Hey guys, new DM here and wondering what are some feats I should watch out for.
For context, I am running Curse Of Strahd, and am letting my players select a feat for the first time in the game (they just leveled up to 6). I am trying to avoid feats that give too much of a mechanical advantage, especially against magic, or spellcasters since that is what is most prominent in the game. I have one player in particular who wants either Fighting initiate, or mage slayer. I for sure do not want to give him mage slayer since I could easily see that wrecking the game, but I do not feel that fighting initiate is much better since he wants to take Defense and already has an AC of 19. Please help me out.
What feats would you ban, or watch out for in my situation?
Mage Slayer is a good feat, not an overwhelming one. The PC has to be next to an enemy to get most of the effects from it. And of course you get absolutely nothing out of the feat when you're not facing a spellcaster.
Fighting Initiate is, quite frankly, a waste of a feat, you really don't need to worry about it being too strong since most of the enemies are going to be getting better to hit numbers soon anyway, plus it does nothing against spells or effects that don't make attack rolls.
I honestly wouldn't worry about either feat actually being too powerful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A non-combat feat isn't going to be especially useful in combat but you wouldn't expect it to any more than you'd expect the Sharpshooter feat to see use during a social situation. Skilled will see much more function in the social and exploration pillars of the game. This can mean it's usefulness will vary from game to game depending on how much value an individual game puts into the different pillars https://vlc****/.
Most of them are not that amazing. Some of them are pretty bad.
There are a few that can be used to optimize a character's weapon damage, but, unless your players are actively working at it, they're not that big a deal. If your players were that sort of player, you'd probably have noticed already.
If your players are that sort of player, and it gets out of hand, you should just talk to them and ask them to rein it in.
If you're a new DM, just stick to RAW. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19, offer then either an ASI (2x +1s to attribute scores, stackable) or a feat. I wouldn't start adding more than what's recommended unless you know what you're doing. I haven't played CoS, but my experience of published modules like CoS is that they're on the easy end of the difficulty spectrum and giving them more power will not make things more fun.
People don't realise it, but the most fun and awesome experiences come from pushing characters to the wire and pulling off Hail Marys. Published adventures don't do that very often as it is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you're a new DM, just stick to RAW. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19, offer then either an ASI (2x +1s to attribute scores, stackable) or a feat. I wouldn't start adding more than what's recommended unless you know what you're doing. I haven't played CoS, but my experience of published modules like CoS is that they're on the easy end of the difficulty spectrum and giving them more power will not make things more fun.
People don't realise it, but the most fun and awesome experiences come from pushing characters to the wire and pulling off Hail Marys. Published adventures don't do that very often as it is.
Well, fighters and rogues get additional ASIs at 6th level, right?
I honestly wouldn’t worry about either feat being a problem. As the DM you’ll have multiple ways to overcome a PC with a high AC, and Mage Slayer is pretty limited in what it can do, so you’ll have plenty of ways around that too. Probably the feat you’d have the most reason to worry about would be the Lucky feat, and even that’s not really all that bad. You’ll be fine.
Hey guys, new DM here and wondering what are some feats I should watch out for.
For context, I am running Curse Of Strahd, and am letting my players select a feat for the first time in the game (they just leveled up to 6). I am trying to avoid feats that give too much of a mechanical advantage, especially against magic, or spellcasters since that is what is most prominent in the game. I have one player in particular who wants either Fighting initiate, or mage slayer. I for sure do not want to give him mage slayer since I could easily see that wrecking the game, but I do not feel that fighting initiate is much better since he wants to take Defense and already has an AC of 19. Please help me out.
What feats would you ban, or watch out for in my situation?
A smart move is not to allow Feats at all in your game. The words "optional" are splashed all over the sections of the sourcebooks wrt to Feats. There is good reason for that.
