Having said that - some of them really rip holes in balancing. Nothing that can't be overcome, but it invariably will change how to set challenges for your group since some feat can become very dominant otherwise.
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 see this approach as good management of how they are earned but this is definitely something I would need to talk to my players about ahead of time since I don't think it would be fair to not allow a particular Feat without a clear understanding of why. Though I can see players come back with this would constrain their decisions in, let's say in combat, "Well I better use my bow so I can get one more checkmark to allow me to earn Sharpshooter." and take away the more organic approach to decision making in combat. Now, these are things that can be talked out but this is definitely an interesting approach to Feats.
For my current campaign, I decided that I wanted my players to each start with a feat at level 1, with no restrictions, and so far it's been great. Funnily enough, two of them have taken what are often categorized as "OP" feats (Sharpshooter and Lucky), and in all honesty they've been pretty easy for me to work with; in fact, the sharpshooter has missed more attacks by trying to use their feat than they would have if they'd just made a normal attack roll...
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'm curious as to why this seems OP to you? A photographic memory is one of the few powers that actually exists IRL. What does it break? Does any campaign ever hinge on the supposition that the characters forgot something? As a DM I'm overjoyed when PCs actually remember things, and being able to tell a player their character remembers X detail seems like easy mode for the DM, not the player.
Slasher
Crusher
Piercer
Also confused as to why anyone would see these as OP either. Maybe Crusher if used in conjunction with a lot of area stuff, but the other two are solidly middling. Are you rating them in combination with Elven Accuracy or something? Cause they are not the strong part of that combo.
I see feats like anything else - you need to trust the players to use them responsibly. You can make "OP" builds without them. Even powerful builds like Sentinel + PAM have drawbacks that aren't talked about much, the primary one being that you are still limited to 1 Reaction per round.
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.
If using point buy for stats and the usual types of opponents, neither GWM nor SS are broken at level 1. The -5 to hit usually completely cancels any benefits in terms of damage from the -5/+10 aspect of the feats (which is the one most discussed). If a character decides to use these feats then the individual hits tend to be bigger but less frequent so that the average damage isn't really very different.
On the other hand, both PAM and Xbow expert give an additional attack in tier 1 which can be more significant. PAM is d4+stat and XBOW expert is d6+stat. Wielding a hand crossbow, XBow expert doubles the damage while PAM is a bit less since it uses a d4 and most polearms are d10 - though you can also use it with a spear (d6+stat) and a shield without sacrificing AC.
Two weapon fighting doesn't quite keep up since it allows only the weapon damage unless you have the fighting style. A character with the dual wielding feat, and two weapon fighting style, in tier 1, gets two d8+stat attacks and 1AC ... but it only remains really competitive with the other options in tier 1.
In late tier 2 and beyond, the proficiency+stat vs target AC is supplemented by magical weapons so that the -5 to hit is less of a penalty - e.g. a barbarian with a +9 to hit against an AC 15 with reckless attack has little reason not to use the -5/+10 option unless facing an opponent with an exceptionally high AC.
Anyway, in my opinion, none of these feats are really broken in tier 1 except in certain combinations.
e.g. A PAM vengeance paladin with hunter's mark can boost damage against single targets at the cost of the bonus action on some rounds to move the spell target. Similar effect with divine favor only costing one bonus action for the entire fight with an average 1 damage less than hunter's mark on each attack.
P.S. I recommend never using the flanking option from the DMG ... easily obtained advantage on every attack is more broken than any of the feat options.
The more feats they have, the harder I can make the combat, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
This is the thing about it tho, the game wasn't built with feats in mind and so the core of the game is thrown out of wack because of it.
I allow feats, I've done the feat at 1st level thing, I've been on the player side of it as well. I basically NEVER take an ASI when I'm allowed to use feats unless I started with a 16 in my main stat (with a 17 it is MUCH easier, and imo better, to just take half feats). I plan to use feats as rewards for my players, but they haven't done anything to earn them just yet.
