What are DM thoughts on not playing with Feats in the current (pre-2024 rulebooks) era of D&D?
I've run a diverse array of games (FATE, Blades in the Dark, PF, PF2e, Fiasco, Starfinder, Fudge, GURPS) and I've run or played in three distinct versions of D&D (5e, 3e, aD&D). Recently I wrapped up DMing a mix of Dragon of Icespire Peak and Lost Mine of Phandelver. Now those adventures I'd argue aren't designed with Feats in mind, but I allowed them anyway. I've never really thought twice about it, but I'm beginning to wonder if feats aren't the problem with D&D as it currently exists. I'm considering running a game with no feats at all (and also disallowing Variant Human for this reason), but have a few questions:
Have any other DMs done this?
Do you do this as standard?
What has your response been from players?
We all know, I'm sure, that CR doesn't really function as intended when you have a party loaded with magic items, or feats, or DM bonuses (like granting extra proficiencies or other fun stuff picked up in play). I'm sure we've also all had those really fun characters that have been built in a way that makes them just a little over the top in one way or another. In my recent 2.5 year campaign we had a character finish with like 38 in passive perception due to this stuff.
Despite how cool these characters can be I've had a few players, and I myself have felt like character classes just aren't special or unique any more. I kinda feel like the 2024 books are about to exacerbate that issue...Rangers just don't feel like they have a reason to exists in 2024. No class to me feels special or unique in any real way any more. By the time we begin to add feats...the classes feel even less special. I think this cuts to the heart of what I'm troubled with when it comes to feats. They allow immense customisation but at the loss of class speciality. Granted I'm in my late 30s and so grew up in a time when fighters were really unlikely to be casting magic so I carry some bias here. Still, thumbing through my copy of Tales of the Valiant the classes actually all feel special and a bit unique. They feel like they have a reason to exist.
All of which leads me to want to run a game that does not utilise Feats, which I'll remind people are an optional rule. I worry though that feats are now seen almost irrecoverably as a core part of the D&D 5e experience. So, I'd love some thoughts from fellow DMs...how have players responded either when you've disallowed feats or talked about disallowing feats.
Additional Context: My current groups will have adult discussion about this and will decide as a group what they want at the table. I am more thinking ahead to the next time I run a game online or in person for a group I do not know (FLGS or what have you), so the interest in the thoughts of strangers stems from this.
I think it is up to you what sort of game you run and enjoy. Feats and multiclassing are optional rules which a DM can choose to use or not as they wish. However, both of these and some of the other features (like the magic items that the DM makes available) are intended to allow a system of character classes to produce more customized characters to fit with a player's character concept.
Without feats and multiclassing, every example of a given archetype is mechanically identical to any other player's version. If you have two players with battle master fighters for example then they are pretty much identical except perhaps for their choice of maneuvers and preferred weapons (melee vs ranged, str vs dex). Similarly, the main distinguishing feature for the same subclass of a caster are the spells they choose. The primary differences between two characters of the same class becomes their choice of archetype. This is absolutely playable and I believe can be just as much fun as a campaign that includes feats and multiclassing depending on the players involved and the DM. Caveat: I've only played in and run games that allow both feats and multiclassing.
In my opinion, the main apect to keep in mind in a game without feats is that some classes rely on ASIs more than others. Most classes only get 5 total (4, 8, 12, 16, 19). Rogue and fighter get 7. The challenge without feats is that the ASIs then go into just stat increases ... first primary that usually requires 2 to max out, then secondary which likely takes 2 or 3 depending on whether it was initially 14 or 16, then 1-3 ASIs depending on class for tertiary stats which have very little impact on the character and may not feel very rewarding at all. Monks and paladins can really use the stat increases (and often might choose those over feats anyway) while other classes like rogue, wizard and perhaps fighter benefit most from a maxed primary stat and the other stats have less impact. This means that a system without feats is a bit unbalanced in terms of available choices for different classes.
In terms of game balance, in my opinion again, there are only four feats that really have a significant impact - sharpshooter and cross bow expert, great weapon master and polearm master. These either provide additional bonus action attacks or a method to enhance damage significantly at the cost of decreased to hit probability. However, with the bounded accuracy system in 5e and the magic items a DM provides to the players, the to hit penalty can often be significantly mitigated by mid to late tier 2 or perhaps earlier for classes with an easy way to obtain advantage. Most of the other feats can provide some interesting options but likely don't have the same impact on combat encounters.
Finally, I've run DoIP and played LMoP and I didn't see any indication that these were designed without feats in mind. I think they were to be honest.
However, what these modules and most other published modules do not assume is a fully optimized and coordinated party. Modules can't be designed that way (especially these ones) since they have to accommodate less than optimal character build decisions by less experienced players (and newbie players and DMs) OR experienced players looking for something neat but less optimal. For example, the 4th level character with 3 artificer levels with a 13 in charisma that picks up a level in sorcerer because it fits their backstory (or they like the cantrips) even though it really lacks any synergy with their character mechanically vs a variant human gloomstalker ranger with crossbow expert and sharpshooter by level 4.
When I ran DoIP, I had to significantly increase the challenge of some of the encounters since the players were generally experienced and some of them liked to build more optimized and effective characters - that is not the fault of the module since it can't be written to accommodate every possible range of player ability and characters. Removing some feats might reduce the possibility of character optimization slightly (though SS and GWM have minimal impact in tier 1 since the to hit penalty is significant enough and characters usually only have one attack so that they don't really change total damage in practice) but it can't prevent the characters using tactics like focused fire, proper use of terrain and cover, proper use of crowd control spells and abilities, proper character coordination (for example the fighter using the Commander's Strike maneuver to give the rogue the opportunity to land two sneak attacks in one round vs making an attack of their own). Even just the focused fire tactic will significantly affect encounter balance. I was almost involved in a TPK when each of the characters ended up fighting a different opponent rather than focusing them down one at a time. A moderate encounter almost became a more than deadly one just due to player tactics and feats, multiclassing, and module design have no impact on that aspect of play balance.
I am waiting for the 2024 PHB to come out before deciding how "generic" the revisions make the characters feel. My big issue with 4e was exactly that. Each class had at-will, encounter and daily powers and they all seemed rather bland and generic doing much the same thing whether the character was a wizard or a fighter ... I played 2-3 games of 4e and that was enough for me personally. In contrast, 5e seemed to have much of the flavor of AD&D with greatly streamlined mechanics (no more THAC0, no more weapon to hit against AC modifiers, more useful and survivable low level caster classes, a bit more balanced at the higher levels). From what I have read of the 2024 PHB, the classes still seem unique enough that they haven't fallen into the 4e trap but I'll need to see the rules in detail to form a final opinion.
To your first point @david42 no, it's really not any more. I've run sessions at local game shops and received baseless abuse because I have placed limitations on available sources - we went with just PHB & XGtE. Player expectation with 5e has radically changed with randoms. That is the whole point. Before I go in saying 'hey I'm going to run a game without feats' I want a read on what other people's experience with players has been in that scenario. If I'm right in my thinking that players in general think of feats as 'standard' then it will change the way that games without feats get advertised.
