the "dials" in the playtest - tune them to get the right feel for your campaign. Including feats in every campaign and one-shot I run doesn't make a lot of sense to me, just like putting encumbrance and resting variants for every campaign would be odd. These optional rules won't always fit the aesthetic and difficulty I'm going for.

All that makes sense. Putting thought into stuff and coming to a reasoned conclusion is good. It's the sight-unseen blanket ban that is bad.

For those including feats in every campaign and one-shot you run, what is this doing to help achieve your desired aesthetic? I believe it's worth thinking about, even if you don't ultimately change your position.

First, the desired aesthetic I'm going for is I want to make my PC my way, and let other people make their PCs their way. If I think that the Actor feat or the Defensive Duellist feat sums up my PC very well, and lets the game action closely approximate the way I envision my PC working, because the feat mechanics map well to the fluff, why would another player care whether or not I choose the Actor feat instead of +2 Cha? And if they did, why should what they want trump what I want when it comes to my PC? Would they be okay with me telling them that they cannot choose fireball and they have to take haste?

Second, this doesn't interfere with your campaign idea of associating certain feats with membership in certain organisations; you don't need to blanket ban all feats to get the desired effect, you just need to identify some feats (desirable ones!) and limit only those feats, while leaving the broad mass of feats available.

This will still leave membership in organisations desirable, while still allowing feats generally. It will also make players more likely to choose ASIs rather than feats until they gain membership of the organisation that gets them the feat they want. It's no extra work for the DM because the DM has already decided which feats go with which organisation anyway.

 

[iserith]

First, the desired aesthetic I'm going for is I want to make my PC my way, and let other people make their PCs their way. If I think that the Actor feat or the Defensive Duellist feat sums up my PC very well, and lets the game action closely approximate the way I envision my PC working, because the feat mechanics map well to the fluff, why would another player care whether or not I choose the Actor feat instead of +2 Cha? And if they did, why should what they want trump what I want when it comes to my PC? Would they be okay with me telling them that they cannot choose fireball and they have to take haste?

I might have missed it, but is anyone arguing that they don't want some OTHER guy or gal at the table to take a feat? Because that is just weak. Mind your own business, I say.

Second, this doesn't interfere with your campaign idea of associating certain feats with membership in certain organisations; you don't need to blanket ban all feats to get the desired effect, you just need to identify some feats (desirable ones!) and limit only those feats, while leaving the broad mass of feats available.

This will still leave membership in organisations desirable, while still allowing feats generally. It will also make players more likely to choose ASIs rather than feats until they gain membership of the organisation that gets them the feat they want. It's no extra work for the DM because the DM has already decided which feats go with which organisation anyway.

That might work in some campaign concepts and not others. In my campaign (Planescape), the desired outcome is that players will choose to join factions because everyone being in factions is part of that setting's aesthetic. Therefore, "no feats at all unless you join a faction," plus some other benefits like renown, sets up a bigger incentive for the players to join than what you propose. They don't have to, of course, but if you want to get those options, you have to sign up. And, so far, it's working well.

 

[Arial Black]

I might have missed it, but is anyone arguing that they don't want some OTHER guy or gal at the table to take a feat? Because that is just weak. Mind your own business, I say.

You missed it. They are saying that "the players took a vote and decided that no-one can take feats", and the DM banned feats on that basis.

The other players' stated reason was that "feats make characters less unique" (I kid you not!), reasoning that me taking +2 Cha makes my bard 'more unique' than taking a feat of my own choice(!).

 

[iserith]

You missed it. They are saying that "the players took a vote and decided that no-one can take feats", and the DM banned feats on that basis.

I suppose that's okay if the players all agreed ahead of time to make game decisions that way. If the DM didn't care, I don't see any good reason to vote against them.

The other players' stated reason was that "feats make characters less unique" (I kid you not!), reasoning that me taking +2 Cha makes my bard 'more unique' than taking a feat of my own choice(!).

I guess it depends on one's definition of "unique."

 

[Starfox]

Since 5E is the first edition in which feats are an option - you can have them or not have them based on player choice - the data must be mainly from 5E players. Another way to choose between feats or not is to choose between a retro clone/pre 3E edition and an edition with feats, but in this case it is a group choice, not an individual choice.

I think the reason experience from players on these boards differ from data gathered by companies is that the board attract devoted players, while the company data includes more casual players.

 

[Arial Black]

I suppose that's okay if the players all agreed ahead of time to make game decisions that way. If the DM didn't care, I don't see any good reason to vote against them.

Just like any decision about what to choose when levelling up, it isn't a democracy where other people vote what class features you must choose for your PC. Each person makes their own decision for their own PC.

Player: Cool, I've just hit 2nd level as a ranger, and I can choose a fighting style. I'll choose....Two-Weapon Fighting!

The Other Players: No. We had a vote and decided unanimously that you have to choose the Archery style instead.

Player: WTF?

DM: Fair's fair, it was a free vote. You have to go with the majority on this one.

Player: NO! No I don't! It's none of their business! The choice is mine to make!

I guess it depends on one's definition of "unique."

Words have meanings. Sometimes a word may have more than one valid meaning. But that doesn't mean that any word has any meaning you want it to and that counts as valid!

Remember the crowd scene in The Life of Brian?

Brian: You're all different!

Crowd: Yes! We're all different!

Beggar: I'm not.

First, 'unique' means one-of-a-kind. How you can be more one-of-a-kind or less one-of-a-kind is a strange concept(!).

Second, saying that taking a feat is 'less unique' than taking a generic +2 to a stat, indeed the whole idea of taking away choices (feat OR +2 stat bonus) and leaving them only with the choice of where to put the +2, isn't making characters more variable, it makes them much more likely to be the same as anyone else of that class.

That particular reason for denying feats is just wrong in so many ways. There may be other reasons to ban feats that aren't so blatantly wrong as this reason.

 

[iserith]

Just like any decision about what to choose when levelling up, it isn't a democracy where other people vote what class features you must choose for your PC. Each person makes their own decision for their own PC.

Player: Cool, I've just hit 2nd level as a ranger, and I can choose a fighting style. I'll choose....Two-Weapon Fighting!

The Other Players: No. We had a vote and decided unanimously that you have to choose the Archery style instead.

Player: WTF?

DM: Fair's fair, it was a free vote. You have to go with the majority on this one.

Player: NO! No I don't! It's none of their business! The choice is mine to make!

I can see a group voting on which optional rules to include in the game. That seems reasonable if everyone agreed to do things that away ahead of time. It just may not be your cup of tea. Or mine.

Words have meanings. Sometimes a word may have more than one valid meaning. But that doesn't mean that any word has any meaning you want it to and that counts as valid!

Remember the crowd scene in The Life of Brian?

Brian: You're all different!

Crowd: Yes! We're all different!

Beggar: I'm not.

First, 'unique' means one-of-a-kind. How you can be more one-of-a-kind or less one-of-a-kind is a strange concept(!).

Second, saying that taking a feat is 'less unique' than taking a generic +2 to a stat, indeed the whole idea of taking away choices (feat OR +2 stat bonus) and leaving them only with the choice of where to put the +2, isn't making characters more variable, it makes them much more likely to be the same as anyone else of that class.

That particular reason for denying feats is just wrong in so many ways. There may be other reasons to ban feats that aren't so blatantly wrong as this reason.

I didn't say I agreed. I just meant that if people are arguing the point you put forth, maybe they have a different idea of what "unique" means.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Feats? Some? None? A few? For one?

As always, like in life, playing well with others is learning to respect their rules - in D&D, for our lot a least, its about respecting the rules of the table.

Nobody should be forced to accept someone else's playstyle. And nobody should be forced to play a way they don't want to. If folks aren't happy with a table's rules, they're welcome to find another or even start their own table.

...and if the table is the only one in town? Well, beggars & choosers! Sometimes life doesn't give us the luxury of being fussy - just got to adapt or move on.