I'm thinking of maybe running a short game that doesn't allow multiclassing or feats just to see what the base game is like, probably even running the monster statblocks straight every time just to see how the game plays. I already disallow multiclassing in one of my games and it will be a permanent addition to all future games I run going forward. This thread got me thinking of maybe I should just let people roll ridiculous for their main stat like 8d6k3 or something just so they can take more feats and not have to deal with that shit of ASIs. I'll probably give all the martial classes more ASIs too just so they can get extra stuff (all martials should have more ASIs, imo.)
I strongly suggest allowing feats. They are an essential part of the game, despite the 'optional' wording.
If you dislike feats, then I suggest you pick them for the character, rather than letting the PC pick them. Easiest way to make sure they do not become a problem.
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.
Vhuman and Custom lineage from Tasha's
I'd just don't allow those at level 1 because they can be massively abused. If they wanted to swap out the feat for one they wanted in a particular build at level 4 or 5, sure, if they wanted to nerf one of those feats to balance it for low level play sure.
To give an example look at something like PAM on a vengeance paladin. -Lv1 bonus action attack gives it +1d4+str which is a massive increase even if it doesn't get its reaction attack. -LV2 now the bonus action get 1d4+str +2 from dueling fighting style, and the 2nd attack gives 2 chances to smite (and 2 chances to crit for a bigger smite) -Lv3 Now it can get up to 1d4+str +2 + 1d6 from hunters mark.
That feat at low level can double that characters damage (-1 point of damage from double on average)
I love feats, both as a player and as a DM. I think it adds some much-needed allowance of variety of playstyle.
In the games I run, I allow all my players to pick 1 "Level 0 starting feat" that their character begins the game with, but that feat must 1) be explained in their backstory, AND 2) be chosen from a list I made, which only includes feats that seem reasonable to have as low-level backstory feats and also allows me to omit any I find too OP for low-level play. This allows my players to give more intrigue to their character with some minor mechanical benefits (usually) in a narrative way. Not only this, but I ALSO allow PCs to "train" for feats - meaning they can choose to spend downtime hours training towards feats (I also allow training for ASI points, languages, proficiencies, etc). Now, it takes 200 hours (I think?) of this training to get one feat (many more if it adds an ability score point), and many require some sort of mentor or assistance (the running gag at my table is that training Warcaster basically involves a caster trying to focus while another party member repeatedly bonks them with a stick), but my players LOVE it. This also means they have to choose between training or other downtime activities, like crafting. (Mind, this doesn't function as well in modules, but everything I run is homebrew so not a problem for me.) It wouldn't work if you don't offer your party adequate downtime, though.
As a player, one of my DMs does it a bit different. He allows feats at level 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 iirc, but you can't take a feat on ASI levels. We're a higher-level group in that game (currently 13), and he also had us use an increased value point buy system, so at some point I might have to raise the question of "look, my wizard's ability scores are already high and it makes no sense to make them higher yet I still have another ASI, what do?" but for now it's great.
Ultimately, if I were at a table where the DM didn't tell us right from the beginning of the game that they wouldn't be allowing feats on ASIs, I would be extremely unhappy, especially if I already had in mind feats for the build. "Optional" rule or not, springing this on a group later into the game, even before an ASI level, is very unfair.
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.
If using point buy for stats and the usual types of opponents, neither GWM nor SS are broken at level 1. The -5 to hit usually completely cancels any benefits in terms of damage from the -5/+10 aspect of the feats (which is the one most discussed). If a character decides to use these feats then the individual hits tend to be bigger but less frequent so that the average damage isn't really very different.
On the other hand, both PAM and Xbow expert give an additional attack in tier 1 which can be more significant. PAM is d4+stat and XBOW expert is d6+stat. Wielding a hand crossbow, XBow expert doubles the damage while PAM is a bit less since it uses a d4 and most polearms are d10 - though you can also use it with a spear (d6+stat) and a shield without sacrificing AC.