This is generally terrible advice. Without feats, 5e is probably the single most linear edition of the game. Once you have your class and subclass picked, you pretty much are set on a railroad, where you only have spell selection (which not every class gets, and some only get limited options) and multiclassing to customize your character.
There are some very timid DMs—like, it seems, the above user—who are insecure in their ability to balance the game, which manifests as a fear of their players having choice. This is fine for groups who are okay with linear characters and timid DMs, but I think most groups would prefer a bit more of a bold DM who is willing to give them choice and adjusts the game to those choices.
Generally, I think this is unnecessary. None of the feats are so game-warping that they make balancing that hard. You might have to increase your difficulty some, but, frankly, you should already be adjusting your combat encounter difficulty to your players, so this is already something any halfway competent DM is doing.
I agree with 6thLyranGuard’s analysis about the two specifically named feats, and think a similar analysis can be made for pretty much every feat out there. All of them are limited or situational which makes them less powerful than they might otherwise seem.
The only feat I would ever consider banning is Lucky, and that would not be for power/balance reasons (I think it is not unbalanced; there are plenty of other ways to do its effect), but because I find it leads to a few dull gameplay situations.
A smart move is not to allow Feats at all in your game. The words "optional" are splashed all over the sections of the sourcebooks wrt to Feats. There is good reason for that.
Pretty sure they're optional because they increase complexity in character building, and WotC wanted to keep things as newbie-friendly as possible.
However, whether it's balance or complexity, they seem to have decided they're worth it for the revised 5e.
This is generally terrible advice. Without feats, 5e is probably the single most linear edition of the game. Once you have your class and subclass picked, you pretty much are set on a railroad, where you only have spell selection (which not every class gets, and some only get limited options) and multiclassing to customize your character.
I agree with you about feats, I just have to disagree with this. Almost everything before 3e was zero-choice except for spells. (2e's late addition of kits and maybe the late 1e addition of actual skills are the main exceptions.)
There are some very timid DMs—like, it seems, the above user—who are insecure in their ability to balance the game, which manifests as a fear of their players having choice. This is fine for groups who are okay with linear characters and timid DMs, but I think most groups would prefer a bit more of a bold DM who is willing to give them choice and adjusts the game to those choices.
Generally, I think this is unnecessary. None of the feats are so game-warping that they make balancing that hard. You might have to increase your difficulty some, but, frankly, you should already be adjusting your combat encounter difficulty to your players, so this is already something any halfway competent DM is doing.
I agree with 6thLyranGuard’s analysis about the two specifically named feats, and think a similar analysis can be made for pretty much every feat out there. All of them are limited or situational which makes them less powerful than they might otherwise seem.
The only feat I would ever consider banning is Lucky, and that would not be for power/balance reasons (I think it is not unbalanced; there are plenty of other ways to do its effect), but because I find it leads to a few dull gameplay situations.
If you're a new DM, just stick to RAW. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19, offer then either an ASI (2x +1s to attribute scores, stackable) or a feat. I wouldn't start adding more than what's recommended unless you know what you're doing. I haven't played CoS, but my experience of published modules like CoS is that they're on the easy end of the difficulty spectrum and giving them more power will not make things more fun.
People don't realise it, but the most fun and awesome experiences come from pushing characters to the wire and pulling off Hail Marys. Published adventures don't do that very often as it is.
Well, fighters and rogues get additional ASIs at 6th level, right?
Just Fighters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Oh, you made hem take an ASI at level 4 instead of a feat? Neither of those feats will break a game. Plus, Banning nearly always seems too much like micromanaging (limiting fun and choice) to me (unless there is a good reason like there is a mechanic you want to use for foraging in a wilderness campaign and goodberry would ruin it). As a DM, you can alter encounters if your group is getting through things too easily...like add an enemy or give one added spells or abilities or items. having them be better prepared.
A smart move is not to allow Feats at all in your game. The words "optional" are splashed all over the sections of the sourcebooks wrt to Feats. There is good reason for that.