Recently, my almost 3 year campaign in a homebrew setting called 'Eternarii' ended. That group had the benefit of access to a discord server where I was writing up notes on my new setting. Our session zero was running through what options, rulesets, and house rules that we as an entire group wanted. I laid out all of the optional rules, all of the additional stuff from DMG and asked the group flat out - what do you want from the game. The point, and I feel like either I wasn't clear in my original post or you've not read and understood it all, was to ask about groups with whom a DM is not familiar.
To your second, I'm sorry but I've played enough game systems and enough 5e to categorically argue that the biggest differentiation is on the roleplay side. Mechanical similarities are not a factor I recognise as a reason to increase the amount of options for player characters. At least...that's true for the style of game I am more often running. I am trying to emphasise the collaborative storytelling aspect. With around 100 subclasses, any given group of 6 players aren't going to have half the crossover mechanically that you'd expect. I've literally had two Life Cleric Dwarves in one campaign who were run entirely differently. While their subclass, race, and class options might have been mechanically identical it was their equipment, spell choice, background, and play styles that really set them apart. Frankly, I'd suggest to any DM or player who claims this to go out and explore playing in thematically different game systems. Unique characters really aren't a result of the mechanics.
Your third point about ASIs, I'm not really sure what you're getting at in truth. Beyond the fact that ASIs aren't shiny and fancy...they are still the fairest way to my mind. The point of the Fighter getting 7 ASIs is to overcome their (relatively lack of flexibility). Likewise the Rogue gets only 6 I'm sure.
Finally, DoIP and LMoP shipped initially with basic rules only. If you ever run a game with just that basic rules booklet, then run the same adventure from PHB, XGtE and TCoE you can immediately see the difference. They really were designed for Basic Rules only. And there's nothing wrong with that to be clear. That is often why DMs running both adventures end up altering the encounters and the balance, because they run the game including more sources (which again nothing wrong with).
I've run games for 6 years with no Feats. I've also only began to implement Feats into my games about 2 years ago. It takes a lot to understand all of them, and trying to keep up with the flood of new ones is difficult.
Feats can be fun but they are a crutch. They override rules and/or give class features to characters that are not even remotely tied to what the Feat gives. Yes, I make characters with Feats. To not do so would make my characters lag behind the power curve of the rest of the party.
In the end, you can totally run a successful game for a long time with no Feats. You can also choose to implement them at any time during your campaign - at the beginning, when the party reaches lvl 4, or 10 or whatever you want. If people refuse to play in your game or give you a hard time about it, they don't have to play. It's your game, they can find another. Be sure you are comfortable with what they do.
All that being said, Feats are granted left and right in the 2024 rules. So you will have to use them if you're going to play 524.
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?"
Feats do seem to be built into 5.24 as core rather than optional features. Everyone gets one feat from their background and the “variant” human is now the standard human. However, the feats at level 1 are restricted to “origin” feats, which do not include the more powerful options like XBE, GWM, SS and PAM. From the UA documents, it looks like those ones have also been tamed down a bit. So, hopefully, feats should be less problematic… 🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻
I'll get this out now: I have no intention of utilising the 2024 rulebooks. I already own Pathfinder 2e and Tales of the Valiant and frankly both, in my opinion, do a better job of making classes feel unique than does 5e. So, I don't really see the point or need for an update to 5e. I actually playtested the UA with a group of other GMs and we were all universally unimpressed by what was proposed. We've since discussed what has been announced thus far and it's not interesting to me.
The thing is that I feel like Pathfinder 2e just does a far better job with Feats than 5e. If I want to go without feats, then it's between the 2014 and Tales of the Valiant as a ruleset. Though I do worry that it will get more difficult to find players for a 2014 PHB game if I run sessions this way. I've met some awesome people running games for strangers, and largely I've been fortunate that my experience has been positive. I've also seen a concerning rise of main character syndrome, and a few other less than compatible playstyles.
The shame is that I do kinda like feats, but I feel like they are a bit of a crutch..much as Wysperra mentioned. I love as a DM giving custom features and boosts to player chatacters as their stories unfold. For example, I had a Druid who when out of their way at every opportunity to show off their dedication to their deity. I gave them at (I think) Level 3 an extra wild shape per long rest as an in game way of showing that the character's deity was appreciative. Likewise, if a player wants to train in a particular way, maybe they have an idea of something they want their character to be able to do - that's FAR better a feat to make the character unique and special than the current lists we have. It also helps those long stretches between level ups feel like they can be rewarding. It's a great way for players and GMs to work together to shape and mold the world. The odd thing is that feats being a standard part of the game can often undermine those moments that a character has worked toward. If a player character spends their downtime training to be more skilled with their Greataxe, but then at the next level up someone else just magically gets Great Weapon Master it ends up feeling kind of cheap.
Pathfinder of course takes a different strategy in that there are class specific feats and you can choose those every two levels. That makes for an awesome level of customisability and blows those who tout 5e feats as 'customisation' out of the water. No two bards in PF2e are the same.
I think there is the problem though - D&D 5e just attracts more players. It's the airport novel of TTRPGs. Popular, but fairly mediocre in craft. There's obviously no shame or problem with that, but after so many editions and interations and updates now it's getting less and less fun being swept along with the crowd to the latest updates. Players have expectations, and despite the fact that DMs are in far shorter supply I feel like it tends only to be player expectations that matter.
Feats ARE NOT an optional rule in 2024, they are a core rule. That is why the ASI has been turned into a feat of it's own. If you want to play without feats, stick to the 2014 rules.
Feats ARE NOT an optional rule in 2024, they are a core rule. That is why the ASI has been turned into a feat of it's own. If you want to play without feats, stick to the 2014 rules.
Please read the thread before you post. As I have said, I'm not going to be using the 2024 rulebooks at my table (at player requests). They aren't impressed with the 2024 book previews thus far, and neither am I. We will be using the 2014 ruleset. If you'd have read the original post you'd have seen that.
I've been running the game since 1983 - and all the editions you can guess.
I've allowed feats, and also prohibited them to see what the difference would be. Sure, there is a difference - but I don't think it's a problem with the game. Nor do I think things no longer look special or unique or interesting. What I see in all the options and opportunities is to better understand what my players are leaning into so I can build stories around those concepts.
I don't think it's a consensus topic, though. So if you don't find it special, that's not wrong.
Feats, along with skills add to the plethora of executable buttons designed to circumvent the role-playing conversation. There is little upside to using them, all they do is pull people out of their imagination for answers and have them looking on the character sheet.
Less is more, feats being optional was one of the many brilliant elements of 5e, now that they are back in the game as a default, the game is lesser for it.
Multiclassing breaks the CR way more than feats. Most of the feats don't harm CR. In fact most of the feats are just cool sounding traps. So I think if you want to play a less broken game you need to outlaw multiclassing and don't worry about feats.
Multiclassing breaks the CR way more than feats. Most of the feats don't harm CR. In fact most of the feats are just cool sounding traps. So I think if you want to play a less broken game you need to outlaw multiclassing and don't worry about feats.
If you really read the OP's comments, I don't think he is talking about game balance.
The base issue as I understand it is that the OP wants the Classes to be unique, so that there is purpose behind being one class over another. Aka, he is talking about archetypes.
The root cause of this feeling is the design of the game. I agree that multiclassing is a far bigger issue than feats in this regard as multiclassing really eliminates archetypes (its quite literally the purpose of it) , but the main issue he is running up against is that classes in modern D&D don't have specializations or archetypes.