Two weapon fighting doesn't quite keep up since it allows only the weapon damage unless you have the fighting style. A character with the dual wielding feat, and two weapon fighting style, in tier 1, gets two d8+stat attacks and 1AC ... but it only remains really competitive with the other options in tier 1.
In late tier 2 and beyond, the proficiency+stat vs target AC is supplemented by magical weapons so that the -5 to hit is less of a penalty - e.g. a barbarian with a +9 to hit against an AC 15 with reckless attack has little reason not to use the -5/+10 option unless facing an opponent with an exceptionally high AC.
Anyway, in my opinion, none of these feats are really broken in tier 1 except in certain combinations.
e.g. A PAM vengeance paladin with hunter's mark can boost damage against single targets at the cost of the bonus action on some rounds to move the spell target. Similar effect with divine favor only costing one bonus action for the entire fight with an average 1 damage less than hunter's mark on each attack.
P.S. I recommend never using the flanking option from the DMG ... easily obtained advantage on every attack is more broken than any of the feat options.
Yeah SS and GWM aren't as bad as PaM but can still create big balance issues.
The reason I include SS and GWM is because of +2 to hit from archery and the fact that so many DMs allow flanking which makes GWM extremely strong at low levels.
GWM also has the rider of and extra attack on crits or kills and at low levels that +10 damage has a really good chance of granting that extra attack. A barbarian with reckless or a game with flanking, this can be pretty unbalanced.
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 see this approach as good management of how they are earned but this is definitely something I would need to talk to my players about ahead of time since I don't think it would be fair to not allow a particular Feat without a clear understanding of why. Though I can see players come back with this would constrain their decisions in, let's say in combat, "Well I better use my bow so I can get one more checkmark to allow me to earn Sharpshooter." and take away the more organic approach to decision making in combat. Now, these are things that can be talked out but this is definitely an interesting approach to Feats.
That's a fair criticism. I am up front about character development being a sort of "negotiated" process in the game, and well before the ASI/Feat moment, I'll even telegraph potential feat options if I'm observing particular PC behaviors. I also have the luxury that almost all my games are sort of "tutorial" with mostly first campaigners at the table, but the experienced players seem to dig it since the feat acquisition ususally digs them deeper into the world this way.
As far as consequences in player decision making ... I don't really see it that way anymore than a character who wants to be a treasure hunter is constrained by seeking treasure. Sharpshooter for instance wouldn't be awarded to a character that _never_ used a ranged weapon, but if it was clear it was a favored weapon and the character really wants to be Hawkeye, sure, let 'em have it. Doesn't mean nothing but arrows for four levels. Funny story, current group has a sharpshooter who missed everything with their bow levels 1-4, it was almost a running joke. So at leveling up time, we had this cool narration of the character taking some skulls (they were in a necropolis) and spending the time they had before the shadow crossing reopened shooting targets. He's better at ranged combat now.
Feats speak to significant events, the word practically means significant act, so just like we talk about how the character choosing a multi-class makes sense in the game world, we sort of review the characters history and give a few options.
I'll say the last time everyone got their first choice between an ASI and a Feat, they all went Feat, which I thought was interesting. I explained some of the ASI math, which I thought would have been advantageous in a few cases, but I think they all felt their was more expressive story potential in the feats. I thought it was interesting.
I have always allowed feats- I started D&D in 3.5e, where feats where basically the primary element of character design. Feats allow players to do a lot of interesting things, though I would say that there are some caveats that might be worth mentioning. Particularly, since Strixhaven, I've seen a lot of characters use Fey Touched to get Silvery Barbs free once per day and add it to their casting list, but then never bother to explain in character why their character is fey touched (though I've also used this as a player, so I can't judge too harshly). I also don't allow the backgrounds that grant feats or expanded in mixed background games, since that's just extra power for free, but that's not necessarily relevant.
