So in the game, I'm running the players are about to reach 4th level and that means Feats.
I have a love/hate relationship with Feats that I won't bore you with a ramble. So far the topic of feats has not come up by the players but I want to establish the decision (Yay/Nay) ahead of time so if a character is being built around feats (and not told to me) that build can be adjusted.
What I'm curious about is how many of your DM's allow Feats in their game?
As a player who feels like their class progression is almost entirely decided for them by the game without feats, I can appreciate my players wanting them from a DM's point of view. I can also appreciate that they might make things more difficult with unexpected choices. Without feats, levelling up for some players might feel like the wind has been taken out of their sails. Some will appreciate the +1 to hit/saves, and others might have wanted to try a new playstyle with a certain feat.
An idea my current DM has is being allowed a first level feat upon character creation from a curated list, meaning your character can bring something new and unexpected out of the gate, and it's one I adopt when DMing a campaign (such a rule isn't necessary for one-shots).
So while I initially voted 'yes', I believe a more appropriate answer may have been 'depends', to which I've changed my vote. Whatever I decide, my players and I have to know what we want before Session One; if I'm umming and arring about this up until 4th level and deciding against it, that may well rub my players the wrong way.
PS: I for one would love to hear your ramble. Can't beat a good ASI/Feat discussion!
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
Feats are part of the game, you aren't getting rid of them by going with WotC propaganda "feats are optional". The fighter class basically goes obsolete without feats. And the already OP rogue class gets less OP without feats.
Its too bad when CR was being set up they decided to leave feats and magic items out, which made CR to be too easy, it gets really bad at higher levels.
I would ask your players how they feel about this. If they have been planning on taking certain feats, they'll feel very let down if those are made unavailable.
Players like them because they add more customisation to character design, and they directly enhance playstyles that the players want to use. This does overpower them, no doubt about it, if they take certain feats.
The feats to be careful of, that I would recommend having a discussion with the players about if they are planning to take them, are:
Sharpshooter
Great Weapon Master
Polearm Master
Slasher
Crusher
Piercer
Elven Accuracy
These feats can all be quite game breaking with the right build, the rest are all pretty reasonable. Barbarians or Battlemasters with GWM, for instance, are crazy damage machines, and PCs who don't take these feats will fall behind in damage. However, I'm running the best campaign I've ever run right now and 3 of 5 of my players are using 3 from this list; it just means that I massively buff the monster hit points. The Bard always feels low damage by comparison, but she's built for charm and manipulation so it's not too much of a problem.
I love feats. I get to have some insight into what the players are wanting out of the game when I review the feats they have chosen. It is free information and it allows them to personalize their character a bit more. If someone takes the chef feat, I am going to give them ample opportunity to use it.
As a DM I LOVE feats. I allow for both an ASI and feat in my games. I can see why people wouldn't like them. Although I think feats can severely help the martial/caster disparity as feats typically buff martials more.
I would ask your players how they feel about this. If they have been planning on taking certain feats, they'll feel very let down if those are made unavailable.
Players like them because they add more customisation to character design, and they directly enhance playstyles that the players want to use. This does overpower them, no doubt about it, if they take certain feats.
The feats to be careful of, that I would recommend having a discussion with the players about if they are planning to take them, are:
Sharpshooter
Great Weapon Master
Polearm Master
Slasher
Crusher
Piercer
Elven Accuracy
These feats can all be quite game breaking with the right build, the rest are all pretty reasonable. Barbarians or Battlemasters with GWM, for instance, are crazy damage machines, and PCs who don't take these feats will fall behind in damage. However, I'm running the best campaign I've ever run right now and 3 of 5 of my players are using 3 from this list; it just means that I massively buff the monster hit points. The Bard always feels low damage by comparison, but she's built for charm and manipulation so it's not too much of a problem.
Yeah, I plan on having the talk with my players I was not going to spring this on them once they hit 4th level.
You did hit on a point, or at least how I read it, on how some feats can possibly game break, and to compensate for them becomes is a new balancing for encounter act that "hits" hard on the lesser strengthed players.
I love feats. I get to have some insight into what the players are wanting out of the game when I review the feats they have chosen. It is free information and it allows them to personalize their character a bit more. If someone takes the chef feat, I am going to give them ample opportunity to use it.
That would be nice if someone took a non-combat-related Feat but my expectation would be it would be more in line with combat. I have no problem with combat feats just developing a character more outside of combat is more enjoyable to interact with to me as the DM.
I love feats. I get to have some insight into what the players are wanting out of the game when I review the feats they have chosen. It is free information and it allows them to personalize their character a bit more. If someone takes the chef feat, I am going to give them ample opportunity to use it.
That would be nice if someone took a non-combat-related Feat but my expectation would be it would be more in line with combat. I have no problem with combat feats just developing a character more outside of combat is more enjoyable to interact with to me as the DM.