Choosing a class doesn't mean you are committing to anything... like picking a Cleric doesn't mean you are going to be a healer or picking a Rogue doesn't mean you will know how to find and disable traps. There are no archetypical reasons to select one class over another nor any enforcement of class archetyping. If you want to cast fireballs, you can still pick a Fighter class character and there is a route of optional choices you can make that will allow you to eventually cast fireballs. You can be a Druid and be a master thief or a Ranger that knows more about the arcane arts than most Wizards. All of these things are possible in modern D&D, there are no restrictions, classifications or even direction for anything.
I don't really have any advice on that, modern D&D is a anything goes high fantasy adventure game, it is like this, because its designed to be like this. If you are looking for something with archetypes and more gamified setting structure, you have to pick another game. D&D hasn't been "that" in a very long time and you really can't "redesign it" with house rules to fix that easily. Its literarily built into the core architecture of the game and requires a lot of work to undo.
Fortunately people have done this work for you. Check out Shadowdark, its basically 5e but designed with very clear class archetypes.
I think it is up to you what sort of game you run and enjoy. Feats and multiclassing are optional rules which a DM can choose to use or not as they wish. However, both of these and some of the other features (like the magic items that the DM makes available) are intended to allow a system of character classes to produce more customized characters to fit with a player's character concept.
Except 90% of the time that is not what they are used for, they are used primarily to increase the power potential of characters.
However, the feats at level 1 are restricted to “origin” feats, which do not include the more powerful options like XBE, GWM, SS and PAM. From the UA documents, it looks like those ones have also been tamed down a bit. So, hopefully, feats should be less problematic…
Doubtful, GWM, PAM, XBE, Warcaster and Dual Wielder continue to stand above the others so will continue to dominate the game. The only major change in 2024 is the half-feat design which makes there more of a trade off to doing a-typical builds (i.e. taking GWM on a character that doesn't use STR as their primary attribute).
I've played in a game with no feats and no multiclassing and while I initially chaffed a bit at not being able to build an optimized character, I have to admit it did make it more of a party-based game where each character had strengths and weaknesses and we had to work together to succeed. I would definitely play that way again if given the opportunity. Though we also played PHB classes & subclasses only which also helped by removing the innately gish-y subclasses like Bladesinger and Hexblade. Overall, I think gishes are actually bad for the game.
I've played in a game with no feats and no multiclassing and while I initially chaffed a bit at not being able to build an optimized character, I have to admit it did make it more of a party-based game where each character had strengths and weaknesses and we had to work together to succeed. I would definitely play that way again if given the opportunity. Though we also played PHB classes & subclasses only which also helped by removing the innately gish-y subclasses like Bladesinger and Hexblade. Overall, I think gishes are actually bad for the game.
I think this brings up a good point about 5th edition D&D and probably 2024 D&D as well.
One of the issues with the game I do think is "balance", we hear and talk about it all the time on this forum. Not in the sense of "is the Fighter balanced compared to the Wizard" or "Is the Rogue as interesting and specialized to play as the Druid", but balance as in, if you are a party of 3rd level characters, how many Orcs is an easy fight, how many Orcs is an impossible fight.
One of the simplest and most direct way to balance the game is very specifically to force unoptimized characters and in a way, this was part of why old-school games like 1e where considered "deadly" and why characters felt far more specialized. They actually weren't mathematically any more than modern games, but the reality was that you almost always played grossly unoptimized characters which kind of created the illusion of deadliness and speciality because of the way character generation worked and the few ways you had to "get an edge" on the math.
If you toss out Feats for example, make people roll hit points starting at 1st level with no re-rolls ever and make ability score generation 3d6 down the line...Yeah, you can bet that all of a sudden "The Fighter" in the group with a 16 strength and 15 constitutions, the only guy with a strength and constitution higher than 7 and more than 10 hit points is definitely going to have a very clear role in the game. Suddenly having a rogue with a high perception, and a good range of skills is going to be a significant thing as will that backstabb. A cleric's healing spells are going to be critical to the success of the party. etc.. A Wizards spell key to success.
Like I think the roles and archetypes in 5e can still be very meaningful with the right setup. I think the problem is that the power levels of the characters compared to the power levels of the game are so rigged in favor of the players and players are allowed to optimize so heavily using the standard rules that you just end up with this weird situation where none of the powers matter.... All the characters are crazy murder hobbo's from hell, they don't actually rely on each other for anything.
I think this brings up a good point about 5th edition D&D and probably 2024 D&D as well.
One of the issues with the game I do think is "balance", we hear and talk about it all the time on this forum. Not in the sense of "is the Fighter balanced compared to the Wizard" or "Is the Rogue as interesting and specialized to play as the Druid", but balance as in, if you are a party of 3rd level characters, how many Orcs is an easy fight, how many Orcs is an impossible fight.
One of the simplest and most direct way to balance the game is very specifically to force unoptimized characters and in a way, this was part of why old-school games like 1e where considered "deadly" and why characters felt far more specialized. They actually weren't mathematically any more than modern games, but the reality was that you almost always played grossly unoptimized characters which kind of created the illusion of deadliness and speciality because of the way character generation worked and the few ways you had to "get an edge" on the math.
If you toss out Feats for example, make people roll hit points starting at 1st level with no re-rolls ever and make ability score generation 3d6 down the line...Yeah, you can bet that all of a sudden "The Fighter" in the group with a 16 strength and 15 constitutions, the only guy with a strength and constitution higher than 7 and more than 10 hit points is definitely going to have a very clear role in the game. Suddenly having a rogue with a high perception, and a good range of skills is going to be a significant thing as will that backstabb. A cleric's healing spells are going to be critical to the success of the party. etc.. A Wizards spell key to success.
Like I think the roles and archetypes in 5e can still be very meaningful with the right setup. I think the problem is that the power levels of the characters compared to the power levels of the game are so rigged in favor of the players and players are allowed to optimize so heavily using the standard rules that you just end up with this weird situation where none of the powers matter.... All the characters are crazy murder hobbo's from hell, they don't actually rely on each other for anything.
Honestly, and with some distance on asking this question I've come to the conclusion that game balance simply isn't a factor in modern D&D (5e, and 2024 edition). I've had the great pleasure recently of going back to my roots and playing other systems. The level of skill with which those systems implement and attempt to manage game balance just revealed to me that D&D today isn't about game balance. It's about giving players whatever they want, but not much else. And, to be fair that's a valid approach to designing a game. It also doesn't preclude people having fun. What it has done for me as a GM is to realise that DMing for D&D 5e or 2024 has a limited lifespan. There's only so much entertainment that I as a world builder and DM am going to get from the game system.
A simple exploration of Pathfinder 2e, has shown me that yes the feats in D&D 2014 and 2024 are part of the issue. The issue isn't fixed by simply disallowing feats. The issue is that no-one at WotC has taken any time to stop and think 'what do DMs need in our system?' or 'how do we better support DMs?'
Sadly, WotC have shown their cards and supporting human DMs isn't one of those cards.