I've also seen a lot of players use sharpshooter/great weapon master to great effect. Now, my first impulse was "Oh, they're doing up to a hundred points of damage in a turn on good rolls, that doesn't check out." However, given that these feats usually belong to fighters and barbarians who don't have much else, it's usually fine (though I have seen paladins/smitelocks use them to deal absurd damage outputs). Sacrificing a chance to hit makes these feats a bit less broken for the builds who already have extremely high per hit damage (since if a rogue or paladin doesn't hit, they risk losing a lot of their damage potential for the turn) but viable for fighters (who attack often but are pretty limited in additional damage) and barbarians (with reckless attack to mitigate the penalty to hit) who usually struggle to compete at higher levels. It can be very strong when taken early on, since early creatures have lower AC and few hit points generally speaking, but it's not broken.
Elven Accuracy is another one to keep an eye on, because there are some cheesy builds that leverage ways to gain constant advantage that make this more powerful, but unless you're playing with really abusive power gamers it's not a problem.
Basically, feats are almost always fine. If you want to limit your players, have a conversation with them and say that you would prefer they not stack certain feats (such as GWM/Polearm Master/Sentinel, which is an extremely powerful build option for fighters that basically gives guaranteed extra attacks with possibly huge damage repercussions), but not having feats at all is somewhat limiting for builds. There are plenty of flavorful, RP oriented character options that benefit from various feats, either to round out deficiencies because they didn't prioritize combat or enhance roleplay, and I think it's important to allow for that. I would just make sure that you don't have power mismatches at the table- if you have some veteran players who are planning on doing optimized feat builds to do combat shenanigans, but you also have beginner players who can't keep up or roleplay heavy characters who will be hopelessly left behind, just have a conversation with your players about your concerns so that you're not having to balance around having both Strog the Destroyer of Worlds and Lily the Flower Hugger in the same party (seriously, I've had to balance encounters where some players have an AC of 29 and others have an AC of 11 and it is a nightmare).
I generally run small parties that tend to struggle in the L3-5 bracket, so I tend to give them a free feat at L3-4 to boost their strength. It's preferable to having to try and adjust monster strengths on the fly and allows their character to have more flavour than just getting an ASI boost. Interestingly, our duo, the smallest party, never needed the feats. We played it straight, and they did pretty well.
Originally I was reluctant, but I'm now more enthusiastic about including feats.
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.
Yes, I allow feats in my game. Basically, I break it down like this...
There are three types of feats: Full feats, half feats, and shitty full feats.
You can hand out shitty full feats with little consequence. For half feats, you can offer them without the ASI. Full feats should be given out VERY carefully.
Here's my list of (arguably) the least favorite feats in the game,
Charger
Dungeon Delver
Grappler
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Mage Slayer
Martial Adept
Mounted Combatant
Savage Attacker
Skulker
There has been some argument about Healer and Inspiring Leader, but I just don't see much downside to these. Players do like them, and some folks actually do pick these over other feats, but I think the impact to the game is minimal.
Yes, I allow feats in my game. Basically, I break it down like this...
There are three types of feats: Full feats, half feats, and shitty full feats.
You can hand out shitty full feats with little consequence. For half feats, you can offer them without the ASI. Full feats should be given out VERY carefully.
Here's my list of shitty full feats. These are (arguably) the worst feats in the game,
Charger
Dungeon Delver
Grappler
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Mage Slayer
Martial Adept
Mounted Combatant
Savage Attacker
Skulker
There has been some argument about Healer and Inspiring Leader, but I just don't see much downside to these. Players do like them, and some folks actually do pick these over other feats, but I think the impact to the game is minimal.