This raises some questions that might be able to help. Do you tend to run combat-heavy games? If so, the tendency towards combat-focused feats could be a subconscious response to that. Combat feats are seductive and no one wants to struggle in combat. It could also be that players are unaware of how useful the social-focused feats can be. Or maybe your players have little interest in exploring the less combat-focused feats. My table tends to be a healthy mix, but I also make it a point to present my players with many RP encounters. I also benefit from a table where everyone has expressed a desire for both combat and RP, so I admit that I was very lucky to get the group I have. My perspective may not be entirely applicable.
I encourage a discussion between you and your players if you have these concerns and unmet desires.
I love feats. I get to have some insight into what the players are wanting out of the game when I review the feats they have chosen. It is free information and it allows them to personalize their character a bit more. If someone takes the chef feat, I am going to give them ample opportunity to use it.
That would be nice if someone took a non-combat-related Feat but my expectation would be it would be more in line with combat. I have no problem with combat feats just developing a character more outside of combat is more enjoyable to interact with to me as the DM.
This raises some questions that might be able to help. Do you tend to run combat-heavy games? If so, the tendency towards combat-focused feats could be a subconscious response to that. Combat feats are seductive and no one wants to struggle in combat. It could also be that players are unaware of how useful the social-focused feats can be. Or maybe your players have little interest in exploring the less combat-focused feats. My table tends to be a healthy mix, but I also make it a point to present my players with many RP encounters. I also benefit from a table where everyone has expressed a desire for both combat and RP, so I admit that I was very lucky to get the group I have. My perspective may not be entirely applicable.
I encourage a discussion between you and your players if you have these concerns and unmet desires.
This lines up well with my experiences so far. People tend to pick feats that help them in the game they are playing or game they expect to play. In a combat focused game, the combat feats are more appealing for example. Most characters don't get a lot of feats, so players prioritizes the feats that they do get by how often it proves to be useful.
The lucky feat is banned at our table if you already have features that give you luck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
Keen Mind needs the last bullet point to be removed, or modified to prevent somebody simply writing everything down and then reading that at least once a month to never forget anything.
I love feats and it's usually what sets characters apart imo.
I, generally, give one free at lv1, but I am willing to pump up the encounters because of it. The impact of having an optimized character with feats in combat is really big, but is very fun for the players to be able to customize their characters on a personalized way.
I allow most feats, but I make it clear at session 0 which ones are banned and why. I also make it clear that all new sourcebook content requires my approval - so like when Tasha's and Fizban's came out and my players leveled up, they had to float spells and feats by me first.
I actually love feats. They enable some fun customization that isn't as penalizing or prohibitive as multiclassing. Heck, I have even handed out feats as narrative rewards outside of scheduled ASIs. Some, however, simply don't fit with my campaign's lore, and one (Lucky) is unnecessary because of a homebrew mechanic that awards players inspiration frequently.
Feats are great, but there are some you have to be careful about how you implement.
At level 1, some feats are pretty broken. Consider not allowing them at level 1 Pole arm master, xbow xpert, GWM, SS, can increase damage to the point where you'd have to rework encounters.
Things like Heavy armor master can increase survivability to a point an unbalanced degree as well.
If you are using the flanking variant rule, Elven Accuracy becomes monstrously over powered.
Feats are great, but there are some you have to be careful about how you implement.
At level 1, some feats are pretty broken. Consider not allowing them at level 1 Pole arm master, xbow xpert, GWM, SS, can increase damage to the point where you'd have to rework encounters.
Things like Heavy armor master can increase survivability to a point an unbalanced degree as well.
If you are using the flanking variant rule, Elven Accuracy becomes monstrously over powered.
Would you ban feats at level one by not allowing anyone to play a human variant at your table? I'm just curious.
The reason why I bring it up is it's the only race that gets a built in feat to have (at the expense of a fair attribute spread to all ASI's) and humans don't have any huge overall benefits compared to some other classes. I feel honestly like the only thing that gives the "edge" to someone picking a human over another race is if the variant human option is available.
The rules actually say "If your campaign uses the optional feat rules from the Player’s Handbook, your Dungeon Master might allow these [human] variant traits" it makes sense if the DM is not using the optional feat rule they wont allow variant human
Standard human is not a popular race as a party generally is better with specialists and standard humans are generalists. If I did run a game without feats given that a feat is an option over an ASI I would allow someone to get a +2 and two +1s to ability scores. After all this is just like a half elf (if you are using Tasha's optional linage rules this is strictly inferior to half elf as you do not have fey ancestry, or darkvision and have one skill less with no feats however there is probably this would allow a +2,+1,+1 build for players not wanting to buff charisma).
Pre Tasha's many players would choose a race to match their class but this meant having a race which might not be optimal in other areas. So characters before significantly more powerful, humans (variant and standard) have always had the flexibility in ability scores so Tasha's does not increase their power. If not allowing feats I therefore might do something to give a human than makes it not strictly inferior to a half elf, possibly allowing a +3, +1 to stats, though I am not sure if that goes to far the other way..
I allow feats as part of character progression, and sometimes as awards. That said, the feat has to be plausibly earned. Like the character that hasn't shot a bow from levels 1-4 ain't suddenly getting Sharpshooter. If you're an elf or half elf but was raised by humans or wereravens or what have you, you ain't getting Elven accuracy (which might be moot in my game as I've been toying with de-racing the feat and making it something like "Deft combatant"). Etc. I have similar plausibility grounds for multiclassing when leveling up (as opposed to when I'm telling people to show up with a higher level character, they can usually do what they want but need to explain the concept of how the blend came to be storywise).
I allow feats, and my home table’s “main GM” allows feats. We both feel it adds a lot of variety to characters. The DM for the PbP I play in does not allow them.
I allow feats, and when I'm a player, take them. The game feels stale and empty without them. Especially at tables with not a lot of players, they can be needed to round out the party.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So in the game, I'm running the players are about to reach 4th level and that means Feats.
I have a love/hate relationship with Feats that I won't bore you with a ramble. So far the topic of feats has not come up by the players but I want to establish the decision (Yay/Nay) ahead of time so if a character is being built around feats (and not told to me) that build can be adjusted.
What I'm curious about is how many of your DM's allow Feats in their game?
As a player who feels like their class progression is almost entirely decided for them by the game without feats, I can appreciate my players wanting them from a DM's point of view. I can also appreciate that they might make things more difficult with unexpected choices. Without feats, levelling up for some players might feel like the wind has been taken out of their sails. Some will appreciate the +1 to hit/saves, and others might have wanted to try a new playstyle with a certain feat.
An idea my current DM has is being allowed a first level feat upon character creation from a curated list, meaning your character can bring something new and unexpected out of the gate, and it's one I adopt when DMing a campaign (such a rule isn't necessary for one-shots).
So while I initially voted 'yes', I believe a more appropriate answer may have been 'depends', to which I've changed my vote. Whatever I decide, my players and I have to know what we want before Session One; if I'm umming and arring about this up until 4th level and deciding against it, that may well rub my players the wrong way.
PS: I for one would love to hear your ramble. Can't beat a good ASI/Feat discussion!
Zero is the most important number in D&D: Session Zero sets the boundaries and the tone; Rule Zero dictates the Dungeon Master (DM) is the final arbiter; and Zero D&D is better than Bad D&D.
"Let us speak plainly now, and in earnest, for words mean little without the weight of conviction."
- The Assemblage of Houses, World of Warcraft
Feats are part of the game, you aren't getting rid of them by going with WotC propaganda "feats are optional". The fighter class basically goes obsolete without feats. And the already OP rogue class gets less OP without feats.
Its too bad when CR was being set up they decided to leave feats and magic items out, which made CR to be too easy, it gets really bad at higher levels.
I would ask your players how they feel about this. If they have been planning on taking certain feats, they'll feel very let down if those are made unavailable.
Players like them because they add more customisation to character design, and they directly enhance playstyles that the players want to use. This does overpower them, no doubt about it, if they take certain feats.
The feats to be careful of, that I would recommend having a discussion with the players about if they are planning to take them, are:
These feats can all be quite game breaking with the right build, the rest are all pretty reasonable. Barbarians or Battlemasters with GWM, for instance, are crazy damage machines, and PCs who don't take these feats will fall behind in damage. However, I'm running the best campaign I've ever run right now and 3 of 5 of my players are using 3 from this list; it just means that I massively buff the monster hit points. The Bard always feels low damage by comparison, but she's built for charm and manipulation so it's not too much of a problem.
I love feats. I get to have some insight into what the players are wanting out of the game when I review the feats they have chosen. It is free information and it allows them to personalize their character a bit more. If someone takes the chef feat, I am going to give them ample opportunity to use it.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
As a DM I LOVE feats. I allow for both an ASI and feat in my games. I can see why people wouldn't like them. Although I think feats can severely help the martial/caster disparity as feats typically buff martials more.
Yeah, I plan on having the talk with my players I was not going to spring this on them once they hit 4th level.
You did hit on a point, or at least how I read it, on how some feats can possibly game break, and to compensate for them becomes is a new balancing for encounter act that "hits" hard on the lesser strengthed players.
That would be nice if someone took a non-combat-related Feat but my expectation would be it would be more in line with combat. I have no problem with combat feats just developing a character more outside of combat is more enjoyable to interact with to me as the DM.
This raises some questions that might be able to help. Do you tend to run combat-heavy games? If so, the tendency towards combat-focused feats could be a subconscious response to that. Combat feats are seductive and no one wants to struggle in combat. It could also be that players are unaware of how useful the social-focused feats can be. Or maybe your players have little interest in exploring the less combat-focused feats. My table tends to be a healthy mix, but I also make it a point to present my players with many RP encounters. I also benefit from a table where everyone has expressed a desire for both combat and RP, so I admit that I was very lucky to get the group I have. My perspective may not be entirely applicable.
I encourage a discussion between you and your players if you have these concerns and unmet desires.
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
This lines up well with my experiences so far. People tend to pick feats that help them in the game they are playing or game they expect to play. In a combat focused game, the combat feats are more appealing for example. Most characters don't get a lot of feats, so players prioritizes the feats that they do get by how often it proves to be useful.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
The lucky feat is banned at our table if you already have features that give you luck.
Hollow unbreakable arrows are the most OP common magic item, and my current method of coming up with insane combat shenanigans.
if you make a steel pipe with one end closed and a nozzle on the other, you can enlarge it, fill with any liquid, and then drop concentration, creating a high pressure squirt gun. (or a pipe bomb, depending if it holds)
Keen Mind needs the last bullet point to be removed, or modified to prevent somebody simply writing everything down and then reading that at least once a month to never forget anything.
I love feats and it's usually what sets characters apart imo.
I, generally, give one free at lv1, but I am willing to pump up the encounters because of it. The impact of having an optimized character with feats in combat is really big, but is very fun for the players to be able to customize their characters on a personalized way.
I allow most feats, but I make it clear at session 0 which ones are banned and why. I also make it clear that all new sourcebook content requires my approval - so like when Tasha's and Fizban's came out and my players leveled up, they had to float spells and feats by me first.
I actually love feats. They enable some fun customization that isn't as penalizing or prohibitive as multiclassing. Heck, I have even handed out feats as narrative rewards outside of scheduled ASIs. Some, however, simply don't fit with my campaign's lore, and one (Lucky) is unnecessary because of a homebrew mechanic that awards players inspiration frequently.
Feats are great, but there are some you have to be careful about how you implement.
At level 1, some feats are pretty broken. Consider not allowing them at level 1
Pole arm master, xbow xpert, GWM, SS, can increase damage to the point where you'd have to rework encounters.
Things like Heavy armor master can increase survivability to a point an unbalanced degree as well.
If you are using the flanking variant rule, Elven Accuracy becomes monstrously over powered.
Would you ban feats at level one by not allowing anyone to play a human variant at your table? I'm just curious.
The reason why I bring it up is it's the only race that gets a built in feat to have (at the expense of a fair attribute spread to all ASI's) and humans don't have any huge overall benefits compared to some other classes. I feel honestly like the only thing that gives the "edge" to someone picking a human over another race is if the variant human option is available.
The rules actually say "If your campaign uses the optional feat rules from the Player’s Handbook, your Dungeon Master might allow these [human] variant traits" it makes sense if the DM is not using the optional feat rule they wont allow variant human
Standard human is not a popular race as a party generally is better with specialists and standard humans are generalists. If I did run a game without feats given that a feat is an option over an ASI I would allow someone to get a +2 and two +1s to ability scores. After all this is just like a half elf (if you are using Tasha's optional linage rules this is strictly inferior to half elf as you do not have fey ancestry, or darkvision and have one skill less with no feats however there is probably this would allow a +2,+1,+1 build for players not wanting to buff charisma).
Pre Tasha's many players would choose a race to match their class but this meant having a race which might not be optimal in other areas. So characters before significantly more powerful, humans (variant and standard) have always had the flexibility in ability scores so Tasha's does not increase their power. If not allowing feats I therefore might do something to give a human than makes it not strictly inferior to a half elf, possibly allowing a +3, +1 to stats, though I am not sure if that goes to far the other way..
I allow feats as part of character progression, and sometimes as awards. That said, the feat has to be plausibly earned. Like the character that hasn't shot a bow from levels 1-4 ain't suddenly getting Sharpshooter. If you're an elf or half elf but was raised by humans or wereravens or what have you, you ain't getting Elven accuracy (which might be moot in my game as I've been toying with de-racing the feat and making it something like "Deft combatant"). Etc. I have similar plausibility grounds for multiclassing when leveling up (as opposed to when I'm telling people to show up with a higher level character, they can usually do what they want but need to explain the concept of how the blend came to be storywise).
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I allow feats, and my home table’s “main GM” allows feats. We both feel it adds a lot of variety to characters. The DM for the PbP I play in does not allow them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I allow feats, and when I'm a player, take them. The game feels stale and empty without them. Especially at tables with not a lot of players, they can be needed to round out the party.