This is generally terrible advice. Without feats, 5e is probably the single most linear edition of the game. Once you have your class and subclass picked, you pretty much are set on a railroad, where you only have spell selection (which not every class gets, and some only get limited options) and multiclassing to customize your character.
I agree with you about feats, I just have to disagree with this. Almost everything before 3e was zero-choice except for spells. (2e's late addition of kits and maybe the late 1e addition of actual skills are the main exceptions.)
I have to disagree. In 2e, every level-up I had to choose which new weapon proficiencies to acquire since weapons weren’t all just grouped together as either “simple” or “martial,” and which nonweapon proficiencies to place my points into because there was no such thing as a standardized PB. I had “choices” to make every time I leveled up.
If you're a new DM, just stick to RAW. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19, offer then either an ASI (2x +1s to attribute scores, stackable) or a feat. I wouldn't start adding more than what's recommended unless you know what you're doing. I haven't played CoS, but my experience of published modules like CoS is that they're on the easy end of the difficulty spectrum and giving them more power will not make things more fun.
People don't realise it, but the most fun and awesome experiences come from pushing characters to the wire and pulling off Hail Marys. Published adventures don't do that very often as it is.
Well, fighters and rogues get additional ASIs at 6th level, right?
Just Fighters.
That’s right, Rogues get their extra ASI @ 10th level.
Without feats, 5e is probably the single most linear edition of the game. Once you have your class and subclass picked, you pretty much are set on a railroad, where you only have spell selection (which not every class gets, and some only get limited options) and multiclassing to customize your character.
I agree with you about feats, I just have to disagree with this. Almost everything before 3e was zero-choice except for spells. (2e's late addition of kits and maybe the late 1e addition of actual skills are the main exceptions.)
I have to disagree. In 2e, every level-up I had to choose which new weapon proficiencies to acquire since weapons weren’t all just grouped together as either “simple” or “martial,” and which nonweapon proficiencies to place my points into because there was no such thing as a standardized PB. I had “choices” to make every time I leveled up.
I have to admit, I'd completely forgotten that non-weapon proficiencies were a thing in 2e. As for weapon proficiencies, they may be choices, but they were rarely meaningful choices; characters didn't change up their weapons very often in my experience.
But point taken about 2e. Still applies for 1e, basic+, and pre-split D&D.
For new GMs feats are another large chunk of information to consume. The game already has a ton of rules you need to be familiar with and then feat change those up. It is hard to keep track of when you're new and even when you are experienced.
I initially did not allow Feats into my games because like I said, it is a lot to take in and possibly compensate for. It is also a lot to understand for new players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
If you're a new DM, just stick to RAW. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19, offer then either an ASI (2x +1s to attribute scores, stackable) or a feat. I wouldn't start adding more than what's recommended unless you know what you're doing. I haven't played CoS, but my experience of published modules like CoS is that they're on the easy end of the difficulty spectrum and giving them more power will not make things more fun.
People don't realise it, but the most fun and awesome experiences come from pushing characters to the wire and pulling off Hail Marys. Published adventures don't do that very often as it is.
Well, fighters and rogues get additional ASIs at 6th level, right?
Just Fighters.
That’s right, Rogues get their extra ASI @ 10th level.
You can tell that I've never played a Rogue before! Never knew that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A smart move is not to allow Feats at all in your game. The words "optional" are splashed all over the sections of the sourcebooks wrt to Feats. There is good reason for that.
This is generally terrible advice. Without feats, 5e is probably the single most linear edition of the game. Once you have your class and subclass picked, you pretty much are set on a railroad, where you only have spell selection (which not every class gets, and some only get limited options) and multiclassing to customize your character.
I agree with you about feats, I just have to disagree with this. Almost everything before 3e was zero-choice except for spells. (2e's late addition of kits and maybe the late 1e addition of actual skills are the main exceptions.)