Honestly, and with some distance on asking this question I've come to the conclusion that game balance simply isn't a factor in modern D&D (5e, and 2024 edition). I've had the great pleasure recently of going back to my roots and playing other systems. The level of skill with which those systems implement and attempt to manage game balance just revealed to me that D&D today isn't about game balance. It's about giving players whatever they want, but not much else. And, to be fair that's a valid approach to designing a game. It also doesn't preclude people having fun. What it has done for me as a GM is to realise that DMing for D&D 5e or 2024 has a limited lifespan. There's only so much entertainment that I as a world builder and DM am going to get from the game system.
A simple exploration of Pathfinder 2e, has shown me that yes the feats in D&D 2014 and 2024 are part of the issue. The issue isn't fixed by simply disallowing feats. The issue is that no-one at WotC has taken any time to stop and think 'what do DMs need in our system?' or 'how do we better support DMs?'
Sadly, WotC have shown their cards and supporting human DMs isn't one of those cards.
I fully understand the complaint, I hear it all the time from DM's.
This point of view unfortunately is shared almost universally among DM's, it's why 5e has always had and continues to have this catastrophically low number of DMs compared to players.
I don't see Revised 2024 5e really addressing that either so far, but of course, we are yet to see monster design and things like encounter-building balance changes in the DMG. In theory, we don't actually know what the power level of anything is at the moment, not really. Everything right now is based on a combination of old material from 5e and new changes from the only book for Revised that is available and only to a very small number of players. In a way, we know almost nothing about Revised edition D&D at this stage.
For all we know, the new power level of Monsters is so high that a group of 10th level characters will get owned by a single CR 8 creature and highly optimized characters will be needed to have even the slightest chance of winning a hard encounter.
Now I will say, I doubt that. I don't have high expectations from Wizards of the Coast design teams, everyone with any level of experience and talent has left WotC a long time ago, all that is left are the hacks and people pleasers, so my expectation is that Revised will be an unfixable dumpster fire...
But one can hope of course. Like I'm hopeful that the system will be in the "fixable" category like 2nd edition AD&D was, so that I can put some house rules in and have a decent game. Right now though there is not much to do but wait for these books to come out and take the game for a test drive.
Honestly, and with some distance on asking this question I've come to the conclusion that game balance simply isn't a factor in modern D&D (5e, and 2024 edition). I've had the great pleasure recently of going back to my roots and playing other systems. The level of skill with which those systems implement and attempt to manage game balance just revealed to me that D&D today isn't about game balance. It's about giving players whatever they want, but not much else. And, to be fair that's a valid approach to designing a game. It also doesn't preclude people having fun. What it has done for me as a GM is to realise that DMing for D&D 5e or 2024 has a limited lifespan. There's only so much entertainment that I as a world builder and DM am going to get from the game system.
A simple exploration of Pathfinder 2e, has shown me that yes the feats in D&D 2014 and 2024 are part of the issue. The issue isn't fixed by simply disallowing feats. The issue is that no-one at WotC has taken any time to stop and think 'what do DMs need in our system?' or 'how do we better support DMs?'
Sadly, WotC have shown their cards and supporting human DMs isn't one of those cards.
I fully understand the complaint, I hear it all the time from DM's.
This point of view unfortunately is shared almost universally among DM's, it's why 5e has always had and continues to have this catastrophically low number of DMs compared to players. I don't see Revised 2024 5e really addressing that either so far, but of course, we are yet to see monster design and things like encounter-building balance changes in the DMG. In theory, we don't actually know what the power level of anything is at the moment, not really. Everything right now is based on a combination of old material from 5e and new changes from the only book for Revised that is available and only to a very small number of players. In a way, we know almost nothing about Revised edition D&D at this stage.
For all we know, the new power level of Monsters is so high that a group of 10th level characters will get owned by a single CR 8 creature and highly optimized characters will be needed to have even the slightest chance of winning a hard encounter.
Now I will say, I doubt that. I don't have high expectations from Wizards of the Coast design teams, everyone with any level of experience and talent has left WotC a long time ago, all that is left are the hacks and people pleasers, so my expectation is that Revised will be an unfixable dumpster fire...
But one can hope of course. Like I'm hopeful that the system will be in the "fixable" category like 2nd edition AD&D was, so that I can put some house rules in and have a decent game. Right now though there is not much to do but wait for these books to come out and take the game for a test drive.
It's a good time as any to try out other games.
My first comment would be to speak for yourself and not generalize but perhaps your comments represent the microcosm you live in.
"This point of view unfortunately is shared almost universally among DM's, it's why 5e has always had and continues to have this catastrophically low number of DMs compared to players."
Personally, I don't share this view. In addition, the 20 or so DMs I know also do not share that view.
5e does make it harder for PCs to be killed than in earlier editions especially 1e/AD&D but in my opinion the "game balance" is far better in 5e than it has been in any other version of D&D (except maybe 4e which I personally didn't care for or play enough to develop an opinion).
I also don't know how long you have been playing (but with OSR in your user name, I am guessing a similar length of time as I) but DMs have always been a scarce commodity. Games often start and end based on DM availability and always have. It isn't new with 5e. What is new with 5e is the pop culture popularity of the game via various channels like Stranger Things, BG3 or the D&D Movie. All of which were both good and reached a wider audience attracting people to D&D. However, newcomers don't usually like to DM, they do so because no one else in their playgroup is willing to try. If there is no one willing to put themselves out there, make mistakes while learning how to run the game and who also is at least as interested in running the game as playing it (which honestly most players aren't) then there are groups of players looking for DMs.
Whatever game design concerns you might have with 5e, they have nothing to do with the scarcity of DMs since the newer folks playing the game, many of whom have no knowledge of other editions, could care less about game balance and similar concepts which only become more apparent with exposure to other game systems. I've played every version of D&D since AD&D, various other systems like GURPS, Rolemaster, Traveller, MERP, and others and all have their design issues. Play what you enjoy. But the design of 5e is actually more DM friendly than previous editions.
As for your example about a single CR8 beating a party of level 10s ... what ARE you talking about? The entire point of having a rating system is so that a DM can set the difficulty they want the players to encounter. So what if a CR8 could wipe a level 10 party - CR6 would be easier, CR10 harder. CR is just a number to gauge relative strength of opponents.
If you are looking for a recommendation that a DM make every encounter deadly or a game design that forces a DM to run encounters that way then you won't get it.
Everyone's game is up to the DM and players how they want to play, so they create a system where a CR10 presents a modest challenge to a level 10 party - you want harder in your game you use a few CR12 or CR14, you want easier and you drop to CR8 - you run your game the way that makes YOU and your players happy. Encounter balance is and always has been in the hands of the DM and the game design doesn't change that.
Revised 5e design is NOT going to force DMs to use harder encounters by default since there are many new DMs picking up those books and believe it or not, many of the new players and DMs do not enjoy wiping out parties and starting over because an encounter just happened to be stronger than the DM thought. Yes, 1e could be extremely deadly, that completely uninteresting 1st level magic user with 1 spell, a dagger, no AC and and average of 4-5 hit points was dead with one sword stroke or monster attack (but they could get game breakingly powerful after a few levels if they survived ... there is a reason PC and intelligent NPCs alpha spellcasters and always have).
Most folks these days do not appear to be looking for games like that and if what you want is an intrinsically deadly game then 5e is likely not the game for you ... but it works fine for a LOT of folks. The 20 or so playing at my local game store one night last week tends to support that.