Idk man, people are sleeping on mage slayer. It's ******* amazing to be able to opp attack someone when they cast a spell in front of you. If you're standing withing 5 ft. of the caster when they cast a save spell against you have advantage on the save. They have disadvantage on their concentration save if you hit them. Great feat. Martial adept, mounted combatant, inspiring leader, and healer aren't shitty feats. They are just niche. Mounted combatant is GREAT for my cavalier because her mount is large size and so she'll have advantage against any medium creature that isn't mounted. These feats are just super good for specific builds, they aren't bad or actively detrimental. The other ones are really just lackluster.
Yes, I allow feats in my game. Basically, I break it down like this...
There are three types of feats: Full feats, half feats, and shitty full feats.
You can hand out shitty full feats with little consequence. For half feats, you can offer them without the ASI. Full feats should be given out VERY carefully.
Here's my list of shitty full feats. These are (arguably) the worst feats in the game,
Charger
Dungeon Delver
Grappler
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Mage Slayer
Martial Adept
Mounted Combatant
Savage Attacker
Skulker
There has been some argument about Healer and Inspiring Leader, but I just don't see much downside to these. Players do like them, and some folks actually do pick these over other feats, but I think the impact to the game is minimal.
Why, oh why, would you remove the ASI from half feats? It's the best of both worlds a lot of the time. Especially for casters. Giving them, at low level, more spells, and at all levels more known spells without that it unbalances the game?
Just two cents ... but Healer and Inspiring Leader are both very good feats. Healer is excellent on a thief rogue and in any party lacking in the healing department while Inspiring Leader is just good on any character with high charisma. The big difference about these is that they are party boosting feats rather than personal power boosting ones.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I allow them to give more depth to characters.
Having said that - some of them really rip holes in balancing. Nothing that can't be overcome, but it invariably will change how to set challenges for your group since some feat can become very dominant otherwise.
I see this approach as good management of how they are earned but this is definitely something I would need to talk to my players about ahead of time since I don't think it would be fair to not allow a particular Feat without a clear understanding of why. Though I can see players come back with this would constrain their decisions in, let's say in combat, "Well I better use my bow so I can get one more checkmark to allow me to earn Sharpshooter." and take away the more organic approach to decision making in combat. Now, these are things that can be talked out but this is definitely an interesting approach to Feats.
For my current campaign, I decided that I wanted my players to each start with a feat at level 1, with no restrictions, and so far it's been great. Funnily enough, two of them have taken what are often categorized as "OP" feats (Sharpshooter and Lucky), and in all honesty they've been pretty easy for me to work with; in fact, the sharpshooter has missed more attacks by trying to use their feat than they would have if they'd just made a normal attack roll...
I'm curious as to why this seems OP to you? A photographic memory is one of the few powers that actually exists IRL. What does it break? Does any campaign ever hinge on the supposition that the characters forgot something? As a DM I'm overjoyed when PCs actually remember things, and being able to tell a player their character remembers X detail seems like easy mode for the DM, not the player.
Also confused as to why anyone would see these as OP either. Maybe Crusher if used in conjunction with a lot of area stuff, but the other two are solidly middling. Are you rating them in combination with Elven Accuracy or something? Cause they are not the strong part of that combo.
I see feats like anything else - you need to trust the players to use them responsibly. You can make "OP" builds without them. Even powerful builds like Sentinel + PAM have drawbacks that aren't talked about much, the primary one being that you are still limited to 1 Reaction per round.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
If using point buy for stats and the usual types of opponents, neither GWM nor SS are broken at level 1. The -5 to hit usually completely cancels any benefits in terms of damage from the -5/+10 aspect of the feats (which is the one most discussed). If a character decides to use these feats then the individual hits tend to be bigger but less frequent so that the average damage isn't really very different.
On the other hand, both PAM and Xbow expert give an additional attack in tier 1 which can be more significant. PAM is d4+stat and XBOW expert is d6+stat. Wielding a hand crossbow, XBow expert doubles the damage while PAM is a bit less since it uses a d4 and most polearms are d10 - though you can also use it with a spear (d6+stat) and a shield without sacrificing AC.