I have to disagree. In 2e, every level-up I had to choose which new weapon proficiencies to acquire since weapons weren’t all just grouped together as either “simple” or “martial,” and which nonweapon proficiencies to place my points into because there was no such thing as a standardized PB. I had “choices” to make every time I leveled up.
Ah yes, the choice to take specialization in glaives only for the GM to announce that he's rolled up a +2 guisarme as loot.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A smart move is not to allow Feats at all in your game. The words "optional" are splashed all over the sections of the sourcebooks wrt to Feats. There is good reason for that.
This is generally terrible advice. Without feats, 5e is probably the single most linear edition of the game. Once you have your class and subclass picked, you pretty much are set on a railroad, where you only have spell selection (which not every class gets, and some only get limited options) and multiclassing to customize your character.
I agree with you about feats, I just have to disagree with this. Almost everything before 3e was zero-choice except for spells. (2e's late addition of kits and maybe the late 1e addition of actual skills are the main exceptions.)
I have to disagree. In 2e, every level-up I had to choose which new weapon proficiencies to acquire since weapons weren’t all just grouped together as either “simple” or “martial,” and which nonweapon proficiencies to place my points into because there was no such thing as a standardized PB. I had “choices” to make every time I leveled up.
Ah yes, the choice to take specialization in glaives only for the GM to announce that he's rolled up a +2 guisarme as loot.
My DM was nice and let us change specializations on level-ups for that very reason. But ideally one waited to specialize until they had found their “signature weapon.” Then you ran with that one for as long as you could until you found a better weapon of the same type. The rest of your weapon proficiencies were there for the golf bag.
Hey guys, new DM here and wondering what are some feats I should watch out for.
For context, I am running Curse Of Strahd, and am letting my players select a feat for the first time in the game (they just leveled up to 6). I am trying to avoid feats that give too much of a mechanical advantage, especially against magic, or spellcasters since that is what is most prominent in the game. I have one player in particular who wants either Fighting initiate, or mage slayer. I for sure do not want to give him mage slayer since I could easily see that wrecking the game, but I do not feel that fighting initiate is much better since he wants to take Defense and already has an AC of 19. Please help me out.
What feats would you ban, or watch out for in my situation?
Mage Slayer is a good feat, not an overwhelming one. The PC has to be next to an enemy to get most of the effects from it. And of course you get absolutely nothing out of the feat when you're not facing a spellcaster.
Fighting Initiate is, quite frankly, a waste of a feat, you really don't need to worry about it being too strong since most of the enemies are going to be getting better to hit numbers soon anyway, plus it does nothing against spells or effects that don't make attack rolls.
I honestly wouldn't worry about either feat actually being too powerful.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
A non-combat feat isn't going to be especially useful in combat but you wouldn't expect it to any more than you'd expect the Sharpshooter feat to see use during a social situation. Skilled will see much more function in the social and exploration pillars of the game. This can mean it's usefulness will vary from game to game depending on how much value an individual game puts into the different pillars https://vlc****/.
None of them.
Most of them are not that amazing. Some of them are pretty bad.
There are a few that can be used to optimize a character's weapon damage, but, unless your players are actively working at it, they're not that big a deal. If your players were that sort of player, you'd probably have noticed already.
If your players are that sort of player, and it gets out of hand, you should just talk to them and ask them to rein it in.
If you're a new DM, just stick to RAW. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19, offer then either an ASI (2x +1s to attribute scores, stackable) or a feat. I wouldn't start adding more than what's recommended unless you know what you're doing. I haven't played CoS, but my experience of published modules like CoS is that they're on the easy end of the difficulty spectrum and giving them more power will not make things more fun.
People don't realise it, but the most fun and awesome experiences come from pushing characters to the wire and pulling off Hail Marys. Published adventures don't do that very often as it is.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Well, fighters and rogues get additional ASIs at 6th level, right?