P.S. If a person is interested, ANY time is a good time to try out new games, there are lots of good and interesting ones out there. I've heard good things about Blades in the Dark for example and would like to try it some time. OSE also looks interesting in some ways ... similar to original D&D .. but I am not sure how it plays.
My first comment would be to speak for yourself and not generalize but perhaps your comments represent the microcosm you live in.
"This point of view unfortunately is shared almost universally among DM's, it's why 5e has always had and continues to have this catastrophically low number of DMs compared to players."
Personally, I don't share this view. In addition, the 20 or so DMs I know also do not share that view.
I'm surprised that anyone would dispute this. I understand that one can dispute anything, even the fact that the earth is round, but I think we are being a bit silly. Wizards of the Coast is quite literally changing their entire business model and how the franchise is going to be managed in the future based on this single and very important fact.. not enough DM's. That is literally how and why every decision about D&D in the last 5 years has been made. The entire D&D franchise revolves around this single fact.
For you to dispute that is....I don't even know. How much evidence do you actually need before you can accept a fact?
As for the rest of your post.. I don't know, maybe read what I wrote again, because you seem to have derived something from what I wrote that I simply never said or suggested. Its like you read someone else's post and then replied to mine. I have no response mainly because, I don't think your actually addressing anything I said.
I've played in a game with no feats and no multiclassing and while I initially chaffed a bit at not being able to build an optimized character, I have to admit it did make it more of a party-based game where each character had strengths and weaknesses and we had to work together to succeed. I would definitely play that way again if given the opportunity. Though we also played PHB classes & subclasses only which also helped by removing the innately gish-y subclasses like Bladesinger and Hexblade. Overall, I think gishes are actually bad for the game.
I think this brings up a good point about 5th edition D&D and probably 2024 D&D as well.
One of the issues with the game I do think is "balance", we hear and talk about it all the time on this forum. Not in the sense of "is the Fighter balanced compared to the Wizard" or "Is the Rogue as interesting and specialized to play as the Druid", but balance as in, if you are a party of 3rd level characters, how many Orcs is an easy fight, how many Orcs is an impossible fight.
Like I think the roles and archetypes in 5e can still be very meaningful with the right setup. I think the problem is that the power levels of the characters compared to the power levels of the game are so rigged in favor of the players and players are allowed to optimize so heavily using the standard rules that you just end up with this weird situation where none of the powers matter.... All the characters are crazy murder hobbo's from hell, they don't actually rely on each other for anything.
I disagree, "balance" against monsters isn't was most people are talking about in terms of "balance". Because the challenge presented by the monsters is entirely up to the DM. The fundamental problem with balance against monsters is that D&D 5e is designed to be a game of attrition with long adventuring days and combats with many enemies - just look at the published modules - and the DMG doesn't explain this clearly. 5e is also designed to be easy so that new players who create generic characters can be successful. It is not designed to be a tactical combat game that you need to spend years studying to design a character that will succeed. Yet that latter style has developed around he game because of online content creators. If you ever play with a group who don't engage with online content and play one of the decent published modules it's actually pretty well balanced vs monsters.
"Balance" between players is more commonly what is discussed, IME. Because all the players want to feel like they are contributing to the party. The major problem with player-player balance is that the game seems to be evolving into a hack-and-slash, and if you game only contains combat encounters then there are a only a few different roles available to be filled. So it a large group, it is inevitable that some characters will feel like they aren't contributing as much as the others. This is made worse by the proliferation of "gish" characters than can "do it all". If one character can heal, deal AoE damage, and deal sustained single-target damage then they can basically solo most combat encounters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What are DM thoughts on not playing with Feats in the current (pre-2024 rulebooks) era of D&D?
I've run a diverse array of games (FATE, Blades in the Dark, PF, PF2e, Fiasco, Starfinder, Fudge, GURPS) and I've run or played in three distinct versions of D&D (5e, 3e, aD&D). Recently I wrapped up DMing a mix of Dragon of Icespire Peak and Lost Mine of Phandelver. Now those adventures I'd argue aren't designed with Feats in mind, but I allowed them anyway. I've never really thought twice about it, but I'm beginning to wonder if feats aren't the problem with D&D as it currently exists. I'm considering running a game with no feats at all (and also disallowing Variant Human for this reason), but have a few questions:
We all know, I'm sure, that CR doesn't really function as intended when you have a party loaded with magic items, or feats, or DM bonuses (like granting extra proficiencies or other fun stuff picked up in play). I'm sure we've also all had those really fun characters that have been built in a way that makes them just a little over the top in one way or another. In my recent 2.5 year campaign we had a character finish with like 38 in passive perception due to this stuff.
Despite how cool these characters can be I've had a few players, and I myself have felt like character classes just aren't special or unique any more. I kinda feel like the 2024 books are about to exacerbate that issue...Rangers just don't feel like they have a reason to exists in 2024. No class to me feels special or unique in any real way any more. By the time we begin to add feats...the classes feel even less special. I think this cuts to the heart of what I'm troubled with when it comes to feats. They allow immense customisation but at the loss of class speciality. Granted I'm in my late 30s and so grew up in a time when fighters were really unlikely to be casting magic so I carry some bias here. Still, thumbing through my copy of Tales of the Valiant the classes actually all feel special and a bit unique. They feel like they have a reason to exist.
All of which leads me to want to run a game that does not utilise Feats, which I'll remind people are an optional rule. I worry though that feats are now seen almost irrecoverably as a core part of the D&D 5e experience. So, I'd love some thoughts from fellow DMs...how have players responded either when you've disallowed feats or talked about disallowing feats.
Additional Context: My current groups will have adult discussion about this and will decide as a group what they want at the table. I am more thinking ahead to the next time I run a game online or in person for a group I do not know (FLGS or what have you), so the interest in the thoughts of strangers stems from this.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I think it is up to you what sort of game you run and enjoy. Feats and multiclassing are optional rules which a DM can choose to use or not as they wish. However, both of these and some of the other features (like the magic items that the DM makes available) are intended to allow a system of character classes to produce more customized characters to fit with a player's character concept.
Without feats and multiclassing, every example of a given archetype is mechanically identical to any other player's version. If you have two players with battle master fighters for example then they are pretty much identical except perhaps for their choice of maneuvers and preferred weapons (melee vs ranged, str vs dex). Similarly, the main distinguishing feature for the same subclass of a caster are the spells they choose. The primary differences between two characters of the same class becomes their choice of archetype. This is absolutely playable and I believe can be just as much fun as a campaign that includes feats and multiclassing depending on the players involved and the DM. Caveat: I've only played in and run games that allow both feats and multiclassing.
In my opinion, the main apect to keep in mind in a game without feats is that some classes rely on ASIs more than others. Most classes only get 5 total (4, 8, 12, 16, 19). Rogue and fighter get 7. The challenge without feats is that the ASIs then go into just stat increases ... first primary that usually requires 2 to max out, then secondary which likely takes 2 or 3 depending on whether it was initially 14 or 16, then 1-3 ASIs depending on class for tertiary stats which have very little impact on the character and may not feel very rewarding at all. Monks and paladins can really use the stat increases (and often might choose those over feats anyway) while other classes like rogue, wizard and perhaps fighter benefit most from a maxed primary stat and the other stats have less impact. This means that a system without feats is a bit unbalanced in terms of available choices for different classes.
In terms of game balance, in my opinion again, there are only four feats that really have a significant impact - sharpshooter and cross bow expert, great weapon master and polearm master. These either provide additional bonus action attacks or a method to enhance damage significantly at the cost of decreased to hit probability. However, with the bounded accuracy system in 5e and the magic items a DM provides to the players, the to hit penalty can often be significantly mitigated by mid to late tier 2 or perhaps earlier for classes with an easy way to obtain advantage. Most of the other feats can provide some interesting options but likely don't have the same impact on combat encounters.
Finally, I've run DoIP and played LMoP and I didn't see any indication that these were designed without feats in mind. I think they were to be honest.
However, what these modules and most other published modules do not assume is a fully optimized and coordinated party. Modules can't be designed that way (especially these ones) since they have to accommodate less than optimal character build decisions by less experienced players (and newbie players and DMs) OR experienced players looking for something neat but less optimal. For example, the 4th level character with 3 artificer levels with a 13 in charisma that picks up a level in sorcerer because it fits their backstory (or they like the cantrips) even though it really lacks any synergy with their character mechanically vs a variant human gloomstalker ranger with crossbow expert and sharpshooter by level 4.
When I ran DoIP, I had to significantly increase the challenge of some of the encounters since the players were generally experienced and some of them liked to build more optimized and effective characters - that is not the fault of the module since it can't be written to accommodate every possible range of player ability and characters. Removing some feats might reduce the possibility of character optimization slightly (though SS and GWM have minimal impact in tier 1 since the to hit penalty is significant enough and characters usually only have one attack so that they don't really change total damage in practice) but it can't prevent the characters using tactics like focused fire, proper use of terrain and cover, proper use of crowd control spells and abilities, proper character coordination (for example the fighter using the Commander's Strike maneuver to give the rogue the opportunity to land two sneak attacks in one round vs making an attack of their own). Even just the focused fire tactic will significantly affect encounter balance. I was almost involved in a TPK when each of the characters ended up fighting a different opponent rather than focusing them down one at a time. A moderate encounter almost became a more than deadly one just due to player tactics and feats, multiclassing, and module design have no impact on that aspect of play balance.
I am waiting for the 2024 PHB to come out before deciding how "generic" the revisions make the characters feel. My big issue with 4e was exactly that. Each class had at-will, encounter and daily powers and they all seemed rather bland and generic doing much the same thing whether the character was a wizard or a fighter ... I played 2-3 games of 4e and that was enough for me personally. In contrast, 5e seemed to have much of the flavor of AD&D with greatly streamlined mechanics (no more THAC0, no more weapon to hit against AC modifiers, more useful and survivable low level caster classes, a bit more balanced at the higher levels). From what I have read of the 2024 PHB, the classes still seem unique enough that they haven't fallen into the 4e trap but I'll need to see the rules in detail to form a final opinion.
To your first point @david42 no, it's really not any more. I've run sessions at local game shops and received baseless abuse because I have placed limitations on available sources - we went with just PHB & XGtE. Player expectation with 5e has radically changed with randoms. That is the whole point. Before I go in saying 'hey I'm going to run a game without feats' I want a read on what other people's experience with players has been in that scenario. If I'm right in my thinking that players in general think of feats as 'standard' then it will change the way that games without feats get advertised.
Recently, my almost 3 year campaign in a homebrew setting called 'Eternarii' ended. That group had the benefit of access to a discord server where I was writing up notes on my new setting. Our session zero was running through what options, rulesets, and house rules that we as an entire group wanted. I laid out all of the optional rules, all of the additional stuff from DMG and asked the group flat out - what do you want from the game. The point, and I feel like either I wasn't clear in my original post or you've not read and understood it all, was to ask about groups with whom a DM is not familiar.
To your second, I'm sorry but I've played enough game systems and enough 5e to categorically argue that the biggest differentiation is on the roleplay side. Mechanical similarities are not a factor I recognise as a reason to increase the amount of options for player characters. At least...that's true for the style of game I am more often running. I am trying to emphasise the collaborative storytelling aspect. With around 100 subclasses, any given group of 6 players aren't going to have half the crossover mechanically that you'd expect. I've literally had two Life Cleric Dwarves in one campaign who were run entirely differently. While their subclass, race, and class options might have been mechanically identical it was their equipment, spell choice, background, and play styles that really set them apart. Frankly, I'd suggest to any DM or player who claims this to go out and explore playing in thematically different game systems. Unique characters really aren't a result of the mechanics.
Your third point about ASIs, I'm not really sure what you're getting at in truth. Beyond the fact that ASIs aren't shiny and fancy...they are still the fairest way to my mind. The point of the Fighter getting 7 ASIs is to overcome their (relatively lack of flexibility). Likewise the Rogue gets only 6 I'm sure.
Finally, DoIP and LMoP shipped initially with basic rules only. If you ever run a game with just that basic rules booklet, then run the same adventure from PHB, XGtE and TCoE you can immediately see the difference. They really were designed for Basic Rules only. And there's nothing wrong with that to be clear. That is often why DMs running both adventures end up altering the encounters and the balance, because they run the game including more sources (which again nothing wrong with).
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I've run games for 6 years with no Feats. I've also only began to implement Feats into my games about 2 years ago. It takes a lot to understand all of them, and trying to keep up with the flood of new ones is difficult.
Feats can be fun but they are a crutch. They override rules and/or give class features to characters that are not even remotely tied to what the Feat gives. Yes, I make characters with Feats. To not do so would make my characters lag behind the power curve of the rest of the party.
In the end, you can totally run a successful game for a long time with no Feats. You can also choose to implement them at any time during your campaign - at the beginning, when the party reaches lvl 4, or 10 or whatever you want. If people refuse to play in your game or give you a hard time about it, they don't have to play. It's your game, they can find another. Be sure you are comfortable with what they do.
All that being said, Feats are granted left and right in the 2024 rules. So you will have to use them if you're going to play 524.
"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
Feats do seem to be built into 5.24 as core rather than optional features. Everyone gets one feat from their background and the “variant” human is now the standard human. However, the feats at level 1 are restricted to “origin” feats, which do not include the more powerful options like XBE, GWM, SS and PAM. From the UA documents, it looks like those ones have also been tamed down a bit. So, hopefully, feats should be less problematic… 🤞🏻🤞🏻🤞🏻
I'll get this out now: I have no intention of utilising the 2024 rulebooks. I already own Pathfinder 2e and Tales of the Valiant and frankly both, in my opinion, do a better job of making classes feel unique than does 5e. So, I don't really see the point or need for an update to 5e. I actually playtested the UA with a group of other GMs and we were all universally unimpressed by what was proposed. We've since discussed what has been announced thus far and it's not interesting to me.
The thing is that I feel like Pathfinder 2e just does a far better job with Feats than 5e. If I want to go without feats, then it's between the 2014 and Tales of the Valiant as a ruleset. Though I do worry that it will get more difficult to find players for a 2014 PHB game if I run sessions this way. I've met some awesome people running games for strangers, and largely I've been fortunate that my experience has been positive. I've also seen a concerning rise of main character syndrome, and a few other less than compatible playstyles.
The shame is that I do kinda like feats, but I feel like they are a bit of a crutch..much as Wysperra mentioned. I love as a DM giving custom features and boosts to player chatacters as their stories unfold. For example, I had a Druid who when out of their way at every opportunity to show off their dedication to their deity. I gave them at (I think) Level 3 an extra wild shape per long rest as an in game way of showing that the character's deity was appreciative. Likewise, if a player wants to train in a particular way, maybe they have an idea of something they want their character to be able to do - that's FAR better a feat to make the character unique and special than the current lists we have. It also helps those long stretches between level ups feel like they can be rewarding. It's a great way for players and GMs to work together to shape and mold the world. The odd thing is that feats being a standard part of the game can often undermine those moments that a character has worked toward. If a player character spends their downtime training to be more skilled with their Greataxe, but then at the next level up someone else just magically gets Great Weapon Master it ends up feeling kind of cheap.
Pathfinder of course takes a different strategy in that there are class specific feats and you can choose those every two levels. That makes for an awesome level of customisability and blows those who tout 5e feats as 'customisation' out of the water. No two bards in PF2e are the same.
I think there is the problem though - D&D 5e just attracts more players. It's the airport novel of TTRPGs. Popular, but fairly mediocre in craft. There's obviously no shame or problem with that, but after so many editions and interations and updates now it's getting less and less fun being swept along with the crowd to the latest updates. Players have expectations, and despite the fact that DMs are in far shorter supply I feel like it tends only to be player expectations that matter.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
Feats ARE NOT an optional rule in 2024, they are a core rule. That is why the ASI has been turned into a feat of it's own. If you want to play without feats, stick to the 2014 rules.
Please read the thread before you post. As I have said, I'm not going to be using the 2024 rulebooks at my table (at player requests). They aren't impressed with the 2024 book previews thus far, and neither am I. We will be using the 2014 ruleset. If you'd have read the original post you'd have seen that.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I've been running the game since 1983 - and all the editions you can guess.
I've allowed feats, and also prohibited them to see what the difference would be. Sure, there is a difference - but I don't think it's a problem with the game. Nor do I think things no longer look special or unique or interesting. What I see in all the options and opportunities is to better understand what my players are leaning into so I can build stories around those concepts.
I don't think it's a consensus topic, though. So if you don't find it special, that's not wrong.
i'm not running feats or multiclassing. every class isnt special anymore as pointed out before. everyone can cast spells my players are happy with it.
Feats, along with skills add to the plethora of executable buttons designed to circumvent the role-playing conversation. There is little upside to using them, all they do is pull people out of their imagination for answers and have them looking on the character sheet.
Less is more, feats being optional was one of the many brilliant elements of 5e, now that they are back in the game as a default, the game is lesser for it.
Multiclassing breaks the CR way more than feats. Most of the feats don't harm CR. In fact most of the feats are just cool sounding traps. So I think if you want to play a less broken game you need to outlaw multiclassing and don't worry about feats.
If you really read the OP's comments, I don't think he is talking about game balance.
The base issue as I understand it is that the OP wants the Classes to be unique, so that there is purpose behind being one class over another. Aka, he is talking about archetypes.
The root cause of this feeling is the design of the game. I agree that multiclassing is a far bigger issue than feats in this regard as multiclassing really eliminates archetypes (its quite literally the purpose of it) , but the main issue he is running up against is that classes in modern D&D don't have specializations or archetypes.
Choosing a class doesn't mean you are committing to anything... like picking a Cleric doesn't mean you are going to be a healer or picking a Rogue doesn't mean you will know how to find and disable traps. There are no archetypical reasons to select one class over another nor any enforcement of class archetyping. If you want to cast fireballs, you can still pick a Fighter class character and there is a route of optional choices you can make that will allow you to eventually cast fireballs. You can be a Druid and be a master thief or a Ranger that knows more about the arcane arts than most Wizards. All of these things are possible in modern D&D, there are no restrictions, classifications or even direction for anything.
I don't really have any advice on that, modern D&D is a anything goes high fantasy adventure game, it is like this, because its designed to be like this. If you are looking for something with archetypes and more gamified setting structure, you have to pick another game. D&D hasn't been "that" in a very long time and you really can't "redesign it" with house rules to fix that easily. Its literarily built into the core architecture of the game and requires a lot of work to undo.
Fortunately people have done this work for you. Check out Shadowdark, its basically 5e but designed with very clear class archetypes.
Except 90% of the time that is not what they are used for, they are used primarily to increase the power potential of characters.
Doubtful, GWM, PAM, XBE, Warcaster and Dual Wielder continue to stand above the others so will continue to dominate the game. The only major change in 2024 is the half-feat design which makes there more of a trade off to doing a-typical builds (i.e. taking GWM on a character that doesn't use STR as their primary attribute).
I've played in a game with no feats and no multiclassing and while I initially chaffed a bit at not being able to build an optimized character, I have to admit it did make it more of a party-based game where each character had strengths and weaknesses and we had to work together to succeed. I would definitely play that way again if given the opportunity. Though we also played PHB classes & subclasses only which also helped by removing the innately gish-y subclasses like Bladesinger and Hexblade. Overall, I think gishes are actually bad for the game.
I think this brings up a good point about 5th edition D&D and probably 2024 D&D as well.
One of the issues with the game I do think is "balance", we hear and talk about it all the time on this forum. Not in the sense of "is the Fighter balanced compared to the Wizard" or "Is the Rogue as interesting and specialized to play as the Druid", but balance as in, if you are a party of 3rd level characters, how many Orcs is an easy fight, how many Orcs is an impossible fight.
One of the simplest and most direct way to balance the game is very specifically to force unoptimized characters and in a way, this was part of why old-school games like 1e where considered "deadly" and why characters felt far more specialized. They actually weren't mathematically any more than modern games, but the reality was that you almost always played grossly unoptimized characters which kind of created the illusion of deadliness and speciality because of the way character generation worked and the few ways you had to "get an edge" on the math.
If you toss out Feats for example, make people roll hit points starting at 1st level with no re-rolls ever and make ability score generation 3d6 down the line...Yeah, you can bet that all of a sudden "The Fighter" in the group with a 16 strength and 15 constitutions, the only guy with a strength and constitution higher than 7 and more than 10 hit points is definitely going to have a very clear role in the game. Suddenly having a rogue with a high perception, and a good range of skills is going to be a significant thing as will that backstabb. A cleric's healing spells are going to be critical to the success of the party. etc.. A Wizards spell key to success.
Like I think the roles and archetypes in 5e can still be very meaningful with the right setup. I think the problem is that the power levels of the characters compared to the power levels of the game are so rigged in favor of the players and players are allowed to optimize so heavily using the standard rules that you just end up with this weird situation where none of the powers matter.... All the characters are crazy murder hobbo's from hell, they don't actually rely on each other for anything.
Honestly, and with some distance on asking this question I've come to the conclusion that game balance simply isn't a factor in modern D&D (5e, and 2024 edition). I've had the great pleasure recently of going back to my roots and playing other systems. The level of skill with which those systems implement and attempt to manage game balance just revealed to me that D&D today isn't about game balance. It's about giving players whatever they want, but not much else. And, to be fair that's a valid approach to designing a game. It also doesn't preclude people having fun. What it has done for me as a GM is to realise that DMing for D&D 5e or 2024 has a limited lifespan. There's only so much entertainment that I as a world builder and DM am going to get from the game system.
A simple exploration of Pathfinder 2e, has shown me that yes the feats in D&D 2014 and 2024 are part of the issue. The issue isn't fixed by simply disallowing feats. The issue is that no-one at WotC has taken any time to stop and think 'what do DMs need in our system?' or 'how do we better support DMs?'
Sadly, WotC have shown their cards and supporting human DMs isn't one of those cards.
DM session planning template - My version of maps for 'Lost Mine of Phandelver' - Send your party to The Circus - Other DM Resources - Maps, Tokens, Quests - 'Better' Player Character Injury Tables?
Actor, Writer, Director & Teacher by day - GM/DM in my off hours.
I fully understand the complaint, I hear it all the time from DM's.
This point of view unfortunately is shared almost universally among DM's, it's why 5e has always had and continues to have this catastrophically low number of DMs compared to players.
I don't see Revised 2024 5e really addressing that either so far, but of course, we are yet to see monster design and things like encounter-building balance changes in the DMG. In theory, we don't actually know what the power level of anything is at the moment, not really. Everything right now is based on a combination of old material from 5e and new changes from the only book for Revised that is available and only to a very small number of players. In a way, we know almost nothing about Revised edition D&D at this stage.
For all we know, the new power level of Monsters is so high that a group of 10th level characters will get owned by a single CR 8 creature and highly optimized characters will be needed to have even the slightest chance of winning a hard encounter.
Now I will say, I doubt that. I don't have high expectations from Wizards of the Coast design teams, everyone with any level of experience and talent has left WotC a long time ago, all that is left are the hacks and people pleasers, so my expectation is that Revised will be an unfixable dumpster fire...
But one can hope of course. Like I'm hopeful that the system will be in the "fixable" category like 2nd edition AD&D was, so that I can put some house rules in and have a decent game. Right now though there is not much to do but wait for these books to come out and take the game for a test drive.
It's a good time as any to try out other games.
My first comment would be to speak for yourself and not generalize but perhaps your comments represent the microcosm you live in.
"This point of view unfortunately is shared almost universally among DM's, it's why 5e has always had and continues to have this catastrophically low number of DMs compared to players."
Personally, I don't share this view. In addition, the 20 or so DMs I know also do not share that view.
5e does make it harder for PCs to be killed than in earlier editions especially 1e/AD&D but in my opinion the "game balance" is far better in 5e than it has been in any other version of D&D (except maybe 4e which I personally didn't care for or play enough to develop an opinion).
I also don't know how long you have been playing (but with OSR in your user name, I am guessing a similar length of time as I) but DMs have always been a scarce commodity. Games often start and end based on DM availability and always have. It isn't new with 5e. What is new with 5e is the pop culture popularity of the game via various channels like Stranger Things, BG3 or the D&D Movie. All of which were both good and reached a wider audience attracting people to D&D. However, newcomers don't usually like to DM, they do so because no one else in their playgroup is willing to try. If there is no one willing to put themselves out there, make mistakes while learning how to run the game and who also is at least as interested in running the game as playing it (which honestly most players aren't) then there are groups of players looking for DMs.
Whatever game design concerns you might have with 5e, they have nothing to do with the scarcity of DMs since the newer folks playing the game, many of whom have no knowledge of other editions, could care less about game balance and similar concepts which only become more apparent with exposure to other game systems. I've played every version of D&D since AD&D, various other systems like GURPS, Rolemaster, Traveller, MERP, and others and all have their design issues. Play what you enjoy. But the design of 5e is actually more DM friendly than previous editions.
As for your example about a single CR8 beating a party of level 10s ... what ARE you talking about? The entire point of having a rating system is so that a DM can set the difficulty they want the players to encounter. So what if a CR8 could wipe a level 10 party - CR6 would be easier, CR10 harder. CR is just a number to gauge relative strength of opponents.
If you are looking for a recommendation that a DM make every encounter deadly or a game design that forces a DM to run encounters that way then you won't get it.
Everyone's game is up to the DM and players how they want to play, so they create a system where a CR10 presents a modest challenge to a level 10 party - you want harder in your game you use a few CR12 or CR14, you want easier and you drop to CR8 - you run your game the way that makes YOU and your players happy. Encounter balance is and always has been in the hands of the DM and the game design doesn't change that.
Revised 5e design is NOT going to force DMs to use harder encounters by default since there are many new DMs picking up those books and believe it or not, many of the new players and DMs do not enjoy wiping out parties and starting over because an encounter just happened to be stronger than the DM thought. Yes, 1e could be extremely deadly, that completely uninteresting 1st level magic user with 1 spell, a dagger, no AC and and average of 4-5 hit points was dead with one sword stroke or monster attack (but they could get game breakingly powerful after a few levels if they survived ... there is a reason PC and intelligent NPCs alpha spellcasters and always have).
Most folks these days do not appear to be looking for games like that and if what you want is an intrinsically deadly game then 5e is likely not the game for you ... but it works fine for a LOT of folks. The 20 or so playing at my local game store one night last week tends to support that.
P.S. If a person is interested, ANY time is a good time to try out new games, there are lots of good and interesting ones out there. I've heard good things about Blades in the Dark for example and would like to try it some time. OSE also looks interesting in some ways ... similar to original D&D .. but I am not sure how it plays.
I'm surprised that anyone would dispute this. I understand that one can dispute anything, even the fact that the earth is round, but I think we are being a bit silly. Wizards of the Coast is quite literally changing their entire business model and how the franchise is going to be managed in the future based on this single and very important fact.. not enough DM's. That is literally how and why every decision about D&D in the last 5 years has been made. The entire D&D franchise revolves around this single fact.
For you to dispute that is....I don't even know. How much evidence do you actually need before you can accept a fact?
As for the rest of your post.. I don't know, maybe read what I wrote again, because you seem to have derived something from what I wrote that I simply never said or suggested. Its like you read someone else's post and then replied to mine. I have no response mainly because, I don't think your actually addressing anything I said.
I disagree, "balance" against monsters isn't was most people are talking about in terms of "balance". Because the challenge presented by the monsters is entirely up to the DM. The fundamental problem with balance against monsters is that D&D 5e is designed to be a game of attrition with long adventuring days and combats with many enemies - just look at the published modules - and the DMG doesn't explain this clearly. 5e is also designed to be easy so that new players who create generic characters can be successful. It is not designed to be a tactical combat game that you need to spend years studying to design a character that will succeed. Yet that latter style has developed around he game because of online content creators. If you ever play with a group who don't engage with online content and play one of the decent published modules it's actually pretty well balanced vs monsters.
"Balance" between players is more commonly what is discussed, IME. Because all the players want to feel like they are contributing to the party. The major problem with player-player balance is that the game seems to be evolving into a hack-and-slash, and if you game only contains combat encounters then there are a only a few different roles available to be filled. So it a large group, it is inevitable that some characters will feel like they aren't contributing as much as the others. This is made worse by the proliferation of "gish" characters than can "do it all". If one character can heal, deal AoE damage, and deal sustained single-target damage then they can basically solo most combat encounters.