Two weapon fighting doesn't quite keep up since it allows only the weapon damage unless you have the fighting style. A character with the dual wielding feat, and two weapon fighting style, in tier 1, gets two d8+stat attacks and 1AC ... but it only remains really competitive with the other options in tier 1.
In late tier 2 and beyond, the proficiency+stat vs target AC is supplemented by magical weapons so that the -5 to hit is less of a penalty - e.g. a barbarian with a +9 to hit against an AC 15 with reckless attack has little reason not to use the -5/+10 option unless facing an opponent with an exceptionally high AC.
Anyway, in my opinion, none of these feats are really broken in tier 1 except in certain combinations.
e.g. A PAM vengeance paladin with hunter's mark can boost damage against single targets at the cost of the bonus action on some rounds to move the spell target. Similar effect with divine favor only costing one bonus action for the entire fight with an average 1 damage less than hunter's mark on each attack.
P.S. I recommend never using the flanking option from the DMG ... easily obtained advantage on every attack is more broken than any of the feat options.
The more feats they have, the harder I can make the combat, weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
This is the thing about it tho, the game wasn't built with feats in mind and so the core of the game is thrown out of wack because of it.
I allow feats, I've done the feat at 1st level thing, I've been on the player side of it as well. I basically NEVER take an ASI when I'm allowed to use feats unless I started with a 16 in my main stat (with a 17 it is MUCH easier, and imo better, to just take half feats). I plan to use feats as rewards for my players, but they haven't done anything to earn them just yet.
I'm thinking of maybe running a short game that doesn't allow multiclassing or feats just to see what the base game is like, probably even running the monster statblocks straight every time just to see how the game plays. I already disallow multiclassing in one of my games and it will be a permanent addition to all future games I run going forward. This thread got me thinking of maybe I should just let people roll ridiculous for their main stat like 8d6k3 or something just so they can take more feats and not have to deal with that shit of ASIs. I'll probably give all the martial classes more ASIs too just so they can get extra stuff (all martials should have more ASIs, imo.)
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
I strongly suggest allowing feats. They are an essential part of the game, despite the 'optional' wording.
If you dislike feats, then I suggest you pick them for the character, rather than letting the PC pick them. Easiest way to make sure they do not become a problem.
Vhuman and Custom lineage from Tasha's
I'd just don't allow those at level 1 because they can be massively abused. If they wanted to swap out the feat for one they wanted in a particular build at level 4 or 5, sure, if they wanted to nerf one of those feats to balance it for low level play sure.
To give an example look at something like PAM on a vengeance paladin.
-Lv1 bonus action attack gives it +1d4+str which is a massive increase even if it doesn't get its reaction attack.
-LV2 now the bonus action get 1d4+str +2 from dueling fighting style, and the 2nd attack gives 2 chances to smite (and 2 chances to crit for a bigger smite)
-Lv3 Now it can get up to 1d4+str +2 + 1d6 from hunters mark.
That feat at low level can double that characters damage (-1 point of damage from double on average)
I love feats, both as a player and as a DM. I think it adds some much-needed allowance of variety of playstyle.
In the games I run, I allow all my players to pick 1 "Level 0 starting feat" that their character begins the game with, but that feat must 1) be explained in their backstory, AND 2) be chosen from a list I made, which only includes feats that seem reasonable to have as low-level backstory feats and also allows me to omit any I find too OP for low-level play. This allows my players to give more intrigue to their character with some minor mechanical benefits (usually) in a narrative way. Not only this, but I ALSO allow PCs to "train" for feats - meaning they can choose to spend downtime hours training towards feats (I also allow training for ASI points, languages, proficiencies, etc). Now, it takes 200 hours (I think?) of this training to get one feat (many more if it adds an ability score point), and many require some sort of mentor or assistance (the running gag at my table is that training Warcaster basically involves a caster trying to focus while another party member repeatedly bonks them with a stick), but my players LOVE it. This also means they have to choose between training or other downtime activities, like crafting. (Mind, this doesn't function as well in modules, but everything I run is homebrew so not a problem for me.) It wouldn't work if you don't offer your party adequate downtime, though.