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I honestly wouldn’t worry about either feat being a problem. As the DM you’ll have multiple ways to overcome a PC with a high AC, and Mage Slayer is pretty limited in what it can do, so you’ll have plenty of ways around that too. Probably the feat you’d have the most reason to worry about would be the Lucky feat, and even that’s not really all that bad. You’ll be fine.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
This is generally terrible advice. Without feats, 5e is probably the single most linear edition of the game. Once you have your class and subclass picked, you pretty much are set on a railroad, where you only have spell selection (which not every class gets, and some only get limited options) and multiclassing to customize your character.
There are some very timid DMs—like, it seems, the above user—who are insecure in their ability to balance the game, which manifests as a fear of their players having choice. This is fine for groups who are okay with linear characters and timid DMs, but I think most groups would prefer a bit more of a bold DM who is willing to give them choice and adjusts the game to those choices.
Generally, I think this is unnecessary. None of the feats are so game-warping that they make balancing that hard. You might have to increase your difficulty some, but, frankly, you should already be adjusting your combat encounter difficulty to your players, so this is already something any halfway competent DM is doing.
I agree with 6thLyranGuard’s analysis about the two specifically named feats, and think a similar analysis can be made for pretty much every feat out there. All of them are limited or situational which makes them less powerful than they might otherwise seem.
The only feat I would ever consider banning is Lucky, and that would not be for power/balance reasons (I think it is not unbalanced; there are plenty of other ways to do its effect), but because I find it leads to a few dull gameplay situations.
Pretty sure they're optional because they increase complexity in character building, and WotC wanted to keep things as newbie-friendly as possible.
However, whether it's balance or complexity, they seem to have decided they're worth it for the revised 5e.
I agree with you about feats, I just have to disagree with this. Almost everything before 3e was zero-choice except for spells. (2e's late addition of kits and maybe the late 1e addition of actual skills are the main exceptions.)
Just Fighters.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Oh, you made hem take an ASI at level 4 instead of a feat? Neither of those feats will break a game. Plus, Banning nearly always seems too much like micromanaging (limiting fun and choice) to me (unless there is a good reason like there is a mechanic you want to use for foraging in a wilderness campaign and goodberry would ruin it). As a DM, you can alter encounters if your group is getting through things too easily...like add an enemy or give one added spells or abilities or items. having them be better prepared.
Food, Scifi/fantasy, anime, DND 5E and OSR geek.
I have to disagree. In 2e, every level-up I had to choose which new weapon proficiencies to acquire since weapons weren’t all just grouped together as either “simple” or “martial,” and which nonweapon proficiencies to place my points into because there was no such thing as a standardized PB. I had “choices” to make every time I leveled up.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That’s right, Rogues get their extra ASI @ 10th level.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I have to admit, I'd completely forgotten that non-weapon proficiencies were a thing in 2e. As for weapon proficiencies, they may be choices, but they were rarely meaningful choices; characters didn't change up their weapons very often in my experience.
But point taken about 2e. Still applies for 1e, basic+, and pre-split D&D.
In my experience all feats can be game breaking dependent on the player using them
I just took Actor in one of my games. I'm genuinely curious as to how I can break the game with that one.
And there's a huge number of feats like it.
Yes, there's also the combat feats, but they're a tiny subset of the whole list of feats.
For new GMs feats are another large chunk of information to consume. The game already has a ton of rules you need to be familiar with and then feat change those up. It is hard to keep track of when you're new and even when you are experienced.
I initially did not allow Feats into my games because like I said, it is a lot to take in and possibly compensate for. It is also a lot to understand for new players.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You can tell that I've never played a Rogue before! Never knew that.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Ah yes, the choice to take specialization in glaives only for the GM to announce that he's rolled up a +2 guisarme as loot.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
My DM was nice and let us change specializations on level-ups for that very reason. But ideally one waited to specialize until they had found their “signature weapon.” Then you ran with that one for as long as you could until you found a better weapon of the same type. The rest of your weapon proficiencies were there for the golf bag.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting