How do you handle feats in your 5e games? Thanks so much to WorldAnvil for sponsoring this video! Visit www.worldanvil.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK to get 51% off any annual membership! www.worldanvil.com/supergeekmike
use them all, but i use them too... i like giving them as rewards as well. Either as a capstone to a personal arc or as an ability on a custom magic item tailored to a character. Oh and Sentinel only stops a creature up tp two sizes larger than you , like it should
The magic item discussion could be it's own video. "Should Magic Items Be A Part Of Character Progression ?" is one of those design questions that keep me up at night.
I think they inevitably are. I mean, if your character suddenly gains a new power, it doesn't super matter if it originates from an item or is innate. For the duration they have that item, the character is changed by having that power.
The issue with the "correct" choice was explained in a game design video as "if I have 10 choices, but one is clearly best... Then I don't have a choice.". Adding OP options to the option pool can actually reduce choice.
Ok but this is literally only a problem if you care about which choice is best. I'm not here to tell anyone how they should play the game. But if you play purely for efficiency then you're going to have to accept that there are drawbacks to that approach. And if it's such a huge issue for you, well then maybe you should try a new approach. DnD was designed to be modular. It gives you the freedom to really do whatever you want without real risk of breaking any of the core mechanics.
Taking great weapon master is a good feat for melee however if you want to dual wield you’ll take the duel wield feat. It’s like call of duty there are better guns but sometimes you wanna do your own thing and run around with a sniper
@@bernardobastos5996 DnD 5e does get pretty boring if _only_ played for efficiency, but for any player it's a mix of different things. If power gamers really *only* cared about power gaming, they'd play alone, and if roleplayers really *only* cared about roleplaying, they would be gravitating away from DnD and towards the many TTRPGs that have more roleplay emphasis instead of long combat encounters. Real people usually get some satisfaction both from the numbers and from the RP. Like player playstyles, balance also isn't a binary thing. Things being unbalanced is much more of a problem if a casual player can easily recognise how overpowered something is, than if only a very experienced player can work out its unbalance after a lot of research. I think it's fair to say weapon related feats like Great Weapon Master are so absurdly good even relatively new players can realize it's far above the rest, and that is a fun problem for all players. Even a relatively RP centric player is going to feel a sting seeing a different player's performance with a more optimised build, knowing they could've been just as relevant in combat with a few tweaks. With that said, I could never imagine banning Feats personally, even with bad balancing, the fun factor of having these additional choices while levelling is FAR too good to ignore
@@bernardobastos5996 That's not really what I'm talking about. Beyond "this is the most efficient choice" there's a point where "taking anything but X is obviously foolish". You don't need to be an optimizer to realize silvery barbs is an incredibly useful and powerful spell. So much so that it's a *must pick* spell... which is not a choice anymore.
Yes, what you are saying is true. That's a good thing if you ask me, because the choice shouldn't really come in the form of the feat, it comes in what you consider to be the Best. If all you care about is numbers, then yes SS or GWM obviously stand above. But there are Other things to care about.
I'm not accusing the video of doing this, though actually it does kind of skirted a few times which is interesting, but I've noticed that as much as min Max's used to be a problem over my 30 odd years of dungeon mastering, the opposite has kind of started to be a problem now as well... Which is to say, I both seen online, and within my tables, the problem of an optimized player a lot of times isn't that player that's optimizing, it's some of the players that aren't as deliberate with their optimization then kind of having an undertone of jealousy about what that optimized player is able to do in combat, or exploration, or whatever specifically they optimized for.... Like the person who built their variant human fighter to have a very specific 3 ft selection build within first tier really isn't being a jerk about it. They had a specific fantasy in mind of wanting to be able to literally cut through two people at the same time with one swing, and now they can do that. They think it's awesome, I think it's awesome, I don't understand how people don't think it's awesome. But then you get some guy who self-proclaims to care more about the roleplay and not optimizing his build, but he starts to get really touchy about the fact that this other person can do this awesome thing. Nobody's talking down to that player or commenting disparagingly that he only does about half the damage as the optimized build. He's putting that on himself. Which I'd be willing to talk through with them, but he's then by extensions blaming other people for ruining his game and his time. It's kind of like you said in this video, you proclaim to not be an optimizer, then other players took starting backgrounds that gave them feats, and because you're an adult who really doesn't care about optimizing, it didn't bother you. If it did, it shouldn't have. You were getting the play experience you wanted: a non-optimized build that fit the specific customization you wanted. Like I said, this video isn't endorsing that position, but it I just think it's interesting that over my time playing and running games, this is the first time that I've really seen that, the non-optimizer feeling jealous of an optimizer, be such a problem that I actually have to deal with it.
This is 100% the case. While back then power building used to be "the correct way of playing" nowadays NOT doing it is considered to be that correct way. Like I've seen in this and many other channels that building s character not considering how well they'll do in battle is praised. And I honestly don't get it, this is a battle based rpg, why am I being shamed for wanting to be effective in battle?
I mean if one character is far more effective and gets more cool moments, then it’s entirely natural for that to potentially get under the skin for the others around them. No one likes to feel useless. Assuming no one is trying to make other people feel bad on purpose, then it’s possible no one in particular is the problem, but doesn’t change the fact there could be a problem. Way I see it, there’s a few ways to possibly address this. First is trying to play with people with similar mindsets. If every character is built with similar ideas, it’s far less likely this will happen. Another possible one is ensuring that characters built in a less optimised way still have moments to shine. This doesn’t always have to be in combat (though it can be). If someone has got a feat that’s useful in social situations, giving them the opportunity to use that ability is important. Like most issues, I think there are ways around it with good communication and open minds.
@@finlayames6216 I get what you're saying, but in actuality the real combat effectiveness between a highly optimized character and reasonably built one (IE, Suboptimal but just not doing something objectively stupid like making your casting stat also your dump stat) won't actually be that mismatched in combat. 5th edition math just doesn't actually break down on that level (I'll need to find the link, but Matt Colville actually has a home video on this as I remember). I think a campaign, session, hades even a combat encounter, getting completely derailed by one ubermensch character is a bit of a boogeyman. I'm not saying it never happens, but I don't actually think it happens enough for it to be a serious concern, saying that as someone who has consistently run games in 5th edition since it's inception. But your comment kind of feeds into my point; if someone has built a character to do specific cool things, I actually have a very low tolerance for somebody who then gets jealous that a character can perform those specific cool tasks which someone specifically built their character to be able to do. That is not stopping your non-optimized character from doing whatever cool thing you want them to do.... And generally it comes across to me as you're just mad that somebody put time and effort into building a specific playstyle they wanted. Same way I have a low threshold back in the day for optimizers not wanting to play with people who didn't build characters in specifically the way they perceived of as "best.". If somebody's feeling left out of a fifth edition table, like they don't have time to shine, either that DM is Not actively looking for ways to let them shine, or they're just getting upset that somebody else can do a special trick that they didn't build for, and are interpreting that as that person to overshadowing them. And that's really the thing I see anymore that kind of annoys me: People trying to talk about optimized characters derailing games when mathematically it just doesn't work out that way nine times out of 10. Which generally leads me back to it's just somebody getting a little bit pissy because they said optimization doesn't matter to them, right up until somebody showed up with an optimized character, then it matters, and they're mad that it happened.
@@finlayames6216 I would say, one thing that is definitely a struggle even within this context is somebody who is optimized with feats and whatnot to do cool things could potentially have an easier time getting frustrated when it doesn't pan out, and I could see if that would really bother a DM. For instance, I'm one of those people who when I do occasionally get a chance to be a player rather than a dungeon master, likes to build a character around certain specific mechanics, ensuring that I'll be able to do a specific cool thing (cleave through someone, shoot an arrow with pinpoint accuracy in the dark while doing a backflip, you know, The type of things you have to have built your character intentionally to be able to do), and I know I can have an internal tendency to get really frustrated when an encounter happens and I don't pull that off. Now I'm not mad generally at the other players or the dungeon master, because it's not like I'm mad that the situation didn't come up. I'm actually generally fine if a specific situation doesn't happen in any given encounter. I'm mad when the situation does come up and despite the fact that I've built a 98% chance that I should pull this thing off, it doesn't work because the dicer against me. Generally speaking the dice going against me is something that I have a lot of fun with, but when it happens over that one thing that I've optimized my character towards it can get aggravating. I'm sure there's been times when my frustration has been evident, and while I'm always attempting to be very clear that I'm mad and frustrated with myself and how I just rolled not with anyone else at the table, I can understand why some people would find that off-putting. But that's more of me problem than an optimization as a concept problem in my mind.
the most interesting part of feats, to me, is the way they can be used to customize your character to more closely match your vision for who they are and what they can do. so i kind of bristle a bit at the idea of them being exclusively handed out by the DM, because it feels like the DM is making a decision about who your character is, and taking that decision out of your hands. that said, i think the idea has legs, perhaps if you limit its scope somewhat. like, if there are *specific* feats an individual DM is worried about for balance reasons, why not turn *those* feats into rewards the players can find/earn, and leave the rest for us plebs who just want some flavor? for instance, the critical role sourcebooks' approach of turning the "lucky" effect into a boon that can be granted by the gods is one kind of neat implementation of this idea that seems workable to me.
I know this is probably a popular idea, but I find it kinda flawed. How is “I started with a commoner and now they are the character I laid out” vs “I started with a commoner and they have grown as a direct result of the quests they completed” satisfying? How many people become the person they thought they would be when they were still 16 years old…
@@Doncergio I don't know, but that doesn't sound like what I said? Or at the very least, not like what I was intending to say. Your vision for your character is inevitably going to evolve as you play them, which is (one reason, among several) why you don't pick all your feats at character creation. In most cases, you pick either zero or one, and then the rest come later. I don't know, I'm not going to come up with a perfect, airtight Defense Of Feats in a random youtube comment, nor am I the right person to even try. I only wanted to express the feeling that something of value is lost if they are taken out of players' hands completely. I like them! I'd prefer to have them over not having them! That's about as deep as my stance goes.
Same with the weird OSR ethos of your character sheet being extremely sparse, and your character being defined by their magic items. Cool. The GM decided who my character was going to be and what they could do. Cool cool.
One of the things I've done in my game to make feats less attractive options on levelup is to make it possible for the players to get feats without leveling up. Aka, to *earn* a feat through in-world roleplaying and interactions. The Shadar-kai Fighter in my Wednesday game got Elven Accuracy after training with wood elf rangers that they allied with for a few weeks. I was inspired to make that ruling by Matt Colville's video "No" which you brought up, too. TLDR; I reward feats like they are magic items.
At my table I allow players to grab feats at level one if their chosen background doesn't already offer one, as I love feats and the flavor they can provide and that includes the "infamous" ones. I even give players access to 3rd party and homebrew material so long as I reviewed and approved it. Feats are as much about player expression as they are about mechanical power. I personally believe that GM's who are against feats or against certain feats really need to step back and really consider WHY they are against them. Is it because of power? Well, stronger characters means you get to bust out stronger and frankly cooler monsters than you probably originally intended. Is it because you want a narrative focused game? Have you considered ASKING your players what feats they are taking or plan to take? Depending on the feat, you can work with that player to create scenes that show when they acquired it. And before people start complaining about GWM or Sharpshooter, yes, they are indeed powerful at lower levels, but at higher tiers of play or against enemies with high AC it's really not an issue. +10 to weapon damage is nowhere near as concerning as a mage with any control spell.
I love giving feats at the first level. Gives a chance to take options that are never used. In terms of balance, the dice rolls can still really throw things out of whack. I do a lot of tests for my encounters running them about 3 or four times, ones that are meant to be easy cause my players to struggle, some hard ones aren't issues at all. And for anyone who has run some of the low-level modules, those encounters can be game enders. At the end of the day, just talk to your players, and if something is too strong, you can balance it. Or create encounters that aren't just combat focused that gives other builds a chance to shine.
Feats are, in my opinion, an important part of character building and development. Picking feats based off of who your character is, what they have learned or are good at, how they've developed... is incredibly satisfying. The best approach I've been privy to is to hand out feats based on character achievements.
As someone who made over 20 lvl 20 characters i was taking 3 or 4 of the same feets to be the strongest i can be Tough lucky alert Or lucky alert war caster Yes feets can infact be thematic but in this context they are siege weapons to be abused by players and make the game the same and very boring
@@shadowstalk3004 aye, folks want to tout how useful they are for designing your character, but let's actually acknowledge that only a handful are ever actually chosen. Feats help define a characters extra-normal abilities, usually in how they interact with game mechanics or combat. To me, that doesn't sound like a necessity for creating a character. We don't need extra abilities to roleplay a concept.
@@robofeeney Of course it's not a necessity. It;'s a option. And I find that if used in a particular way it's very satisfying. You are free to disagree but arguing that it's people people pick the same ones every time makes no sense. Have you tried NOT doing that? It's kinda of a YOU issue.
@bernardobastos5996 I'd have to disagree, and I'm sorry. The feats weren't well-designed, and they've openly spoken in the past about deliberately designing "bad" options. I'm not saying everything needs to be game-changing, but rather that people will continually pick the best option for the game. And if there are ten options, but only one option is good...then there was only even one option. We can argue that our sample sizes are different, or we aren't playing with the "right" people (what does that even mean?) But the more dnd moves into a space where it's trying to be a crpg, the less interest I have. And that's okay! We are allowed to like different things. Play with feats all you like, and enjoy it! I personally just see them as more of a hindrance to the game than a boon.
My thoughts as a dm have always been, "Only pick feats that make sense for your character to have." So like, someone who's character has been played as oblivious and unobservant taking the observant feat wouldn't make sense unless there was a character growth moment for them
How about an alternate rule? You have to find a mentor willing to train you for feats. Back in the day we required downtime to level up and it was during this time you character was having there training arc :).
@@MSlocum669 unfortunately the way my campaign is run (and this is both mine and the players fault together) there isn't almost any down time of more than a day or two. They're at lvl 11 and just had their first month of downtime due to another character going to jail for a month.
@@blackcatleader2459 Downtime is something that has to be baked in to the game. It is kinda sureal that players can take there characters from level 1 to 10 in a few months. Training is a way you can introduce a time and money tax to the game to make it more immersive. It can take more time and money to train without a mentor but you can be rewarded with a discount If you can roleplay and find one.
@@blackcatleader2459 - You could say that in-game time is the same as real-world time. Obviously during combat things have to slow down because it's hard to compete a round in 6 minutes, let alone 6 seconds, but you can get back in sync during rest, uneventful travel, and between sessions. The game doesn't represent every day of these people's lives, just the interesting parts. |In many games, completing a level requires a long rest. You could extend that to a number of long rests equal to the level being achieved. 2nd level needs 2 long rests to complete, 3rd level requires 3 long rests, etc. You could also adapt the 10-point exhaustion mechanic from the first One D&D playtest to slow things down a bit. Falling to 0 HP gives a character 1 point of exhaustion, which imposes a cumulative -1 penalty to all of that character's d20 tests. A long rest only clears 1 point of exhaustion. The ranger ability to recover from exhaustion with a short rest only works once per day. Some or all of those could make downtime more necessary. Requrinmore downtime fixes some of the "zero to hero in one week" pacing. The exhaustion on 0 HP mechanic can limit the 'Tubthumping Effect'*. *Look up the song by Chumbawimba.
@@MSlocum669 its definitely more immersive, but I feel most people don't want to keep track of some of that and view it as tedious work, much like carry capacity and encumbrance, most people just don't use it because it can become really tedious to keep track of. I know my players and the other players int he games I play love role playing but the small tedious stuff like that we have found made the experience less enjoyable. It is definitely a group by group thing for sure. No 2 groups are the same.
Imagine feats not being included. Fighters would suffer A LOT from that. They would get a lot ASIs that really don't do much for them as long as they have maxed out their main attack stat. All the while other classes still get great, feat-like abilities instead.
13:17 “If a character takes a background from elsewhere and doesn’t get a feat from that background, the character gains one of the following feats of the player’s choice: Magic Initiate, Skilled, or Tough.” - Spelljammer, backgrounds section. The game isn’t inherently unbalanced because of backgrounds with feats, the books themselves adress this.
The trouble is that so many players are finding these backgrounds outside the context of the book they come with, whether they bought the background as a microtransaction on D&DBeyond or used some other site like 5etools. Many players are also expecting to be able to use these setting-specific options outside of their intended setting.
I love feats, they feel downright essential to 5e for me. They can add so much interesting flavor/ability to a character in the options they give you. My only real problem with them in 5e is a lack of more choices/customization, though new books have added a lot more fun options. (I adore eldritch adept to take fun eldritch invocations at level one. Yes I would like to speak with animals at will as a character quirk, that's amazing) I give feats at level 1, and often play at tables that do. I also like to give them as roleplay rewards! Nothing is banned even the “broken” combos (they’re really not). Lots of people hear this and go “oh a min-maxer group” but actually we’re very roleplay focused! It’s just that we’re a more “mechanics and roleplay go hand in hand” kind of group, with fantasies we wanna play out. I’ve always found it so frustrating that “having a build” and “having a character” are seen as two separate things! There's a difference between min maxing/”this is the Right/Wrong way to build this” and understanding that if you wanna do x in character, you're gonna need a base level of y. Feats allow a freedom of otherwise hard to come by skills that create more interesting character choices, not less (in my experience). You can say your character loves studying history till the cows come home but if you don’t take proficiency in it that’s not really gonna play out at the table no matter how many allowances the DM gives you. And the player that does pick profs based on what they wanna be good at isn’t min maxing, actually. That’s just basic character creation. And if you want a character to do fun things your class wouldn't otherwise allow, feats are an awesome option for mechanical backing to that! Will people pick the big number go brrrr feats? Sure, but why is that a problem? They want to be great at fighting, why not just… let them? I also find when you have this level of freedom in choices they honestly don’t get picked that often. People are more interested in the more flavorful and character accent feats. It's definitely like that for me/my table at the very least, my characters are like 90% feats by volume- almost none the big “bad” ones (though you have no idea how often I’ve seen a friends burn through 3 lucky's and not get the outcome they wanted, its so funny every time). When I make a character it’s usually ‘cause I have a fantasy in mind, as is the same for most of my friends, and often single class and/or no feats dnd can’t realize those ideas. (Tangential to this but people who are hard asses about the book flavor of a feat/class/subclass/etc are people I can NOT play with. If you can’t play with the flavor of mechanics dnd gets so boring SO fast) Some prefer to build as they go, some have a plan ahead of time and edit as needed, or work with the DM to realize it. For example: one of my characters is in a magic cult, and I’ve already discussed and agreed on a re-leveling plan with the DM for them to lose warlock levels and gain more sorcery levels (they’re multiclassed rn) to reflect them pulling away from the cult and re-discovering themself later in the campaign. Cause that's a story I wanna tell and a beat I wanna hit. I’m not planning every little minutiae but it's a general arc I keep in mind when making character choices (Made friends with an npc in a faction who hates evil magic users/cults for later drama :3 ) and my build plays into that roleplay! To your point on tone we generally enjoy a more heroic fantasy feel, and most of our games are at higher levels. Hell one even has extra “talents” to add on every few levels for a more customized feels! One has character quirks that modify existing abilities every level for the same reason. But we’re still regularly challenged and in treacherous situations, and I’ve never had issue being motivated to go on adventures or seek magic items??? And frankly if you don't want characters to feel likes gods just from leveling up any 5e game, feats or no, is gonna feel that way past a certain level. But putting that customization in (via feats or other means) is HOW no two paladins feel the same. It's just that power is in the hands of the player and the choices they make, and not the whims of random magic items. Which I greatly prefer. For me having feats really just comes down to managing table and game expectations, rather than banning them. As you said, if people are using/abusing feats in a way you don’t like or pulling the whole “right and wrong” builds thing, then that's more a fault of mismatch in play styles than it is a fault of feats.
banning feats because there are better and worse options is honestly an awful idea. There are better and worse races, spells and classes that will all inevitably be weighed against each other so all removal does is give players less options If a feat is too strong are too weak just buff it nerf it and the problem is solved Alternatively if you don’t like have those options there are great systems like fate core where it isn’t a problem
Plus, some feats are just thematically good for specific characters. Why ban this random feat for being weaker despite it having different theming that's perfect?
@@Aurora_Lightbringer depends on the group. If you’ve designed an encounter for optimized characters, and there are 3 optimal and 1 suboptimal character, then that encounter is no longer balanced to the group of 4, and 3 characters are needing to carry the burden of the 4th player.
Personally, I think that feats are especially important for closing the Martial/Caster divide. I've even considered letting only the martial classes have a feat at level 1 due to this, but decided against it for the sake of fairness. Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master being the most notable feats. Fighters also get the most Ability Score improvements so they can get more feats, since especially at Level 5 Casters get Fireball/Spirit Guardians whilst martials get extra attack. It's the sad reality that an non optimized fighter (I should add that optimizing/meta gaming aka 'picking the right feats' is just one part of being optimal. At the end of the day the best way to be optimal is having fun, and making a fun character to play with, and being highly communicative. At some tables you shouldn't or don't need to optimize) simply can't keep up with Fireball or any of the other really powerful 3rd level spells in the game, except by using feats. This isn't to say that casters don't get really good feats, Resilient: Constitution and War Caster for Concentration protection are fantastic for casters. I think that as a martial you need to let your DM know that magic items and feats are important to keep up with your caster friends, and as a DM be more charitable to your martial because they need it. Thanks for making this video Mike :3 it was very good :D
I give out flavoured feats for story progression, and let them choose what they take at the normal levels. They also start with one. The more skills and resources they have, the harder and cooler stuff I can throw at them. It also leaves room for players to pick things like chef and dungeon delver for flavour without feeling completely shot in the foot
I have a DM that creates custom feats for everyone at lvl 5,10,15, and 20. They ask a bunch of questions during character creation for the lvl 5 and then as the game progresses the next milestone feat will represent the characters growth.
As a player it felt less like feats gave "right" choices and more like the feats were the only way to have *any* choice in character advancement/creation. This is subjective, but a lot of the streamlining in 5e felt like it homogenized characters playing the same class. Two characters playing the same subclass ended up being essentially the same character mechanically. Feats allowed for you to nudge your character slightly off the course set by those subclasses and build a play pattern that felt more unique. That said, some feats (Such as Lucky) are ludicrously powerful to an degree that is impossible to reign in. Some feats just need to be banned when playing with feats, because they fundamentally unravel the underlying mechanics of the game. Lucky was always game-warping, even before the "Super-Advantage" combo got discovered.
I feel like a lot of people seem to forget that not ALL players optimize their characters. Hell, I always tell my players to do what feels right, my job is to adjust the difficulty accordingly... Like, I'm not running an adventurers league game, y'know? I just want to have fun let stupid shit happen. The Bugbear Barbarian is a Gourmand who uses their kills to feed the party and turns everything they kill into a fancy meal, despite the fact that we don't use the upkeep rules? Great! I'll be sure to add in a situation where cooking IS the answer!
Outside of a few optimization channels, who ever "forget(s) that not ALL players optimize their characters"? Most of what I hear is what bad gamers "optimizers" are. Kudos to you for recognizing the basic truth that we as GMs can tune the difficulty to whatever. It's downright weird to suggest you need to ban feats to challenge PCs.
Banning feats is a surefire way to make sure no one ever play a martial character ever again as feats are sadly required for martials to even pretend to keep up with casters. :/
@@CJWproductions Yes, but I wouldn't say they lose nearly as much power as martials do by removing feats like Great Weapon Mastery, Sharpshooter, Pole Arm Mastery, or Sentinel.
I have players take a feat at level 1, as well as giving them a free feat & ASI at level 4 & every 4 levels after. Of course, I also ban/rework various feats (such as GWM & SS) as well as incorporate a hell of a lot of extra changes (such as letting backgrounds give special non-feat abilities, like extra dice on certain skill or tool checks).
I love DMing high power games, the kind where any given adventuring day has 3 or 4 deadly encounters, and boss fights go thrice over a deadly budget. In order to do that, ample supplies of magic items and as many feats as possible are a must. But I do agree with the idea that each bit of power the player characters get has to be earned, not auto-generated at first level. Usually the first mission I give my level 1 characters to start a game is precisely to have each of them seek out a magic item, an expert trainer, a new font of power to aid them become the heroes they are meant to be. The only complaint I've ever gotten from my players is that at higher levels (around the 12th to 15th level mark) it gets a bit hard to keep track of all the treasures and powers they've amassed, which I find isn't really a problem at all!
An important thing to remember if you ban feats is that it disproportionately nerfs martial classes, who were already the weakest in the game to begin with. Without GWM/SS and CBE/PAM, martial classes deal pitiful amounts of damage, which is supposed to be their claim to fame. Literally the only mechanical reason to play a martial is to deal big single target damage (ignoring the fact that spellcasters can also do that, even better in some cases). You strip that away from them, and you’ve got an incredibly boring and weak character. Wizards do just fine without feats. Fighters without feats aren’t even playing the same game as fighters who do have feats
Yeah, this is the big thing, my very first session, back in 3.5th edition, just having cleave made me feel like such a badass, my fighter and the cleric running headlong into a mass group of enemies and fighting back to back while the ranger and the sorceror hung back and blasted anything not in range of our greatsword and mace, cutting down two enemies in a turn just felt great.
100% agree. Just finished a campaign where I was a Bladesinger with a Barbarian. If he didn't take GWM, we'd have basically been equal on the damage front, but then I'd also have all the spellcasting of a Wizard.
I don't ban any content in my games. If it's in a different setting I work out a backstory with the player for them to be the special one with it and trying to get home/escape/explore as per their goals. More importantly once people pick feats I try to lean into them as much as possible. Great Weapon Master? I'll throw low AC, high HP monsters at that character so they can have some fun cutting things down! Random magic feats? I'll give them opportunities to use those too but their might be consequences as well. In the end it's all about having fun and exploring a story to my way of thinking :)
5e gets boring and repetitive real quick without feats. If you’re at a point of banning all feats from being used I’d suggest reading some other systems to run that fit your idea best.
Some feats do unbalance the game like sentinel. Considering most of official enemies are melee based, its gets too difficult as a DM to balance encounters. That said, I still allow it. Martials get shafted without feats.
i do not ban feats, heck i do asi and feat at the same time BUT i have limits on the feats, like i play them as extensions of how they have played their character, so a character who has never shown any interest in cooking cant get the chef feat, oh you have never been to the feywilds or even met a fey well no fey touched for you. then i talk with the players what feats we both agree would make sense for them, where they can say i feel i should be able to get this feat that you didnt mention on the list, and then if we both agree on a list then the player picks what they want from the list
The DMs in our group (myself and a few others) all agree that when you get an ASI you get a feat as well. It helps makes everyone powerful. I also tend to homebrew custom feats for each PC that I hand out at narratively appropriate times.
I give a bonus feat at 1st level, but not from a Restricted List of the most common and powerful feats. Forces more diverse, character-defining choices and is really fun.
This is a very interesting video because it adds a perspective that I need for my upcoming campaign. For stats I had the party roll to make a party array, which was fun and neat, then I gave everyone a free feat at level 1 because everyone in the party has a habit of playing variant human. I didn’t ban any feats but I did jokingly threaten my players that if I saw anyone take the lucky feat, their first boss is going to be a Halfling Divination Wizard with the lucky feat. The silence in the discord call was hilarious.
The bit about Spelljammer is odd to me. I haven't played it yet, but I was a player in the Dragonlance campaign, and that gave out a free Feat to everyone. The PCs who chose one of the Drag backgrounds each got the Feat associated with that background, and PCs who chose a different background could choose from a limited list of more general bonus feats. It worked pretty well for what that campaign was doing (ie wanting PCs to be more powerful from the get-go). Odd that a contemporary campaign wouldn't do something similar.
Not odd. Depends on the viewpoint. Dragonlance was supposed to be a more powerful campaign compared to earlier out the box campaigns. But this shows straight power creep. Feats optional but podcasts and vocal gamers use and promote them. So new campaigns start with them. Which leaves some pc builds behind who don't use the new books. So every now gets a free feats. Too many pcs have feats at first level, so redesign or level lock the feats.
Spelljammer did do this as well. It says in the spelljammer book if the player takes a background without a feat they get a choice between tough magic initiate or skilled
I adore feats when building characters specifically because they allow me to put stank on a character that would otherwise be very generic. They also allow me to properly lean into a specific play style. E.g. I'm a notetaker so I adore giving my characters keen mind and observant because that way I can narratively justify why everyone in the party turns to me to refresh lore dumps (including the DM but thats because they barely plan before running a session). Like that narrative justification doesn't matter to anyone else but me but i love it so much. (I'm also very partial to half feats because cool thing and number go up)
The games I play in all have feats, most with feats at level 1 and a fair few that have it that you take both feat and ASI at the relevant points during level up. The DMs in these games go in for high high fantasy with really challenging combat... It can be crazy
I've been starting games with the entire party getting a feat at level 1, and I'm not generally playing around their power level (though I've definitely been feeling the strength of Lucky and Sentinel in the past year). It's not a question of dealing with them, per se, but it does lower the tension of several encounters when a specific monster gets destroyed. I've worked around it by altering my encounter building philosophy, more groups, and better action economy so that the encounter isn't trivialized while still offering players chances to feel cool and shut a monster or dangerous enemy down. Flee, Mortals! Has been great for this.
I remember back in 3rd Edition there were plenty of restrictions around feats which could help balance "powerful" feats away from low level play or having to really pigeonhole your character to use them. Must have 13 Int, 5 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), and be 3rd level for example, or something that required Base Attack Bonus +7 or greater, kept some feats out of the hands of low level adventurers. But it also meant in some cases specifically designing a character towards certain feats rather than growing organically with a campaign because you might encounter a chain of feats. Take this to take that so you can eventually get the last one.
Looking forward to the Monday vid. It's one of the processes I use to start in building a character. That's what I did for my sorcerer, catapult was the spell I wanted to be his thing. So spell sniper, and spell driver are the 2 main ones I want to use for feats. And ofcourse there's where he will end up with all the things he will probably get, but he's focused on targeted burst spells.
Sharpshooter is the most disruptive. Great Weapon Master is similar, but at least the character using it is in melee. A Sharpshooter with access to flight is a pain to deal with; you can include more ranged and flying opponents, but then those who aren't flying sharpshooters rarely get to do their thing.
Hi there from New Zealand. Love your channel man. They really help me understand the mechanics of the game, I've only run a few one shots at this stage... planning a Theros campaign so my Forever GM gets a break hahaha I haven't allowed 1st level feats for everyone but they get 2 uncommon magic items or 1 rare magic item, I am considering allowing 1st level feats for everyone campaign wise because its Theros and so heroic is the theme. I'm willing to see what my players do before I freak out lol Enjoy the content :) Congrats on becoming parents
Level 1 feats will be part of character backgrounds and higher level feats will come with a +1 ASI. It appears they have been writing the newer books with this in mind by giving setting backgrounds a feat.
For me, it should be just when such a way as that usually See, you drop a plan for a race in the way that it's not a major payment test, but allows for a different fantasy
I recently saw this in campaign 3 for critical role where a comment was about the battle encounter and how they all should have optimally chosen feats, abilities, races and strategies like combo spells etc to make the fight easier
My hot take is: if I wrote the rules, feats would be epic boons or other rewards given out or earned during game. I explained that if you’re character wants the “mobile” feat they have to beat a certain number of monsters in initiative or surprise them. Treating feats like awards for video game achievements seems like a better way to incorporate them. Allowing feats to be chosen for encourages the “build” mentality which for DnD I personally despise
So what I like to do. I tell all my players to author their backstories and once those and their other character details become clear I will approach them with often customized feats to match for that specific character. This is then also a tool for me at that stage already to reel in some balance concerns I have based on what the players have opted to pick in combination with the stats that they have rolled.
So, I am working on prep for a new campaign, and I'm going to try something a little different based on something Matt Colville mentioned in one of his Running the Game videos. My plan at the moment is to not allow feats, but to work with the characters and get an idea of what feats they would like to have and work those into the story as magic items found or as blessing at climatic moments. We will see how it goes but I think it could be fun.
I think feats are a core part of some classes... But... some of them are incredibly good, much better than others. The neatest solution I found was to split them up like they used to be in previous editions, such as: Great Weapon Master becomes: Cleave and Power Attack. Sharpshooter becomes: Power Shot, Sharpshooter (Ignore Cover), and Sniper (No Long Range Penalty). Usually tacking on a half stat boost on most. It tends to keep them in line with the racial feats and more "fun" options... but I also allow a free feat at level 1 in most games.
Adding to that, I changed Power Attack to: - Remove your Proficiency Bonus to Hit, and Add 2x Proficienty Bonus to Damage. Instead of -5/+10. Same with Sharpshooter. Makes them more bearable at early levels. And at higher levels... technically better with -6/+12. And, not to mention... I added Stat Requirements to some. Like they used to be. I haven't had any problems with it by being up front with the changes at session 0 / character creation.
I stopped running D&D before Feats were a thing (or, more accurately, when 3rd ed came out so Feats *became* a thing, but they had nothing to do with why I didn't want to run D&D any more) But I have run other games that have feat-like abilities, since I primarily run point buy systems so in a way each "class" is custom built as the player develops their character. And yes, these tend to be High Fantasy, High Heroics sort of games (Or Urban Fantasy high heroic, at leas the way I run them) One thing that many of these systems do fairly well is power-trees, where you start from one ability, and then having that ability is required (usually along with sufficient power level, however that's measured in the game) to buy certain other abilities, which are required before you can buy others, and so on. the add on effects can get pretty scary in some games (Exalted comes to mind) but that, unfortunately, doesn't stop some people from working out the "best" or "right" builds... there's just a few more definitions of "best" or "right" depending on what your goal is for the character.
I’ve been considering lately just altering how leveling works; making it a “Progression via Practice” so you only can learn something that a Mentor teaches you (Feat or Spell) or you Successfully Practice said Feat/Spell over 3 Sessions ; and maybe adding a “Chaos” Table that lists general bad results if you rolled below DC And the Class Level Goes up say every 3 Successfully Learned a Spells/Feats. Max 1 Class levels up at a time. And Mulitclassing would start you at Level 0 in the other class until you had learned 3 Feats/Spells in that class. All of this I feel would: 1. Allow me to control what a player has access to as they progress without having to outright ban anything 2. It makes dungeon delving for gold important again 3. Helps allow those more creative choices from players And maybe restrict some feats/spells to magic items only, so they can loose them.
The only time I ban something in my game is if it makes the game less fun. I don't care if it "ruins the balance" if that's what my players want to do. Feats are fun and most players enjoy them. And if the player doesn't then they can take the ASI. But I would never ban something my players saw as fun because the point of the game is to be fun.
Every level-up change (feats, multiclassing, etc - anything that's substantially different) - has to be justified within the roleplaying. But I DM for kids, so they also do things like establish a character at level 1 who's designed for ranged attacks...and then always run into melee. So I really don't have to worry too much about them min-maxing.
Me personally, I allow feats because the very first character I made had a concept I really wanted to make work that just didn’t with his base class stuff and with how the rules were. It was only through feats that I was able to actually make my character the way I wanted him to be. I’d never want a player to make their character with a certain idea in mind only for a feat that would make that possibility a reality to be locked off. Of course, that’s not to say that there is no issues with feats whatsoever. I honestly think structuring feats in a similar fashion to Eldritch Invocations is absolutely the way to go here in order to help better balance them throughout character levels.
I've never had much of an issue with feats, but then, my D&D games have rarely gone long enough that they become an issue. And I'm currently running a completely different system for my group, so it's not even an issue. That being said, I recently looked through Kobold Press's Tales of the Valiant / Black Flag rules again, and saw that, while all the backgrounds do come with a trait (their version of a feat), they only offer three options, so it's somewhere between late-5e's "you start with this feat" and house-ruling "you get a free feat," which I think is good. Also, I can't help but think of how 13th Age handled feats - they were basically buffs to a character's abilities or powers, and most of them came with tiers, so there was some amount of level locking.
For my current game I doubled down and let players take both a feat and an ASI or two feats. The only restriction was the Lucky feat which wasnt outright banned but couldn't be combined with an ASI. It's been a fun experiment and I have good players, but definitely not recommended for every game. Our next campaign will be more traditional, possibly even feat-free.
I like feats. I think they add flavor and depth to characters. I tend to give everyone a free feat at char-gen but they have to justify it. Having to understand why the character would have such abilities makes them think about something other than the pure mechanics of it and can help define the character a bit more. For example, a paranoid, self taught, abjuration wizard with the Metamagic Adept feat because they've spent so much time and effort learning how to hide or disguise their magic that it justifies having limited access to the subtle spell metamagic.
I'm running a campaign right now where I gave all my players the option to take a feat at first level. I did this at a player's suggestion, and we're all really enjoying it. Ultimately I decided to do this because the campaign (Waterdeep Dragonheist) is written to be a low level campaign, capping off at level 5. The entire first chapter as written is for the players to be at level 1, leveling up to 2 at the end of the first big dungeon. I took some online advice and leveled them up earlier, for the same reason I decided to let them take a feat to start. It can be tough to feel like a badass adventurer at low levels, and since this campaign is capped at level 5, they wouldn't really have much time to enjoy the feats (if they took them) at level 4, and I wanted them to feel capable and have fun with their characters from the jump. And they love acting out their powers and taking turns surprising each other with what each of their low level characters can do in combat. Now, I'm lucky because all my players are people I know well and enjoy playing with, and I specifically picked them to join this game because we all enjoy roleplay and playing our characters more than any other aspect of the game. So the feats they chose are ones that fit their characters as they see them, not necessarily the ones pro-gamers would call optimal. Example: my Asimar Rogue chose the actor feat, because they grew up on the streets of Waterdeep as an orphan who broke out and made their way thieving and conning people. So they figured the ability to disguise themselves and fit into a more face of the party deceptive role fit the way they wanted to play their character. It's been fun. I doubt I'd make the same choice for games that I expect to go to higher levels, and would just let players take feats (should they choose) at the normal level up times. But for this campaign, letting them take feats early has given them the power to flavor their characters' specialties a bit more, adding to a lot of early game fun.
In one of the campaigns i play in the DM homebrewed that a feet could only be taken once. Not once from one player, once in the whole world, so that they really feel uniquely powerful in their own way. I hab a lot of fun discussing with the other players who wants to take what feat next and theorizing about the few feats our GM revealed to be taken from NPCs. I don't think it would work for every group (especailly if they tend to be compettitive with each other and try to optimize their buids at all costs) but it works for this group. And it helps some underused feats to shine (imo). My little roughe has the dungeon delver and slasher feat (not the tipical first decisions i would guess). With her whip she is a pretty nice Indiana Jones Inspired character.
I just have my players take ASI and give out feats to celebrate an event happening so that it feels like they earned that feat, and that feat plays into the story of their character. I however don't give out many magic items.
3.5e has prerequisites for most feats. When it says BAB+8, you would need to be a fighting class (fighter/barbarian/ranger/etc) with max BAB progression to get it at the earliest level 8.
Agree that character creation is actually very limited (basically 3 choices, unless you're spellcaster). But so many people claim it's too complicated!
It really depends. If my DM was Matthew Coville, I wouldn’t mind, seeing as he homebrews character customization options that fill in the gap left by not allowing feats.
I never really thought about how different my view on magic items and adventurers are from Matt's. I don't particularly like giving my players magic items as loot, but rather upgrading their current gear to magical status. As if their heroism and renown is warping reality, their feats and legends being imbued into what they held. So that by the end of a very long adventure, the hero's weapons and armaments are the powerful relics the next generation of adventurers seek out.
I do a couple different things. First, I always ban the heritage options that give feats. The backgrounds that give feats only give minor ones that don't really break the game. In certain campaigns where I have the party get most of their quests from a mercenary academy, I have the players make a choice at character creation. They can start as students of the academy or freelancers the students meet in their graduation dungeon crawl and bring back to the academy to audit classes. Students get all the benefits of variant human on top of their actual heritage choice. Freelancers start with a +1 weapon or equivalent magic item. After 4 levels of adventuring and auditing classes, both groups get the benefit of the other. The other thing I do when not using the Academy setup relies on piety and renown. Everyone gets one feat of their choice at level 1. If players want more feats they have to earn renown with a faction or god. Once they earn 10 points the faction or church sends them to a trainer or smith who sends them on a quest to learn a feat of their choice or gather the materials needed to craft a specific magic item. The boons and blessings in the DMG might also be options to gain through piety or renown. The main benefit of this is that it replaces ASI vs Feat debates and magic item grocery lists with actual progress systems that encourage players to engage with the setting and the npcs.
Feats are fun! And at my table the right choice is the feat that's the most fun to use. If someone takes Great Weapon Master and now deals way more damage than anyone else, I will help the other players catch up with cool loot tailored towards their chars to balance the game. And I let my players know this, as it takes away the pressure to optimise, but still keeps the door open to pick strong feats if they also happen to be fun feats.
I feel like the insistence on praising not bulding PCs considering their effectiveness is having an opposote effect. I have both kind pf players and i love both styles but nowadays buildimg a pc to be sffective is considered... Rude?
Wizards of the Coast have FIXED D&D with this ONE TRICK! (give everyone Eldritch Invocations) I don't have many feat opinions but giving them a power curve by implementing level restrictions could be great, especially as a pool of things to use that are class-agnostic
I ban feats, but plunder them heavily for inspiration for quest rewards and magic items. Gaining a sharpshooter bow from a quest, or your connection to the rangers guild allows you to learn sharpshooter is 1000x more satisfying than “I hit the next level and chose this feat”. 5e magic weapons needs some help anyway.
Banning feats because they are imbalanced would, ironically, make the game as a whole more imbalanced since the best feats benefit martials more than casters, and casters are better than martials overall.
When I converted my two long time PC's from 3.5 to 5e (both being human), their 1st level feats were Prodigy and Mobile. Which I would hope set a good example of taking feats that build character/allows a character to lean into their concept rather than grabbing shiney powerups. (I am slightly surprised Mike lists Warcaster as being a particularly powerful one, then again I simply choose to have most casters have a free hand and forgo a shield or second weapon for asthetic reasons/head canon logical ones, so heh)
I actively encourage feats and stuff to make characters both personalized and heroic and I especially didn't want to make new players at low level d!e at random to something that shouldn't be much of a problem (now they're Level 3, I actually started to have them deal with and fight even more dangerous stuff where PC death is a real possibility). So, of course I let my PCs have an extra feat (and +2 HP as a bit of padding to smoothen the curve of HP growth at level ups). The Paladin picked War Caster, even though he probably shouldn't even be able to - and I agree with it, because it makes spell/weapon juggling a non-issue, reducing the bookkeeping needed. The rest of the group picked spell-adding feats, making the low levels be already quite strong in the options, but not that much in the resources to use them.
I've only just started a campaign, so I'm still waiting for results on if this was the best decision, but although i let my player pick a feat at level 1, they could only chose from a selection i had made myself. I've eliminated every feat that was directly related to combat mechanics, and any feat named "master of" or "expert" or anything of the sort, and selected mostly feats that fit nicely with their background. This seemed like a happy middle, but we'll see !
In my games I've allowed all characters to get a feat at level 1, and also have brought in some pathfinder rulings so that players can (in addition to when you would normally gain a feat) spend downtime and gold to train new feats (provided there is someone who would reasonably be able to train that feat. e.g you can't train feats like lucky, but you can train feats like great weapon master). some of my players have like 5 feats at level 7, because they took the time and the gold to do it. I don't find that this sways the power level of characters too far in one direction or the other, because the games I run tend to be on the deadlier side anyway, and my players know this. so far, I haven't had any struggles in challenging them.
I think I lean more towards the Matt Colville perspective. Feats are very fun, I would just prefer them to be obtained diegetically. I'm thinking about trying out feats as treasure, instead of level up options, in my next campaign.
"Or board games" If someone's backseating in a TTRPG I do not want to play a co-op board game with them. I mean, hell, the worst backseaters will backseat _competitive_ board games. I like feats... In games that are balanced with the assumption they exist. They're a neat way of offering character customization in a class based system, particularly if you restrict them by level, by class, or bake feat trees into the feat design. Some help your character go brrr and play out how you want them to at the table, others are just fun little options that make me smile. My issue with them being optional in 5e is that I don't really trust the game is properly balanced assuming players have access to them or not. No feats? Cool. I can happily play a mouse or whatever the game is about with only my items and my wits to rely on (...I'm in a Mausritter game atm, that example isn't hypothetical), Feats? Awesome. I'll happily add this feat that helps my character do what I want them to at this level from the class feat option and this one that's just a fun little thing that I hope comes up but if it never does, that's fine, I just don't get to roll down a hill at 4x my speed (My current PF2e character is a Ratfolk. That's literally one of my ancestry feats). 5e's optional feat thing is... Not a decision I really trust... Particularly in a system with a CR system - is that designed assuming we're using feats or assuming we're not? I'm distrustful of CR systems even at the best of times, with 5e's approach to magic items and feats... It feels like it's even more making things up than CR systems often feel like.
I enjoy feats because it is a tertiary line of customization. but we also play with a good "stable" group who all almost have to min-max due to the nature of the campaign (gestalt demigods, with minimum lethal encounters). but I also feel like OneDND is alleviating some of the "best" nature of certain feats (removing the damage bonus from sharpshooter, nerfing the damage bonus from GWM)
I've tried several methods and I've found the most fun thus far is making "free feats" be from a limited list. In my Avernus game I've so far given the players such feats twice: once at character creation from a very small list, and another at around level 7 with more options to choose from - some piggybacking from the starting feat. They represented their origins and eventually their progression/breakthrough with teachers or through training. It does make them feel more heroic but not unbearably so. I more or less copied this list from an existing 5e D&D module which I'll refer to a few lines further below to prevent... SPOILERS Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen.
I pitched a highly tactical combat heavy game to my players and one rocked up with a polearm master + sentinel build. It fits what I advertised! I can't complain, due to that. But those two feats totally change how I see the battlefield. Player's having a blast! In a game less focused on battle mechanics, I think I'd get annoyed of these feats and suggest taking something else. But I doubt I'd ban them. I just gotta think creatively to make engaging combat!
Very used to free feats at lvl 1. Love the buff and I haven’t noticed anyone abusing it or huge noticeable imbalance between party members. I do like the suggestion of rewarding feats for in game actions, though. Although my concern with that is that is COULD get unbalanced if only certain players earn feats while others don’t.
I think giving feats out as a roleplaying reward that fits the scene and some event works nicely - not a fan of just randomly selecting them on level up though. Should be a reward for doing certain things. Or for getting into an absurd situation and getting out of it even more absurdly.
Many monsters, especially at higher levels, have abilities that are quite similar to feats, so it's good to give PCs a chance to get some cool abilities too. I do wish there were no "must have" options, and the 2024 PHB playtests have mitigated this to some degree (just how much we'll see later this year).
As far as I remember the feat level distinction stayed in all the 5.5e playtests, although the only delineation was that some feats were level 1+ and others were level 4+, it could be neat to have more split points but that could lead to awkward balancing "tiers" of feats so players feel like they can only take so many feats of a given tier because they're passing up on the high level exclusive feats. I really like feats because they add a form of control for the player on how their character's gameplay abilities develop over time, especially for martials who dont get a big list of spells to choose from, without feats the onyl real character building choice you make is subclass then for the next 17+ levels its just reading out from the book what you can do, spreading mroe choices across the levelling process makes things feel much better imo.
I am generally okay with feats. I also let the players know during Session Zero that I reserve the right to tweak (or remove/replace) character features if they prove problematic. A discussion would be held prior to any changes potentially being made, and attempt to reach an acceptable compromise. I am more inclined to allow a free feat at first level if point buy is used; if attributes are rolled up, then I won't. It also boils down to how well you know and trust your table to respect the vibe you have all agreed upon in Session Zero.
If I were to ban feats, I would take those feats and make them magic items. You get the benefit of the feat while attuned to the item. This does a couple of things. It allows the DM to have full control over what feats the players get -- and if they're a good DM they'll take their players wants into account, their plans for their characters. It also takes the sterile process of selecting feats from a list on level-up and turns it into story. I'm not a Warcaster now because lah-dee-dah, I'm a Warcaster because I defeated the Supreme Duelist in combat in the Manticore's Lair and coveted her arcane gauntlets of magical dueling. As they say, give them what they want in a way they don't expect. Now, I do not ban feats. And I still sometimes craft magic items that are just feats -- usually ones that are possessed by the spirit of a dead adventurer, in-universe. But that's how I'd do it if I did ban feats.
Hi Mike, I know this comment isn’t about the video but I want to say thank you for everything you do. I been watching your videos for a long time now. When you did your live streams I would try to catch them because I felt like you treated people with kindness and respect. It was really awesome you taking the time to respond to different peoples table top role playing questions. Yesterday I made a post on Reddit talking about a situation that happened in a game. The amount of mean spirited comments basically calling me the worst type of player I was not prepared for. I can take criticism but I was not expecting that. I can’t imagined how you deal with the negative comments that you receive. With only 20 comments I felt awful I couldn’t imagine what 100 200 or 300 comments would feel like. I have so much respect for what you do and thank you for being you.
@@SupergeekMike It was a bummer. Lucky I have some good friends who I was able to talk too and they had advice that wasn’t “ you are a bad player and not welcome in the hobby “
So for the first campaign I ever ran I told everyone they could pick a feat at first level as long as it wasn't great weapon master, sharpshooter, or lucky. After that first campaign I was going to add another feat to that list: war caster. But then I realized my bigger issue wasn't that PCs took it at first level, but that everyone took it at first level. I had 3 magic users and 2 took war caster and the third was pressured to take it as well. She ultimately took the healer feat, which to encourage her choice I modified it to be a bit better. But I didn't really like how two different magic users took war caster, exactly because it was the "best option". It felt like it should've been more special then that. I also kinda felt this way about the uncommon magic item I let people select at 1st level as well, two people took hat of disguise. My solution for my second campaign was this: if you give me your character's backstory I'll let you pick an uncommon magic item, but no duplicates in the party. First come, first serve. I also told them that *I* would give them a feat at first level based off of their backstory and was very clear that the feat would not be great weapon master, sharpshooter, war caster, or lucky. One player was a bard who got some inspiration from an archfey while he was studying at college. He made it clear he planned on multi-classing into warlock, which I was very okay with, so I gave him the eldritch adept feat at 1st level. Symbolizing this pre-pact deal he made with an archfey and to make his character feel unique and special. It dovetailed nicely into his multiclass too when he finally did it. I think this kind of feat allocation is really great because it respects the power fantasy of the player and rewards them for engaging and providing a backstory. Because I also do milestone leveling up I also like having feats as a reward if I feel like it would be too soon to level up but they accomplished something great or closed a chapter in the story.
I disagree with basically everything here, except that you don’t ban feats… but I appreciate that you have experience and a well thought out opinion. When I play a game, I like to be good at it. Advice to players: if you’re at the table playing spelljammer and everyone is buying in to the ideas and mechanics of that campaign, it’s absolutely allowed to have a discussion with the guy picking some random ass feat that’s not location specific what they’re after.
I've had the suspicion for a while, and I'm not sure it's true or significant, but I do believe it, that a lot of tables play wtih Feats and Multiclassing and don't even realize they are optional rules. Since they are extremely common place to see in Actual plays (the only notable actual play I can think of that doesn't use them is the Chain of Acheron, which is literally an exception to prove the rule) I think a lot of players assume it's just a normal part of the rules instead of a variant. And with it included in the PHB I imagine it confirms their assumptions, even though it's called a variant rule there. On the actual topic of this video though, I've used feats for every single campaign I've ever run, and all the major balance issues I've had to deal with have pretty exclusively stemmed from somewhere else. (Usually spells) I do agree there are some outlier feats I would like to get changed (GWM, SHS, WC, R, etc.) But most feats are pretty minor buffs all things considered. Like some will define the character, but a lot of then generally won't.
Nothing against Mike personally, just my perspective, but I watch/listen to a fair share of TH-cam while I work for background noise and I honestly feel like most “issues” with DnD are truly non-issues… it’s just that everybody needs content to put out a couple times a week so content creators are nitpicking 5E for content and clicks. *side note: I’ve also seen A TON of “5e is broken, and THATS why you should try the NEW system by created so and so NOW so jump on kickstarter…” videos. Look, new stuff can be created without claiming other things are broken, it’s OK! Great Grandpa DnD has a lot of life left in him 😂
I ban players from taking feats but I retain the option of giving them as rewards selectively as not to unbalance the game. But i also ban players multiclassing because 1-2 class dips can be just as if not more broken
I think one of 5e's most friction filled areas is actually in the space of Feats and Multiclassing. Both are seen as integral to character builds in any discussion (as beyond that, 5e character don't really make progression choices aside from subclass, and spells for casters) yet they are an optional rule and not always guaranteed to be available at the table you're playing it. Them being both optional and not full baked result in a lot of friction when they would have been much better served working these features into the core game as standard things (and expanding them) or forgoing them entirely. Magic Items are in a similar boat, but they are so nebulous and lack ANY kind of good structure in 5e, which I think in that regard they can take a page from PF2e with its expected magic weapon/armor at each level range.
Hope you, your baby, and SuperGeekWife are happy and healthy even as you adjust to your new, bigger family! Gonna try to be more consistent in commenting to appease the almighty algorithm in your favor! Keep up the fantastic work but also don't work yourself to the bone! I'm always excited when I see a new SuperGeekMike video!
My feat policy consists of a few little tweaks. 1) PHB backgrounds all have a PHB feat, but the mostly underutilized feats such as Charlatan gets Actor, Criminal gets Dungeon Delver, Noble gets Linguist, etc. 2) Any feat is available when you have an ASI, except Lucky. Lucky is the only feat that I have banned thus far. It just is kinda lame to let one person reroll and it undercuts other features such as Indomitable, bardic inspiration, etc. 3) Feats (including half feats but sans ASI) are always available as a downtime training benefit. You've got 8 weeks and you're gonna spend it working out? Athlete feat. You spend time carousing, specifically getting into fights; Tavern brawler.
Based on the playtesting for the 2024 rules updates, the general design for feats seems like there will be 1st level first, and feats you need to be at least 4th level to take. All of the 1st level feats in the play test will not change ability scores, but will likely have something that scales off of your Proficiency Bonus (like adding your Proficiency Bonus to initiative rolls via the Alert feat), or the Artisan which offers a 20% discount when buying non-magical items, which should have some natural scaling as you start getting more money at higher levels. In contrast, the 4th feats so far all offer to increase at least one ability score by 1 to a maximum of 20, except for the "Ability Score Increase" feat that lets you increase one ability by 2, or increase two abilities by 1 each (and the feat also says if you take it while you are at least 19th level you can increase an ability score to a maximum of 22, instead of the maximum of 20 used everywhere else).
I love feats, but i tend to use them more as flavour. I have a bard who is a Tasha fangirl, so as a variant human i said she developed the fey touched feat during her bard studies. Later the dm allowed us to choose another feat after a big story moment and i did struggle with the whole optimizing thing, i wanted eldritch adept and i knew devils sight was the best choice. Instead, because she's a bit power hungry and wants to gather esoteric power, i gave her eyes of the runekeeper. My favourite feat is skill expert, and i think every character should have have it automatically. It's impact is noticeable without being gamebreaking, and it can really help with characterization and making sure everyone feels unique. Was your character raised by wolves? Survival expert. Did they spend their youth in study dedicated to their god? Religion expert. Have they spent most of their lives on the run from some insidious force, constantly looking over their shoulder? Perception expertise.
The only right feat is the one you and DM agree too. And you both have fun. Did you say banned the player or beat? Rewinds. Banned. Rats I been doing wrong. Adventure League does allow most feats. Limited by which books are allowed in which campaign you are running in. Chef is a good roleplaying feat. I have used it twice. But currently AL has 88 feats of the 106. You can take Skilled, Tough, or Magic Initiate for free. When I was homebrewing, I preferred players who discovered their character powers and abilities during play against people who had a build from 1 to 20 planned out. What I hated is the reason they gave during one their UA podcasts. Because people were ignoring their backgrounds after they took the skills from them.
How do you handle feats in your 5e games?
Thanks so much to WorldAnvil for sponsoring this video! Visit www.worldanvil.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK to get 51% off any annual membership!
www.worldanvil.com/supergeekmike
use them all, but i use them too... i like giving them as rewards as well. Either as a capstone to a personal arc or as an ability on a custom magic item tailored to a character. Oh and Sentinel only stops a creature up tp two sizes larger than you , like it should
The magic item discussion could be it's own video. "Should Magic Items Be A Part Of Character Progression ?" is one of those design questions that keep me up at night.