As a player, one of my DMs does it a bit different. He allows feats at level 0, 5, 10, 15, 20 iirc, but you can't take a feat on ASI levels. We're a higher-level group in that game (currently 13), and he also had us use an increased value point buy system, so at some point I might have to raise the question of "look, my wizard's ability scores are already high and it makes no sense to make them higher yet I still have another ASI, what do?" but for now it's great.
Ultimately, if I were at a table where the DM didn't tell us right from the beginning of the game that they wouldn't be allowing feats on ASIs, I would be extremely unhappy, especially if I already had in mind feats for the build. "Optional" rule or not, springing this on a group later into the game, even before an ASI level, is very unfair.
Yeah SS and GWM aren't as bad as PaM but can still create big balance issues.
The reason I include SS and GWM is because of +2 to hit from archery and the fact that so many DMs allow flanking which makes GWM extremely strong at low levels.
GWM also has the rider of and extra attack on crits or kills and at low levels that +10 damage has a really good chance of granting that extra attack. A barbarian with reckless or a game with flanking, this can be pretty unbalanced.
That's a fair criticism. I am up front about character development being a sort of "negotiated" process in the game, and well before the ASI/Feat moment, I'll even telegraph potential feat options if I'm observing particular PC behaviors. I also have the luxury that almost all my games are sort of "tutorial" with mostly first campaigners at the table, but the experienced players seem to dig it since the feat acquisition ususally digs them deeper into the world this way.
As far as consequences in player decision making ... I don't really see it that way anymore than a character who wants to be a treasure hunter is constrained by seeking treasure. Sharpshooter for instance wouldn't be awarded to a character that _never_ used a ranged weapon, but if it was clear it was a favored weapon and the character really wants to be Hawkeye, sure, let 'em have it. Doesn't mean nothing but arrows for four levels. Funny story, current group has a sharpshooter who missed everything with their bow levels 1-4, it was almost a running joke. So at leveling up time, we had this cool narration of the character taking some skulls (they were in a necropolis) and spending the time they had before the shadow crossing reopened shooting targets. He's better at ranged combat now.
Feats speak to significant events, the word practically means significant act, so just like we talk about how the character choosing a multi-class makes sense in the game world, we sort of review the characters history and give a few options.
I'll say the last time everyone got their first choice between an ASI and a Feat, they all went Feat, which I thought was interesting. I explained some of the ASI math, which I thought would have been advantageous in a few cases, but I think they all felt their was more expressive story potential in the feats. I thought it was interesting.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I have always allowed feats- I started D&D in 3.5e, where feats where basically the primary element of character design. Feats allow players to do a lot of interesting things, though I would say that there are some caveats that might be worth mentioning. Particularly, since Strixhaven, I've seen a lot of characters use Fey Touched to get Silvery Barbs free once per day and add it to their casting list, but then never bother to explain in character why their character is fey touched (though I've also used this as a player, so I can't judge too harshly). I also don't allow the backgrounds that grant feats or expanded in mixed background games, since that's just extra power for free, but that's not necessarily relevant.
I've also seen a lot of players use sharpshooter/great weapon master to great effect. Now, my first impulse was "Oh, they're doing up to a hundred points of damage in a turn on good rolls, that doesn't check out." However, given that these feats usually belong to fighters and barbarians who don't have much else, it's usually fine (though I have seen paladins/smitelocks use them to deal absurd damage outputs). Sacrificing a chance to hit makes these feats a bit less broken for the builds who already have extremely high per hit damage (since if a rogue or paladin doesn't hit, they risk losing a lot of their damage potential for the turn) but viable for fighters (who attack often but are pretty limited in additional damage) and barbarians (with reckless attack to mitigate the penalty to hit) who usually struggle to compete at higher levels. It can be very strong when taken early on, since early creatures have lower AC and few hit points generally speaking, but it's not broken.
