D&D 5E Why Should I Allow Feats

[Werebat]

Its hard work on the part of the DM to cater for min maxers in this edition due to bounded accuracy

This is REALLY disappointing to hear. I had thought that bounded accuracy was supposed to make it EASIER for the DM to deal with min/maxers.

I regularly DM for my local group, and we've moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder. They're a bright bunch of guys who tend to enjoy min/maxing, and most recently my "fix" was to play various variants of E6. The players have gotten sick of E6, though, and I was hoping that moving to 5E would keep us all happy.

Now I'm hearing that the game breaks down by level 10-12 if you have min/maxers playing it? Ugh. Not again. Why?

 

[DaveDash]

This is REALLY disappointing to hear. I had thought that bounded accuracy was supposed to make it EASIER for the DM to deal with min/maxers.

I regularly DM for my local group, and we've moved from 3.5 to Pathfinder. They're a bright bunch of guys who tend to enjoy min/maxing, and most recently my "fix" was to play various variants of E6. The players have gotten sick of E6, though, and I was hoping that moving to 5E would keep us all happy.

Now I'm hearing that the game breaks down by level 10-12 if you have min/maxers playing it? Ugh. Not again. Why?

I think the design intent was more flavour and story than balance. 4e was balanced and stale.
Don't be disheartened, the game is way more fun (and balanced) than pathfinder. Its just not as perfect as some people around here like to make out.
Just read these threads and take note, do some play testing yourself, and make up your own mind.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Now I'm hearing that the game breaks down by level 10-12 if you have min/maxers playing it? Ugh. Not again. Why?

Most of the exploits seem to be around entire parties building their effectiveness around characters who take the two -5/+10 feats from the optional feats module against DMs who run a lot of encounters based on 3E expectations. Get rid of those two feats or change the type of encounters and apparently those problems go away. I haven't seen enough of that kind of play to judge.

 

[Celtavian]

I do agree that Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Mastery are way too easy to use. Those are the two main feats that cause damage to spike to levels that make Action Surge too powerful. Not sure why the Game Designers -5 for +10 damage was a balanced ratio, but they did. And it isn't balanced.

Overall, the feats aren't bad. Those two allow too much damage spiking that makes taking them no brainers. I'd ban Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Mastery or lower the bonus damage. You shouldn't have a problem if you do that. Even if you reduced the damage to once per round for both, things would be easier.

 

[Zardnaar]

There are also a few other things like the Sorlock (SorcerorX/Warlock2) and some of the healing builds which makes the game very easy.

 

[Quartz]

I do agree that Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Mastery are way too easy to use. Those are the two main feats that cause damage to spike to levels that make Action Surge too powerful. Not sure why the Game Designers -5 for +10 damage was a balanced ratio, but they did. And it isn't balanced.

The problem seems not to be the feats themselves - let's face it, the combat types need some way of boosting damage - but when they get used in combination with both high stats and supporting magic.

There's something else: allowing these feats means that Weapon + Shield is very much the poor relation even if you take the Shield Master feat.

ETA: I'm aware that a weapon & shield user can use part of the GWM feat.

 

[sithramir]

Agree with others that -5/+5 might drastically fix this but is it any surprise that archers rule? In 3e it was worse because melee fighters had to move and only got one attack. I hoped that 5e fixed that some allowing multiple attacks and movement.

Maybe it does with those feats removed?

 

[Rhenny]

There is a slight paradigm shift for 5e that is subtle yet profound. With bounded accuracy, and quicker combats, it is now more possible to create sessions that balance combat, interaction and exploration. As such, the R of RPG (roleplaying) becomes more important than just combat. When DM and groups take advantage of this balance, min/max has less of an impact on the total game. Sure, PC can wipe the floor with monsters in some encounters, but that does not guarantee that the same PCs will be able to interact successfully in non-combat encounters or find a way to get through a deadly trap, etc. 10 arrows fired at 1 PC is pretty dangerous. An undetected fire trap or cloud of poison gas, can be pretty deadly.

I'm finding that my players (and I, when I play) still feel tension even when we end encounters in 2-3 rounds even when we don't take damage from foes. The tension and fear comes from the uncertainty that the giant's club or the ettin's battle axe might hit and do 24 points of damage, or the dragon's breath that just injured half of the party might recharge and do it again. Sometimes this is enough to make the party plan ways to avoid combat if possible, or seek even quicker ways to end the combat, or even negotiate or try to intimidate to break morale of the foes.

I think the game is working as intended. (That said, most of my experience has been from levels 1-10 - I am hoping that it holds true from levels 10+ - Theoretically, if the R in RPG is understood, I think it will - plus, it is really easy to give monsters special abilities or spells to cast, extra AC or extra to hit bonuses).

 

[Mephista]

Sounds like a playstyle clash, Zardnaar, instead of a mechanical one. Min-maxers gonna min-max. Ban something, they'll just find another way, until the point you start to annoy your players.

Your problems, I think, require a mental shift - either on your part, or your players. Preferably both.

 

[Joe Liker]

Joes advice unfortunately just leads to the DM vs player arms race. I also think you already know that Zard.
If I was an archer player and suddenly all the enemies had levels of monk, id pack up and leave the game. That would totally kill the suspension of disbelief.

If I were a player of any race or class and the DM told me he was rebooting because he thought we were too powerful, I'd pack up and leave the game. Talk about taking your ball and going home ...

The truth is, if they weren't good at archery, with or without feats, this group would just find another way to be very, very deadly. That's just how things get at higher levels. The DM has to learn to compensate for it. It's not an arms race; it's a DM's job to create a challenge. The stuff I suggested wasn't even bending any rules. On the contrary, I urged enforcing some rules that had likely been glossed over.