Elven Accuracy is another one to keep an eye on, because there are some cheesy builds that leverage ways to gain constant advantage that make this more powerful, but unless you're playing with really abusive power gamers it's not a problem.
Basically, feats are almost always fine. If you want to limit your players, have a conversation with them and say that you would prefer they not stack certain feats (such as GWM/Polearm Master/Sentinel, which is an extremely powerful build option for fighters that basically gives guaranteed extra attacks with possibly huge damage repercussions), but not having feats at all is somewhat limiting for builds. There are plenty of flavorful, RP oriented character options that benefit from various feats, either to round out deficiencies because they didn't prioritize combat or enhance roleplay, and I think it's important to allow for that. I would just make sure that you don't have power mismatches at the table- if you have some veteran players who are planning on doing optimized feat builds to do combat shenanigans, but you also have beginner players who can't keep up or roleplay heavy characters who will be hopelessly left behind, just have a conversation with your players about your concerns so that you're not having to balance around having both Strog the Destroyer of Worlds and Lily the Flower Hugger in the same party (seriously, I've had to balance encounters where some players have an AC of 29 and others have an AC of 11 and it is a nightmare).
I generally run small parties that tend to struggle in the L3-5 bracket, so I tend to give them a free feat at L3-4 to boost their strength. It's preferable to having to try and adjust monster strengths on the fly and allows their character to have more flavour than just getting an ASI boost. Interestingly, our duo, the smallest party, never needed the feats. We played it straight, and they did pretty well.
Originally I was reluctant, but I'm now more enthusiastic about including feats.
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.
Yes, I allow feats in my game. Basically, I break it down like this...
There are three types of feats: Full feats, half feats, and shitty full feats.
You can hand out shitty full feats with little consequence. For half feats, you can offer them without the ASI. Full feats should be given out VERY carefully.
Here's my list of (arguably) the least favorite feats in the game,
Charger
Dungeon Delver
Grappler
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Mage Slayer
Martial Adept
Mounted Combatant
Savage Attacker
Skulker
There has been some argument about Healer and Inspiring Leader, but I just don't see much downside to these. Players do like them, and some folks actually do pick these over other feats, but I think the impact to the game is minimal.
Edit: Changed the list name to "least favorite".
Idk man, people are sleeping on mage slayer. It's ******* amazing to be able to opp attack someone when they cast a spell in front of you. If you're standing withing 5 ft. of the caster when they cast a save spell against you have advantage on the save. They have disadvantage on their concentration save if you hit them. Great feat. Martial adept, mounted combatant, inspiring leader, and healer aren't shitty feats. They are just niche. Mounted combatant is GREAT for my cavalier because her mount is large size and so she'll have advantage against any medium creature that isn't mounted. These feats are just super good for specific builds, they aren't bad or actively detrimental. The other ones are really just lackluster.
Er ek geng, þat er í þeim skóm er ek valda.
UwU
Mounted Combat is an incredible feat. Necessary if using a mount. Both protects them AND grants you advantage on most victims.
Anyone that thinks it sucks has not played with a mounted fighter. Halfling riding a dog and using Enlarge works great.
Most every feat has some situation where it works incredibly well. Even Mage Slayer would be good if the Party was fighting a group of wizards.
But the reality is that VERY FEW players are going to pick these feats at level 4 or 8. There's just too many better options.
A halfling knight for mounted feat using a mastiff as a mount.
Why, oh why, would you remove the ASI from half feats? It's the best of both worlds a lot of the time. Especially for casters. Giving them, at low level, more spells, and at all levels more known spells without that it unbalances the game?
Just two cents ... but Healer and Inspiring Leader are both very good feats. Healer is excellent on a thief rogue and in any party lacking in the healing department while Inspiring Leader is just good on any character with high charisma. The big difference about these is that they are party boosting feats rather than personal power boosting ones.