I think they inevitably are. I mean, if your character suddenly gains a new power, it doesn't super matter if it originates from an item or is innate. For the duration they have that item, the character is changed by having that power.
The issue with the "correct" choice was explained in a game design video as "if I have 10 choices, but one is clearly best... Then I don't have a choice.".
Adding OP options to the option pool can actually reduce choice.
Ok but this is literally only a problem if you care about which choice is best. I'm not here to tell anyone how they should play the game. But if you play purely for efficiency then you're going to have to accept that there are drawbacks to that approach.
And if it's such a huge issue for you, well then maybe you should try a new approach.
DnD was designed to be modular. It gives you the freedom to really do whatever you want without real risk of breaking any of the core mechanics.
Taking great weapon master is a good feat for melee however if you want to dual wield you’ll take the duel wield feat. It’s like call of duty there are better guns but sometimes you wanna do your own thing and run around with a sniper
@@bernardobastos5996 DnD 5e does get pretty boring if _only_ played for efficiency, but for any player it's a mix of different things. If power gamers really *only* cared about power gaming, they'd play alone, and if roleplayers really *only* cared about roleplaying, they would be gravitating away from DnD and towards the many TTRPGs that have more roleplay emphasis instead of long combat encounters. Real people usually get some satisfaction both from the numbers and from the RP.
Like player playstyles, balance also isn't a binary thing. Things being unbalanced is much more of a problem if a casual player can easily recognise how overpowered something is, than if only a very experienced player can work out its unbalance after a lot of research. I think it's fair to say weapon related feats like Great Weapon Master are so absurdly good even relatively new players can realize it's far above the rest, and that is a fun problem for all players. Even a relatively RP centric player is going to feel a sting seeing a different player's performance with a more optimised build, knowing they could've been just as relevant in combat with a few tweaks.
With that said, I could never imagine banning Feats personally, even with bad balancing, the fun factor of having these additional choices while levelling is FAR too good to ignore
@@bernardobastos5996 That's not really what I'm talking about. Beyond "this is the most efficient choice" there's a point where "taking anything but X is obviously foolish".
You don't need to be an optimizer to realize silvery barbs is an incredibly useful and powerful spell. So much so that it's a *must pick* spell... which is not a choice anymore.
Yes, what you are saying is true. That's a good thing if you ask me, because the choice shouldn't really come in the form of the feat, it comes in what you consider to be the Best. If all you care about is numbers, then yes SS or GWM obviously stand above. But there are Other things to care about.
I'm not accusing the video of doing this, though actually it does kind of skirted a few times which is interesting, but I've noticed that as much as min Max's used to be a problem over my 30 odd years of dungeon mastering, the opposite has kind of started to be a problem now as well... Which is to say, I both seen online, and within my tables, the problem of an optimized player a lot of times isn't that player that's optimizing, it's some of the players that aren't as deliberate with their optimization then kind of having an undertone of jealousy about what that optimized player is able to do in combat, or exploration, or whatever specifically they optimized for.... Like the person who built their variant human fighter to have a very specific 3 ft selection build within first tier really isn't being a jerk about it. They had a specific fantasy in mind of wanting to be able to literally cut through two people at the same time with one swing, and now they can do that. They think it's awesome, I think it's awesome, I don't understand how people don't think it's awesome. But then you get some guy who self-proclaims to care more about the roleplay and not optimizing his build, but he starts to get really touchy about the fact that this other person can do this awesome thing. Nobody's talking down to that player or commenting disparagingly that he only does about half the damage as the optimized build. He's putting that on himself. Which I'd be willing to talk through with them, but he's then by extensions blaming other people for ruining his game and his time.
It's kind of like you said in this video, you proclaim to not be an optimizer, then other players took starting backgrounds that gave them feats, and because you're an adult who really doesn't care about optimizing, it didn't bother you. If it did, it shouldn't have. You were getting the play experience you wanted: a non-optimized build that fit the specific customization you wanted.
Like I said, this video isn't endorsing that position, but it I just think it's interesting that over my time playing and running games, this is the first time that I've really seen that, the non-optimizer feeling jealous of an optimizer, be such a problem that I actually have to deal with it.
This is 100% the case.
While back then power building used to be "the correct way of playing" nowadays NOT doing it is considered to be that correct way.
Like I've seen in this and many other channels that building s character not considering how well they'll do in battle is praised.
And I honestly don't get it, this is a battle based rpg, why am I being shamed for wanting to be effective in battle?
I mean if one character is far more effective and gets more cool moments, then it’s entirely natural for that to potentially get under the skin for the others around them. No one likes to feel useless. Assuming no one is trying to make other people feel bad on purpose, then it’s possible no one in particular is the problem, but doesn’t change the fact there could be a problem.
Way I see it, there’s a few ways to possibly address this. First is trying to play with people with similar mindsets. If every character is built with similar ideas, it’s far less likely this will happen. Another possible one is ensuring that characters built in a less optimised way still have moments to shine. This doesn’t always have to be in combat (though it can be). If someone has got a feat that’s useful in social situations, giving them the opportunity to use that ability is important.
Like most issues, I think there are ways around it with good communication and open minds.
@@finlayames6216
I get what you're saying, but in actuality the real combat effectiveness between a highly optimized character and reasonably built one (IE, Suboptimal but just not doing something objectively stupid like making your casting stat also your dump stat) won't actually be that mismatched in combat. 5th edition math just doesn't actually break down on that level (I'll need to find the link, but Matt Colville actually has a home video on this as I remember). I think a campaign, session, hades even a combat encounter, getting completely derailed by one ubermensch character is a bit of a boogeyman. I'm not saying it never happens, but I don't actually think it happens enough for it to be a serious concern, saying that as someone who has consistently run games in 5th edition since it's inception.
But your comment kind of feeds into my point; if someone has built a character to do specific cool things, I actually have a very low tolerance for somebody who then gets jealous that a character can perform those specific cool tasks which someone specifically built their character to be able to do. That is not stopping your non-optimized character from doing whatever cool thing you want them to do.... And generally it comes across to me as you're just mad that somebody put time and effort into building a specific playstyle they wanted. Same way I have a low threshold back in the day for optimizers not wanting to play with people who didn't build characters in specifically the way they perceived of as "best.".
If somebody's feeling left out of a fifth edition table, like they don't have time to shine, either that DM is Not actively looking for ways to let them shine, or they're just getting upset that somebody else can do a special trick that they didn't build for, and are interpreting that as that person to overshadowing them. And that's really the thing I see anymore that kind of annoys me: People trying to talk about optimized characters derailing games when mathematically it just doesn't work out that way nine times out of 10. Which generally leads me back to it's just somebody getting a little bit pissy because they said optimization doesn't matter to them, right up until somebody showed up with an optimized character, then it matters, and they're mad that it happened.
@@finlayames6216
I would say, one thing that is definitely a struggle even within this context is somebody who is optimized with feats and whatnot to do cool things could potentially have an easier time getting frustrated when it doesn't pan out, and I could see if that would really bother a DM. For instance, I'm one of those people who when I do occasionally get a chance to be a player rather than a dungeon master, likes to build a character around certain specific mechanics, ensuring that I'll be able to do a specific cool thing (cleave through someone, shoot an arrow with pinpoint accuracy in the dark while doing a backflip, you know, The type of things you have to have built your character intentionally to be able to do), and I know I can have an internal tendency to get really frustrated when an encounter happens and I don't pull that off. Now I'm not mad generally at the other players or the dungeon master, because it's not like I'm mad that the situation didn't come up. I'm actually generally fine if a specific situation doesn't happen in any given encounter. I'm mad when the situation does come up and despite the fact that I've built a 98% chance that I should pull this thing off, it doesn't work because the dicer against me. Generally speaking the dice going against me is something that I have a lot of fun with, but when it happens over that one thing that I've optimized my character towards it can get aggravating. I'm sure there's been times when my frustration has been evident, and while I'm always attempting to be very clear that I'm mad and frustrated with myself and how I just rolled not with anyone else at the table, I can understand why some people would find that off-putting. But that's more of me problem than an optimization as a concept problem in my mind.
the most interesting part of feats, to me, is the way they can be used to customize your character to more closely match your vision for who they are and what they can do. so i kind of bristle a bit at the idea of them being exclusively handed out by the DM, because it feels like the DM is making a decision about who your character is, and taking that decision out of your hands.
that said, i think the idea has legs, perhaps if you limit its scope somewhat. like, if there are *specific* feats an individual DM is worried about for balance reasons, why not turn *those* feats into rewards the players can find/earn, and leave the rest for us plebs who just want some flavor? for instance, the critical role sourcebooks' approach of turning the "lucky" effect into a boon that can be granted by the gods is one kind of neat implementation of this idea that seems workable to me.
I know this is probably a popular idea, but I find it kinda flawed. How is “I started with a commoner and now they are the character I laid out” vs “I started with a commoner and they have grown as a direct result of the quests they completed” satisfying?
How many people become the person they thought they would be when they were still 16 years old…
@@Doncergio I don't know, but that doesn't sound like what I said? Or at the very least, not like what I was intending to say.
Your vision for your character is inevitably going to evolve as you play them, which is (one reason, among several) why you don't pick all your feats at character creation. In most cases, you pick either zero or one, and then the rest come later.
I don't know, I'm not going to come up with a perfect, airtight Defense Of Feats in a random youtube comment, nor am I the right person to even try. I only wanted to express the feeling that something of value is lost if they are taken out of players' hands completely. I like them! I'd prefer to have them over not having them! That's about as deep as my stance goes.
Same with the weird OSR ethos of your character sheet being extremely sparse, and your character being defined by their magic items. Cool. The GM decided who my character was going to be and what they could do. Cool cool.
One of the things I've done in my game to make feats less attractive options on levelup is to make it possible for the players to get feats without leveling up. Aka, to *earn* a feat through in-world roleplaying and interactions. The Shadar-kai Fighter in my Wednesday game got Elven Accuracy after training with wood elf rangers that they allied with for a few weeks. I was inspired to make that ruling by Matt Colville's video "No" which you brought up, too.
TLDR; I reward feats like they are magic items.
At my table I allow players to grab feats at level one if their chosen background doesn't already offer one, as I love feats and the flavor they can provide and that includes the "infamous" ones. I even give players access to 3rd party and homebrew material so long as I reviewed and approved it.
Feats are as much about player expression as they are about mechanical power. I personally believe that GM's who are against feats or against certain feats really need to step back and really consider WHY they are against them. Is it because of power? Well, stronger characters means you get to bust out stronger and frankly cooler monsters than you probably originally intended. Is it because you want a narrative focused game? Have you considered ASKING your players what feats they are taking or plan to take? Depending on the feat, you can work with that player to create scenes that show when they acquired it.
And before people start complaining about GWM or Sharpshooter, yes, they are indeed powerful at lower levels, but at higher tiers of play or against enemies with high AC it's really not an issue. +10 to weapon damage is nowhere near as concerning as a mage with any control spell.
I love giving feats at the first level. Gives a chance to take options that are never used. In terms of balance, the dice rolls can still really throw things out of whack. I do a lot of tests for my encounters running them about 3 or four times, ones that are meant to be easy cause my players to struggle, some hard ones aren't issues at all. And for anyone who has run some of the low-level modules, those encounters can be game enders.
At the end of the day, just talk to your players, and if something is too strong, you can balance it. Or create encounters that aren't just combat focused that gives other builds a chance to shine.
Feats are, in my opinion, an important part of character building and development.
Picking feats based off of who your character is, what they have learned or are good at, how they've developed... is incredibly satisfying. The best approach I've been privy to is to hand out feats based on character achievements.
As someone who made over 20 lvl 20 characters i was taking 3 or 4 of the same feets to be the strongest i can be
Tough lucky alert
Or lucky alert war caster
Yes feets can infact be thematic but in this context they are siege weapons to be abused by players and make the game the same and very boring
@@shadowstalk3004 aye, folks want to tout how useful they are for designing your character, but let's actually acknowledge that only a handful are ever actually chosen.
Feats help define a characters extra-normal abilities, usually in how they interact with game mechanics or combat. To me, that doesn't sound like a necessity for creating a character. We don't need extra abilities to roleplay a concept.
@@shadowstalk3004 So don't pick the same ones every time.
@@robofeeney Of course it's not a necessity. It;'s a option. And I find that if used in a particular way it's very satisfying. You are free to disagree but arguing that it's people people pick the same ones every time makes no sense. Have you tried NOT doing that?
It's kinda of a YOU issue.
@bernardobastos5996 I'd have to disagree, and I'm sorry. The feats weren't well-designed, and they've openly spoken in the past about deliberately designing "bad" options.
I'm not saying everything needs to be game-changing, but rather that people will continually pick the best option for the game. And if there are ten options, but only one option is good...then there was only even one option.
We can argue that our sample sizes are different, or we aren't playing with the "right" people (what does that even mean?) But the more dnd moves into a space where it's trying to be a crpg, the less interest I have. And that's okay! We are allowed to like different things.
Play with feats all you like, and enjoy it! I personally just see them as more of a hindrance to the game than a boon.
My thoughts as a dm have always been, "Only pick feats that make sense for your character to have." So like, someone who's character has been played as oblivious and unobservant taking the observant feat wouldn't make sense unless there was a character growth moment for them
How about an alternate rule? You have to find a mentor willing to train you for feats. Back in the day we required downtime to level up and it was during this time you character was having there training arc :).
@@MSlocum669 unfortunately the way my campaign is run (and this is both mine and the players fault together) there isn't almost any down time of more than a day or two. They're at lvl 11 and just had their first month of downtime due to another character going to jail for a month.
@@blackcatleader2459 Downtime is something that has to be baked in to the game. It is kinda sureal that players can take there characters from level 1 to 10 in a few months. Training is a way you can introduce a time and money tax to the game to make it more immersive. It can take more time and money to train without a mentor but you can be rewarded with a discount If you can roleplay and find one.
@@blackcatleader2459 - You could say that in-game time is the same as real-world time. Obviously during combat things have to slow down because it's hard to compete a round in 6 minutes, let alone 6 seconds, but you can get back in sync during rest, uneventful travel, and between sessions. The game doesn't represent every day of these people's lives, just the interesting parts.
|In many games, completing a level requires a long rest. You could extend that to a number of long rests equal to the level being achieved. 2nd level needs 2 long rests to complete, 3rd level requires 3 long rests, etc.
You could also adapt the 10-point exhaustion mechanic from the first One D&D playtest to slow things down a bit. Falling to 0 HP gives a character 1 point of exhaustion, which imposes a cumulative -1 penalty to all of that character's d20 tests. A long rest only clears 1 point of exhaustion. The ranger ability to recover from exhaustion with a short rest only works once per day.
Some or all of those could make downtime more necessary. Requrinmore downtime fixes some of the "zero to hero in one week" pacing. The exhaustion on 0 HP mechanic can limit the 'Tubthumping Effect'*.
*Look up the song by Chumbawimba.
@@MSlocum669 its definitely more immersive, but I feel most people don't want to keep track of some of that and view it as tedious work, much like carry capacity and encumbrance, most people just don't use it because it can become really tedious to keep track of. I know my players and the other players int he games I play love role playing but the small tedious stuff like that we have found made the experience less enjoyable.
It is definitely a group by group thing for sure. No 2 groups are the same.
I was pleasantly surprised to see feats in Baldurs Gate 3 and it really helped me enjoy Lea'zel as a pure battlemaster rather than a multiclass.
Agree! She becomes such a badass!
Imagine feats not being included. Fighters would suffer A LOT from that. They would get a lot ASIs that really don't do much for them as long as they have maxed out their main attack stat. All the while other classes still get great, feat-like abilities instead.
13:17 “If a character takes a background from elsewhere and doesn’t get a feat from that background, the character gains one of the following feats of the player’s choice: Magic Initiate, Skilled, or Tough.” - Spelljammer, backgrounds section.
The game isn’t inherently unbalanced because of backgrounds with feats, the books themselves adress this.
You expect a DM to READ? But they already have to do SO MUCH, now you want them to understand RULES and READ?? (this is sarcasm)
this rule is actually in adventurer's league too now
The trouble is that so many players are finding these backgrounds outside the context of the book they come with, whether they bought the background as a microtransaction on D&DBeyond or used some other site like 5etools. Many players are also expecting to be able to use these setting-specific options outside of their intended setting.
The game *is* inherently imbalanced.
@@scottclowe yeah but not because of this 😂
I love feats, they feel downright essential to 5e for me. They can add so much interesting flavor/ability to a character in the options they give you. My only real problem with them in 5e is a lack of more choices/customization, though new books have added a lot more fun options. (I adore eldritch adept to take fun eldritch invocations at level one. Yes I would like to speak with animals at will as a character quirk, that's amazing)
I give feats at level 1, and often play at tables that do. I also like to give them as roleplay rewards! Nothing is banned even the “broken” combos (they’re really not). Lots of people hear this and go “oh a min-maxer group” but actually we’re very roleplay focused! It’s just that we’re a more “mechanics and roleplay go hand in hand” kind of group, with fantasies we wanna play out.
I’ve always found it so frustrating that “having a build” and “having a character” are seen as two separate things! There's a difference between min maxing/”this is the Right/Wrong way to build this” and understanding that if you wanna do x in character, you're gonna need a base level of y. Feats allow a freedom of otherwise hard to come by skills that create more interesting character choices, not less (in my experience).
You can say your character loves studying history till the cows come home but if you don’t take proficiency in it that’s not really gonna play out at the table no matter how many allowances the DM gives you. And the player that does pick profs based on what they wanna be good at isn’t min maxing, actually. That’s just basic character creation. And if you want a character to do fun things your class wouldn't otherwise allow, feats are an awesome option for mechanical backing to that!
Will people pick the big number go brrrr feats? Sure, but why is that a problem? They want to be great at fighting, why not just… let them? I also find when you have this level of freedom in choices they honestly don’t get picked that often. People are more interested in the more flavorful and character accent feats. It's definitely like that for me/my table at the very least, my characters are like 90% feats by volume- almost none the big “bad” ones (though you have no idea how often I’ve seen a friends burn through 3 lucky's and not get the outcome they wanted, its so funny every time).
When I make a character it’s usually ‘cause I have a fantasy in mind, as is the same for most of my friends, and often single class and/or no feats dnd can’t realize those ideas. (Tangential to this but people who are hard asses about the book flavor of a feat/class/subclass/etc are people I can NOT play with. If you can’t play with the flavor of mechanics dnd gets so boring SO fast)
Some prefer to build as they go, some have a plan ahead of time and edit as needed, or work with the DM to realize it.
For example: one of my characters is in a magic cult, and I’ve already discussed and agreed on a re-leveling plan with the DM for them to lose warlock levels and gain more sorcery levels (they’re multiclassed rn) to reflect them pulling away from the cult and re-discovering themself later in the campaign. Cause that's a story I wanna tell and a beat I wanna hit. I’m not planning every little minutiae but it's a general arc I keep in mind when making character choices (Made friends with an npc in a faction who hates evil magic users/cults for later drama :3 ) and my build plays into that roleplay!
To your point on tone we generally enjoy a more heroic fantasy feel, and most of our games are at higher levels. Hell one even has extra “talents” to add on every few levels for a more customized feels! One has character quirks that modify existing abilities every level for the same reason. But we’re still regularly challenged and in treacherous situations, and I’ve never had issue being motivated to go on adventures or seek magic items??? And frankly if you don't want characters to feel likes gods just from leveling up any 5e game, feats or no, is gonna feel that way past a certain level.
But putting that customization in (via feats or other means) is HOW no two paladins feel the same. It's just that power is in the hands of the player and the choices they make, and not the whims of random magic items. Which I greatly prefer.
For me having feats really just comes down to managing table and game expectations, rather than banning them. As you said, if people are using/abusing feats in a way you don’t like or pulling the whole “right and wrong” builds thing, then that's more a fault of mismatch in play styles than it is a fault of feats.
banning feats because there are better and worse options is honestly an awful idea. There are better and worse races, spells and classes that will all inevitably be weighed against each other so all removal does is give players less options
If a feat is too strong are too weak just buff it nerf it and the problem is solved
Alternatively if you don’t like have those options there are great systems like fate core where it isn’t a problem
Plus, some feats are just thematically good for specific characters.
Why ban this random feat for being weaker despite it having different theming that's perfect?
"There are better and worse races" out of context that sounds terrible 😂.
@@turnttaco7661 yes well there is a reason Wotc have been moving away from that terminology
@@Aurora_Lightbringer depends on the group. If you’ve designed an encounter for optimized characters, and there are 3 optimal and 1 suboptimal character, then that encounter is no longer balanced to the group of 4, and 3 characters are needing to carry the burden of the 4th player.
@@turnttaco7661 did not think of that when I was commenting lmao.
Personally, I think that feats are especially important for closing the Martial/Caster divide. I've even considered letting only the martial classes have a feat at level 1 due to this, but decided against it for the sake of fairness. Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master being the most notable feats. Fighters also get the most Ability Score improvements so they can get more feats, since especially at Level 5 Casters get Fireball/Spirit Guardians whilst martials get extra attack. It's the sad reality that an non optimized fighter (I should add that optimizing/meta gaming aka 'picking the right feats' is just one part of being optimal. At the end of the day the best way to be optimal is having fun, and making a fun character to play with, and being highly communicative. At some tables you shouldn't or don't need to optimize) simply can't keep up with Fireball or any of the other really powerful 3rd level spells in the game, except by using feats. This isn't to say that casters don't get really good feats, Resilient: Constitution and War Caster for Concentration protection are fantastic for casters. I think that as a martial you need to let your DM know that magic items and feats are important to keep up with your caster friends, and as a DM be more charitable to your martial because they need it.
Thanks for making this video Mike :3 it was very good :D
Ah yes, removing feats. The one thing that gives you *any* options in building a character. Nothanks, 5e's static enough as it is.
I give out flavoured feats for story progression, and let them choose what they take at the normal levels. They also start with one. The more skills and resources they have, the harder and cooler stuff I can throw at them. It also leaves room for players to pick things like chef and dungeon delver for flavour without feeling completely shot in the foot
I’ve never in my life heard a player disparage another player’s feat choices
Me either! It totally doesn't happen like, all the time, and isn't indicative of a problem person in general and not just that one specific thing.
I have a DM that creates custom feats for everyone at lvl 5,10,15, and 20. They ask a bunch of questions during character creation for the lvl 5 and then as the game progresses the next milestone feat will represent the characters growth.
I like how you’re theming several videos in a row off of each other, it really helps with making cohesive conversations across multiple videos!
As a player it felt less like feats gave "right" choices and more like the feats were the only way to have *any* choice in character advancement/creation. This is subjective, but a lot of the streamlining in 5e felt like it homogenized characters playing the same class. Two characters playing the same subclass ended up being essentially the same character mechanically. Feats allowed for you to nudge your character slightly off the course set by those subclasses and build a play pattern that felt more unique.
That said, some feats (Such as Lucky) are ludicrously powerful to an degree that is impossible to reign in. Some feats just need to be banned when playing with feats, because they fundamentally unravel the underlying mechanics of the game. Lucky was always game-warping, even before the "Super-Advantage" combo got discovered.
I feel like a lot of people seem to forget that not ALL players optimize their characters. Hell, I always tell my players to do what feels right, my job is to adjust the difficulty accordingly... Like, I'm not running an adventurers league game, y'know? I just want to have fun let stupid shit happen.
The Bugbear Barbarian is a Gourmand who uses their kills to feed the party and turns everything they kill into a fancy meal, despite the fact that we don't use the upkeep rules? Great! I'll be sure to add in a situation where cooking IS the answer!
Outside of a few optimization channels, who ever "forget(s) that not ALL players optimize their characters"? Most of what I hear is what bad gamers "optimizers" are.
Kudos to you for recognizing the basic truth that we as GMs can tune the difficulty to whatever. It's downright weird to suggest you need to ban feats to challenge PCs.
Banning feats is a surefire way to make sure no one ever play a martial character ever again as feats are sadly required for martials to even pretend to keep up with casters. :/
Casters without War Caster are a lot less frightening tbh. Just hit them.
@@CJWproductions Yes, but I wouldn't say they lose nearly as much power as martials do by removing feats like Great Weapon Mastery, Sharpshooter, Pole Arm Mastery, or Sentinel.
I have players take a feat at level 1, as well as giving them a free feat & ASI at level 4 & every 4 levels after.
Of course, I also ban/rework various feats (such as GWM & SS) as well as incorporate a hell of a lot of extra changes (such as letting backgrounds give special non-feat abilities, like extra dice on certain skill or tool checks).
I love DMing high power games, the kind where any given adventuring day has 3 or 4 deadly encounters, and boss fights go thrice over a deadly budget. In order to do that, ample supplies of magic items and as many feats as possible are a must. But I do agree with the idea that each bit of power the player characters get has to be earned, not auto-generated at first level. Usually the first mission I give my level 1 characters to start a game is precisely to have each of them seek out a magic item, an expert trainer, a new font of power to aid them become the heroes they are meant to be. The only complaint I've ever gotten from my players is that at higher levels (around the 12th to 15th level mark) it gets a bit hard to keep track of all the treasures and powers they've amassed, which I find isn't really a problem at all!
An important thing to remember if you ban feats is that it disproportionately nerfs martial classes, who were already the weakest in the game to begin with. Without GWM/SS and CBE/PAM, martial classes deal pitiful amounts of damage, which is supposed to be their claim to fame. Literally the only mechanical reason to play a martial is to deal big single target damage (ignoring the fact that spellcasters can also do that, even better in some cases). You strip that away from them, and you’ve got an incredibly boring and weak character. Wizards do just fine without feats. Fighters without feats aren’t even playing the same game as fighters who do have feats
Yeah, this is the big thing, my very first session, back in 3.5th edition, just having cleave made me feel like such a badass, my fighter and the cleric running headlong into a mass group of enemies and fighting back to back while the ranger and the sorceror hung back and blasted anything not in range of our greatsword and mace, cutting down two enemies in a turn just felt great.
100% agree. Just finished a campaign where I was a Bladesinger with a Barbarian.
If he didn't take GWM, we'd have basically been equal on the damage front, but then I'd also have all the spellcasting of a Wizard.
I don't ban any content in my games. If it's in a different setting I work out a backstory with the player for them to be the special one with it and trying to get home/escape/explore as per their goals.
More importantly once people pick feats I try to lean into them as much as possible. Great Weapon Master? I'll throw low AC, high HP monsters at that character so they can have some fun cutting things down! Random magic feats? I'll give them opportunities to use those too but their might be consequences as well.
In the end it's all about having fun and exploring a story to my way of thinking :)
5e gets boring and repetitive real quick without feats. If you’re at a point of banning all feats from being used I’d suggest reading some other systems to run that fit your idea best.
Some feats do unbalance the game like sentinel. Considering most of official enemies are melee based, its gets too difficult as a DM to balance encounters. That said, I still allow it. Martials get shafted without feats.
i do not ban feats, heck i do asi and feat at the same time BUT i have limits on the feats, like i play them as extensions of how they have played their character, so a character who has never shown any interest in cooking cant get the chef feat, oh you have never been to the feywilds or even met a fey well no fey touched for you.
then i talk with the players what feats we both agree would make sense for them, where they can say i feel i should be able to get this feat that you didnt mention on the list, and then if we both agree on a list then the player picks what they want from the list
The DMs in our group (myself and a few others) all agree that when you get an ASI you get a feat as well. It helps makes everyone powerful. I also tend to homebrew custom feats for each PC that I hand out at narratively appropriate times.
I give a bonus feat at 1st level, but not from a Restricted List of the most common and powerful feats. Forces more diverse, character-defining choices and is really fun.
This is a very interesting video because it adds a perspective that I need for my upcoming campaign. For stats I had the party roll to make a party array, which was fun and neat, then I gave everyone a free feat at level 1 because everyone in the party has a habit of playing variant human.
I didn’t ban any feats but I did jokingly threaten my players that if I saw anyone take the lucky feat, their first boss is going to be a Halfling Divination Wizard with the lucky feat. The silence in the discord call was hilarious.
The bit about Spelljammer is odd to me. I haven't played it yet, but I was a player in the Dragonlance campaign, and that gave out a free Feat to everyone. The PCs who chose one of the Drag backgrounds each got the Feat associated with that background, and PCs who chose a different background could choose from a limited list of more general bonus feats. It worked pretty well for what that campaign was doing (ie wanting PCs to be more powerful from the get-go). Odd that a contemporary campaign wouldn't do something similar.
Not odd. Depends on the viewpoint. Dragonlance was supposed to be a more powerful campaign compared to earlier out the box campaigns. But this shows straight power creep. Feats optional but podcasts and vocal gamers use and promote them. So new campaigns start with them. Which leaves some pc builds behind who don't use the new books. So every now gets a free feats. Too many pcs have feats at first level, so redesign or level lock the feats.
Spelljammer did do this as well. It says in the spelljammer book if the player takes a background without a feat they get a choice between tough magic initiate or skilled
I adore feats when building characters specifically because they allow me to put stank on a character that would otherwise be very generic. They also allow me to properly lean into a specific play style. E.g. I'm a notetaker so I adore giving my characters keen mind and observant because that way I can narratively justify why everyone in the party turns to me to refresh lore dumps (including the DM but thats because they barely plan before running a session). Like that narrative justification doesn't matter to anyone else but me but i love it so much. (I'm also very partial to half feats because cool thing and number go up)
"I'm banning feats this game to make balancing the game easier and to focus more on--"
"Why is my party 4 spellcasters with warlock dips?"
The games I play in all have feats, most with feats at level 1 and a fair few that have it that you take both feat and ASI at the relevant points during level up. The DMs in these games go in for high high fantasy with really challenging combat... It can be crazy
I've been starting games with the entire party getting a feat at level 1, and I'm not generally playing around their power level (though I've definitely been feeling the strength of Lucky and Sentinel in the past year). It's not a question of dealing with them, per se, but it does lower the tension of several encounters when a specific monster gets destroyed. I've worked around it by altering my encounter building philosophy, more groups, and better action economy so that the encounter isn't trivialized while still offering players chances to feel cool and shut a monster or dangerous enemy down. Flee, Mortals! Has been great for this.
I remember back in 3rd Edition there were plenty of restrictions around feats which could help balance "powerful" feats away from low level play or having to really pigeonhole your character to use them. Must have 13 Int, 5 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), and be 3rd level for example, or something that required Base Attack Bonus +7 or greater, kept some feats out of the hands of low level adventurers. But it also meant in some cases specifically designing a character towards certain feats rather than growing organically with a campaign because you might encounter a chain of feats. Take this to take that so you can eventually get the last one.
Looking forward to the Monday vid.
It's one of the processes I use to start in building a character.
That's what I did for my sorcerer, catapult was the spell I wanted to be his thing.
So spell sniper, and spell driver are the 2 main ones I want to use for feats. And ofcourse there's where he will end up with all the things he will probably get, but he's focused on targeted burst spells.
Sharpshooter is the most disruptive. Great Weapon Master is similar, but at least the character using it is in melee. A Sharpshooter with access to flight is a pain to deal with; you can include more ranged and flying opponents, but then those who aren't flying sharpshooters rarely get to do their thing.
Hi there from New Zealand. Love your channel man. They really help me understand the mechanics of the game, I've only run a few one shots at this stage... planning a Theros campaign so my Forever GM gets a break hahaha I haven't allowed 1st level feats for everyone but they get 2 uncommon magic items or 1 rare magic item, I am considering allowing 1st level feats for everyone campaign wise because its Theros and so heroic is the theme. I'm willing to see what my players do before I freak out lol Enjoy the content :) Congrats on becoming parents
Level 1 feats will be part of character backgrounds and higher level feats will come with a +1 ASI. It appears they have been writing the newer books with this in mind by giving setting backgrounds a feat.
For me, it should be just when such a way as that usually See, you drop a plan for a race in the way that it's not a major payment test, but allows for a different fantasy
I recently saw this in campaign 3 for critical role where a comment was about the battle encounter and how they all should have optimally chosen feats, abilities, races and strategies like combo spells etc to make the fight easier
The internet contains not just any comment, but every comment. It doesn't mean anything.
My hot take is: if I wrote the rules, feats would be epic boons or other rewards given out or earned during game. I explained that if you’re character wants the “mobile” feat they have to beat a certain number of monsters in initiative or surprise them. Treating feats like awards for video game achievements seems like a better way to incorporate them. Allowing feats to be chosen for encourages the “build” mentality which for DnD I personally despise
So what I like to do. I tell all my players to author their backstories and once those and their other character details become clear I will approach them with often customized feats to match for that specific character.
This is then also a tool for me at that stage already to reel in some balance concerns I have based on what the players have opted to pick in combination with the stats that they have rolled.
So, I am working on prep for a new campaign, and I'm going to try something a little different based on something Matt Colville mentioned in one of his Running the Game videos. My plan at the moment is to not allow feats, but to work with the characters and get an idea of what feats they would like to have and work those into the story as magic items found or as blessing at climatic moments. We will see how it goes but I think it could be fun.
I think feats are a core part of some classes...
But... some of them are incredibly good, much better than others.
The neatest solution I found was to split them up like they used to be in previous editions, such as:
Great Weapon Master becomes: Cleave and Power Attack.
Sharpshooter becomes: Power Shot, Sharpshooter (Ignore Cover), and Sniper (No Long Range Penalty).
Usually tacking on a half stat boost on most. It tends to keep them in line with the racial feats and more "fun" options... but I also allow a free feat at level 1 in most games.
Adding to that, I changed Power Attack to:
- Remove your Proficiency Bonus to Hit, and Add 2x Proficienty Bonus to Damage. Instead of -5/+10.
Same with Sharpshooter.
Makes them more bearable at early levels. And at higher levels... technically better with -6/+12.
And, not to mention... I added Stat Requirements to some. Like they used to be.
I haven't had any problems with it by being up front with the changes at session 0 / character creation.
Great video, Mike.
I stopped running D&D before Feats were a thing (or, more accurately, when 3rd ed came out so Feats *became* a thing, but they had nothing to do with why I didn't want to run D&D any more) But I have run other games that have feat-like abilities, since I primarily run point buy systems so in a way each "class" is custom built as the player develops their character. And yes, these tend to be High Fantasy, High Heroics sort of games (Or Urban Fantasy high heroic, at leas the way I run them) One thing that many of these systems do fairly well is power-trees, where you start from one ability, and then having that ability is required (usually along with sufficient power level, however that's measured in the game) to buy certain other abilities, which are required before you can buy others, and so on.
the add on effects can get pretty scary in some games (Exalted comes to mind) but that, unfortunately, doesn't stop some people from working out the "best" or "right" builds... there's just a few more definitions of "best" or "right" depending on what your goal is for the character.
I’ve been considering lately just altering how leveling works; making it a “Progression via Practice” so you only can learn something that a Mentor teaches you (Feat or Spell) or you Successfully Practice said Feat/Spell over 3 Sessions ; and maybe adding a “Chaos” Table that lists general bad results if you rolled below DC
And the Class Level Goes up say every 3 Successfully Learned a Spells/Feats. Max 1 Class levels up at a time.
And Mulitclassing would start you at Level 0 in the other class until you had learned 3 Feats/Spells in that class.
All of this I feel would:
1. Allow me to control what a player has access to as they progress without having to outright ban anything
2. It makes dungeon delving for gold important again
3. Helps allow those more creative choices from players
And maybe restrict some feats/spells to magic items only, so they can loose them.
The only time I ban something in my game is if it makes the game less fun. I don't care if it "ruins the balance" if that's what my players want to do. Feats are fun and most players enjoy them. And if the player doesn't then they can take the ASI. But I would never ban something my players saw as fun because the point of the game is to be fun.
Every level-up change (feats, multiclassing, etc - anything that's substantially different) - has to be justified within the roleplaying. But I DM for kids, so they also do things like establish a character at level 1 who's designed for ranged attacks...and then always run into melee. So I really don't have to worry too much about them min-maxing.
Me personally, I allow feats because the very first character I made had a concept I really wanted to make work that just didn’t with his base class stuff and with how the rules were. It was only through feats that I was able to actually make my character the way I wanted him to be. I’d never want a player to make their character with a certain idea in mind only for a feat that would make that possibility a reality to be locked off. Of course, that’s not to say that there is no issues with feats whatsoever. I honestly think structuring feats in a similar fashion to Eldritch Invocations is absolutely the way to go here in order to help better balance them throughout character levels.
I've never had much of an issue with feats, but then, my D&D games have rarely gone long enough that they become an issue. And I'm currently running a completely different system for my group, so it's not even an issue.
That being said, I recently looked through Kobold Press's Tales of the Valiant / Black Flag rules again, and saw that, while all the backgrounds do come with a trait (their version of a feat), they only offer three options, so it's somewhere between late-5e's "you start with this feat" and house-ruling "you get a free feat," which I think is good.
Also, I can't help but think of how 13th Age handled feats - they were basically buffs to a character's abilities or powers, and most of them came with tiers, so there was some amount of level locking.
For my current game I doubled down and let players take both a feat and an ASI or two feats. The only restriction was the Lucky feat which wasnt outright banned but couldn't be combined with an ASI. It's been a fun experiment and I have good players, but definitely not recommended for every game. Our next campaign will be more traditional, possibly even feat-free.
I like feats. I think they add flavor and depth to characters. I tend to give everyone a free feat at char-gen but they have to justify it. Having to understand why the character would have such abilities makes them think about something other than the pure mechanics of it and can help define the character a bit more.
For example, a paranoid, self taught, abjuration wizard with the Metamagic Adept feat because they've spent so much time and effort learning how to hide or disguise their magic that it justifies having limited access to the subtle spell metamagic.
I'm running a campaign right now where I gave all my players the option to take a feat at first level. I did this at a player's suggestion, and we're all really enjoying it. Ultimately I decided to do this because the campaign (Waterdeep Dragonheist) is written to be a low level campaign, capping off at level 5. The entire first chapter as written is for the players to be at level 1, leveling up to 2 at the end of the first big dungeon. I took some online advice and leveled them up earlier, for the same reason I decided to let them take a feat to start. It can be tough to feel like a badass adventurer at low levels, and since this campaign is capped at level 5, they wouldn't really have much time to enjoy the feats (if they took them) at level 4, and I wanted them to feel capable and have fun with their characters from the jump. And they love acting out their powers and taking turns surprising each other with what each of their low level characters can do in combat. Now, I'm lucky because all my players are people I know well and enjoy playing with, and I specifically picked them to join this game because we all enjoy roleplay and playing our characters more than any other aspect of the game. So the feats they chose are ones that fit their characters as they see them, not necessarily the ones pro-gamers would call optimal. Example: my Asimar Rogue chose the actor feat, because they grew up on the streets of Waterdeep as an orphan who broke out and made their way thieving and conning people. So they figured the ability to disguise themselves and fit into a more face of the party deceptive role fit the way they wanted to play their character. It's been fun. I doubt I'd make the same choice for games that I expect to go to higher levels, and would just let players take feats (should they choose) at the normal level up times. But for this campaign, letting them take feats early has given them the power to flavor their characters' specialties a bit more, adding to a lot of early game fun.
In one of the campaigns i play in the DM homebrewed that a feet could only be taken once. Not once from one player, once in the whole world, so that they really feel uniquely powerful in their own way. I hab a lot of fun discussing with the other players who wants to take what feat next and theorizing about the few feats our GM revealed to be taken from NPCs. I don't think it would work for every group (especailly if they tend to be compettitive with each other and try to optimize their buids at all costs) but it works for this group. And it helps some underused feats to shine (imo). My little roughe has the dungeon delver and slasher feat (not the tipical first decisions i would guess). With her whip she is a pretty nice Indiana Jones Inspired character.
I just have my players take ASI and give out feats to celebrate an event happening so that it feels like they earned that feat, and that feat plays into the story of their character. I however don't give out many magic items.
3.5e has prerequisites for most feats. When it says BAB+8, you would need to be a fighting class (fighter/barbarian/ranger/etc) with max BAB progression to get it at the earliest level 8.
Straight up I don’t think I could stand 5e’s extremely limited character customization if you ALSO removed feats from the equation.
Agree that character creation is actually very limited (basically 3 choices, unless you're spellcaster). But so many people claim it's too complicated!
It really depends. If my DM was Matthew Coville, I wouldn’t mind, seeing as he homebrews character customization options that fill in the gap left by not allowing feats.
I never really thought about how different my view on magic items and adventurers are from Matt's.
I don't particularly like giving my players magic items as loot, but rather upgrading their current gear to magical status.
As if their heroism and renown is warping reality, their feats and legends being imbued into what they held.
So that by the end of a very long adventure, the hero's weapons and armaments are the powerful relics the next generation of adventurers seek out.
I do a couple different things.
First, I always ban the heritage options that give feats. The backgrounds that give feats only give minor ones that don't really break the game.
In certain campaigns where I have the party get most of their quests from a mercenary academy, I have the players make a choice at character creation.
They can start as students of the academy or freelancers the students meet in their graduation dungeon crawl and bring back to the academy to audit classes.
Students get all the benefits of variant human on top of their actual heritage choice.
Freelancers start with a +1 weapon or equivalent magic item.
After 4 levels of adventuring and auditing classes, both groups get the benefit of the other.
The other thing I do when not using the Academy setup relies on piety and renown. Everyone gets one feat of their choice at level 1. If players want more feats they have to earn renown with a faction or god. Once they earn 10 points the faction or church sends them to a trainer or smith who sends them on a quest to learn a feat of their choice or gather the materials needed to craft a specific magic item.
The boons and blessings in the DMG might also be options to gain through piety or renown.
The main benefit of this is that it replaces ASI vs Feat debates and magic item grocery lists with actual progress systems that encourage players to engage with the setting and the npcs.
Feats are fun! And at my table the right choice is the feat that's the most fun to use. If someone takes Great Weapon Master and now deals way more damage than anyone else, I will help the other players catch up with cool loot tailored towards their chars to balance the game. And I let my players know this, as it takes away the pressure to optimise, but still keeps the door open to pick strong feats if they also happen to be fun feats.
I feel like the insistence on praising not bulding PCs considering their effectiveness is having an opposote effect.
I have both kind pf players and i love both styles but nowadays buildimg a pc to be sffective is considered... Rude?
Wizards of the Coast have FIXED D&D with this ONE TRICK! (give everyone Eldritch Invocations)
I don't have many feat opinions but giving them a power curve by implementing level restrictions could be great, especially as a pool of things to use that are class-agnostic
I ban feats, but plunder them heavily for inspiration for quest rewards and magic items.
Gaining a sharpshooter bow from a quest, or your connection to the rangers guild allows you to learn sharpshooter is 1000x more satisfying than “I hit the next level and chose this feat”.
5e magic weapons needs some help anyway.
Banning feats because they are imbalanced would, ironically, make the game as a whole more imbalanced since the best feats benefit martials more than casters, and casters are better than martials overall.
Wasn't expect the Tulok mention! I'm also enjoying those Elden Ring videos :D
also the UA for Onednd have been operating with both level and other requirements, to avoid the human fighter xbow master lvl 1 shenanigans
When I converted my two long time PC's from 3.5 to 5e (both being human), their 1st level feats were Prodigy and Mobile. Which I would hope set a good example of taking feats that build character/allows a character to lean into their concept rather than grabbing shiney powerups. (I am slightly surprised Mike lists Warcaster as being a particularly powerful one, then again I simply choose to have most casters have a free hand and forgo a shield or second weapon for asthetic reasons/head canon logical ones, so heh)
I actively encourage feats and stuff to make characters both personalized and heroic and I especially didn't want to make new players at low level d!e at random to something that shouldn't be much of a problem (now they're Level 3, I actually started to have them deal with and fight even more dangerous stuff where PC death is a real possibility).
So, of course I let my PCs have an extra feat (and +2 HP as a bit of padding to smoothen the curve of HP growth at level ups).
The Paladin picked War Caster, even though he probably shouldn't even be able to - and I agree with it, because it makes spell/weapon juggling a non-issue, reducing the bookkeeping needed.
The rest of the group picked spell-adding feats, making the low levels be already quite strong in the options, but not that much in the resources to use them.
I've only just started a campaign, so I'm still waiting for results on if this was the best decision, but although i let my player pick a feat at level 1, they could only chose from a selection i had made myself. I've eliminated every feat that was directly related to combat mechanics, and any feat named "master of" or "expert" or anything of the sort, and selected mostly feats that fit nicely with their background. This seemed like a happy middle, but we'll see !
In my games I've allowed all characters to get a feat at level 1, and also have brought in some pathfinder rulings so that players can (in addition to when you would normally gain a feat) spend downtime and gold to train new feats (provided there is someone who would reasonably be able to train that feat. e.g you can't train feats like lucky, but you can train feats like great weapon master). some of my players have like 5 feats at level 7, because they took the time and the gold to do it. I don't find that this sways the power level of characters too far in one direction or the other, because the games I run tend to be on the deadlier side anyway, and my players know this. so far, I haven't had any struggles in challenging them.
I think I lean more towards the Matt Colville perspective. Feats are very fun, I would just prefer them to be obtained diegetically. I'm thinking about trying out feats as treasure, instead of level up options, in my next campaign.
"Or board games"
If someone's backseating in a TTRPG I do not want to play a co-op board game with them. I mean, hell, the worst backseaters will backseat _competitive_ board games.
I like feats... In games that are balanced with the assumption they exist. They're a neat way of offering character customization in a class based system, particularly if you restrict them by level, by class, or bake feat trees into the feat design. Some help your character go brrr and play out how you want them to at the table, others are just fun little options that make me smile. My issue with them being optional in 5e is that I don't really trust the game is properly balanced assuming players have access to them or not. No feats? Cool. I can happily play a mouse or whatever the game is about with only my items and my wits to rely on (...I'm in a Mausritter game atm, that example isn't hypothetical), Feats? Awesome. I'll happily add this feat that helps my character do what I want them to at this level from the class feat option and this one that's just a fun little thing that I hope comes up but if it never does, that's fine, I just don't get to roll down a hill at 4x my speed (My current PF2e character is a Ratfolk. That's literally one of my ancestry feats). 5e's optional feat thing is... Not a decision I really trust... Particularly in a system with a CR system - is that designed assuming we're using feats or assuming we're not? I'm distrustful of CR systems even at the best of times, with 5e's approach to magic items and feats... It feels like it's even more making things up than CR systems often feel like.
I enjoy feats because it is a tertiary line of customization. but we also play with a good "stable" group who all almost have to min-max due to the nature of the campaign (gestalt demigods, with minimum lethal encounters).
but I also feel like OneDND is alleviating some of the "best" nature of certain feats (removing the damage bonus from sharpshooter, nerfing the damage bonus from GWM)
I've tried several methods and I've found the most fun thus far is making "free feats" be from a limited list. In my Avernus game I've so far given the players such feats twice: once at character creation from a very small list, and another at around level 7 with more options to choose from - some piggybacking from the starting feat. They represented their origins and eventually their progression/breakthrough with teachers or through training. It does make them feel more heroic but not unbearably so.
I more or less copied this list from an existing 5e D&D module which I'll refer to a few lines further below to prevent...
SPOILERS
Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen.
I pitched a highly tactical combat heavy game to my players and one rocked up with a polearm master + sentinel build. It fits what I advertised! I can't complain, due to that. But those two feats totally change how I see the battlefield. Player's having a blast! In a game less focused on battle mechanics, I think I'd get annoyed of these feats and suggest taking something else. But I doubt I'd ban them. I just gotta think creatively to make engaging combat!
Very used to free feats at lvl 1. Love the buff and I haven’t noticed anyone abusing it or huge noticeable imbalance between party members. I do like the suggestion of rewarding feats for in game actions, though. Although my concern with that is that is COULD get unbalanced if only certain players earn feats while others don’t.
I think giving feats out as a roleplaying reward that fits the scene and some event works nicely - not a fan of just randomly selecting them on level up though. Should be a reward for doing certain things. Or for getting into an absurd situation and getting out of it even more absurdly.
Many monsters, especially at higher levels, have abilities that are quite similar to feats, so it's good to give PCs a chance to get some cool abilities too. I do wish there were no "must have" options, and the 2024 PHB playtests have mitigated this to some degree (just how much we'll see later this year).
As far as I remember the feat level distinction stayed in all the 5.5e playtests, although the only delineation was that some feats were level 1+ and others were level 4+, it could be neat to have more split points but that could lead to awkward balancing "tiers" of feats so players feel like they can only take so many feats of a given tier because they're passing up on the high level exclusive feats.
I really like feats because they add a form of control for the player on how their character's gameplay abilities develop over time, especially for martials who dont get a big list of spells to choose from, without feats the onyl real character building choice you make is subclass then for the next 17+ levels its just reading out from the book what you can do, spreading mroe choices across the levelling process makes things feel much better imo.
They also did some stackable feats. Like in Dragonlance where your had to take Squire of solamnia before knight.
I am generally okay with feats. I also let the players know during Session Zero that I reserve the right to tweak (or remove/replace) character features if they prove problematic. A discussion would be held prior to any changes potentially being made, and attempt to reach an acceptable compromise.
I am more inclined to allow a free feat at first level if point buy is used; if attributes are rolled up, then I won't.
It also boils down to how well you know and trust your table to respect the vibe you have all agreed upon in Session Zero.
If I were to ban feats, I would take those feats and make them magic items. You get the benefit of the feat while attuned to the item.
This does a couple of things. It allows the DM to have full control over what feats the players get -- and if they're a good DM they'll take their players wants into account, their plans for their characters. It also takes the sterile process of selecting feats from a list on level-up and turns it into story. I'm not a Warcaster now because lah-dee-dah, I'm a Warcaster because I defeated the Supreme Duelist in combat in the Manticore's Lair and coveted her arcane gauntlets of magical dueling. As they say, give them what they want in a way they don't expect.
Now, I do not ban feats. And I still sometimes craft magic items that are just feats -- usually ones that are possessed by the spirit of a dead adventurer, in-universe. But that's how I'd do it if I did ban feats.
Hi Mike, I know this comment isn’t about the video but I want to say thank you for everything you do. I been watching your videos for a long time now. When you did your live streams I would try to catch them because I felt like you treated people with kindness and respect. It was really awesome you taking the time to respond to different peoples table top role playing questions. Yesterday I made a post on Reddit talking about a situation that happened in a game. The amount of mean spirited comments basically calling me the worst type of player I was not prepared for. I can take criticism but I was not expecting that. I can’t imagined how you deal with the negative comments that you receive. With only 20 comments I felt awful I couldn’t imagine what 100 200 or 300 comments would feel like. I have so much respect for what you do and thank you for being you.
Thank you so much, Icon! That is very kind of you ☺️
And I’m sorry to hear about the reaction on Reddit, that is a huge bummer ☹️
@@SupergeekMike It was a bummer. Lucky I have some good friends who I was able to talk too and they had advice that wasn’t “ you are a bad player and not welcome in the hobby “
So for the first campaign I ever ran I told everyone they could pick a feat at first level as long as it wasn't great weapon master, sharpshooter, or lucky. After that first campaign I was going to add another feat to that list: war caster. But then I realized my bigger issue wasn't that PCs took it at first level, but that everyone took it at first level. I had 3 magic users and 2 took war caster and the third was pressured to take it as well. She ultimately took the healer feat, which to encourage her choice I modified it to be a bit better.
But I didn't really like how two different magic users took war caster, exactly because it was the "best option". It felt like it should've been more special then that. I also kinda felt this way about the uncommon magic item I let people select at 1st level as well, two people took hat of disguise.
My solution for my second campaign was this: if you give me your character's backstory I'll let you pick an uncommon magic item, but no duplicates in the party. First come, first serve. I also told them that *I* would give them a feat at first level based off of their backstory and was very clear that the feat would not be great weapon master, sharpshooter, war caster, or lucky.
One player was a bard who got some inspiration from an archfey while he was studying at college. He made it clear he planned on multi-classing into warlock, which I was very okay with, so I gave him the eldritch adept feat at 1st level. Symbolizing this pre-pact deal he made with an archfey and to make his character feel unique and special. It dovetailed nicely into his multiclass too when he finally did it.
I think this kind of feat allocation is really great because it respects the power fantasy of the player and rewards them for engaging and providing a backstory.
Because I also do milestone leveling up I also like having feats as a reward if I feel like it would be too soon to level up but they accomplished something great or closed a chapter in the story.
I disagree with basically everything here, except that you don’t ban feats… but I appreciate that you have experience and a well thought out opinion. When I play a game, I like to be good at it.
Advice to players: if you’re at the table playing spelljammer and everyone is buying in to the ideas and mechanics of that campaign, it’s absolutely allowed to have a discussion with the guy picking some random ass feat that’s not location specific what they’re after.
I've had the suspicion for a while, and I'm not sure it's true or significant, but I do believe it, that a lot of tables play wtih Feats and Multiclassing and don't even realize they are optional rules. Since they are extremely common place to see in Actual plays (the only notable actual play I can think of that doesn't use them is the Chain of Acheron, which is literally an exception to prove the rule) I think a lot of players assume it's just a normal part of the rules instead of a variant. And with it included in the PHB I imagine it confirms their assumptions, even though it's called a variant rule there.
On the actual topic of this video though, I've used feats for every single campaign I've ever run, and all the major balance issues I've had to deal with have pretty exclusively stemmed from somewhere else. (Usually spells) I do agree there are some outlier feats I would like to get changed (GWM, SHS, WC, R, etc.) But most feats are pretty minor buffs all things considered. Like some will define the character, but a lot of then generally won't.
Nothing against Mike personally, just my perspective, but I watch/listen to a fair share of TH-cam while I work for background noise and I honestly feel like most “issues” with DnD are truly non-issues… it’s just that everybody needs content to put out a couple times a week so content creators are nitpicking 5E for content and clicks.
*side note: I’ve also seen A TON of “5e is broken, and THATS why you should try the NEW system by created so and so
NOW so jump on kickstarter…” videos.
Look, new stuff can be created without claiming other things are broken, it’s OK! Great Grandpa DnD has a lot of life left in him 😂
I allow feats because I played third edition. Some of the feats in 3.5 make even Great Wespon Master look like Dungeon Delver in comparison.
I ban players from taking feats but I retain the option of giving them as rewards selectively as not to unbalance the game.
But i also ban players multiclassing because 1-2 class dips can be just as if not more broken
I think one of 5e's most friction filled areas is actually in the space of Feats and Multiclassing. Both are seen as integral to character builds in any discussion (as beyond that, 5e character don't really make progression choices aside from subclass, and spells for casters) yet they are an optional rule and not always guaranteed to be available at the table you're playing it. Them being both optional and not full baked result in a lot of friction when they would have been much better served working these features into the core game as standard things (and expanding them) or forgoing them entirely. Magic Items are in a similar boat, but they are so nebulous and lack ANY kind of good structure in 5e, which I think in that regard they can take a page from PF2e with its expected magic weapon/armor at each level range.
as a player, i never take ss/gwm.
oh
wait
this is about feats in general
uh
dang
Hope you, your baby, and SuperGeekWife are happy and healthy even as you adjust to your new, bigger family! Gonna try to be more consistent in commenting to appease the almighty algorithm in your favor! Keep up the fantastic work but also don't work yourself to the bone! I'm always excited when I see a new SuperGeekMike video!
Thank you!
My feat policy consists of a few little tweaks. 1) PHB backgrounds all have a PHB feat, but the mostly underutilized feats such as Charlatan gets Actor, Criminal gets Dungeon Delver, Noble gets Linguist, etc. 2) Any feat is available when you have an ASI, except Lucky. Lucky is the only feat that I have banned thus far. It just is kinda lame to let one person reroll and it undercuts other features such as Indomitable, bardic inspiration, etc. 3) Feats (including half feats but sans ASI) are always available as a downtime training benefit. You've got 8 weeks and you're gonna spend it working out? Athlete feat. You spend time carousing, specifically getting into fights; Tavern brawler.
Based on the playtesting for the 2024 rules updates, the general design for feats seems like there will be 1st level first, and feats you need to be at least 4th level to take.
All of the 1st level feats in the play test will not change ability scores, but will likely have something that scales off of your Proficiency Bonus (like adding your Proficiency Bonus to initiative rolls via the Alert feat), or the Artisan which offers a 20% discount when buying non-magical items, which should have some natural scaling as you start getting more money at higher levels.
In contrast, the 4th feats so far all offer to increase at least one ability score by 1 to a maximum of 20, except for the "Ability Score Increase" feat that lets you increase one ability by 2, or increase two abilities by 1 each (and the feat also says if you take it while you are at least 19th level you can increase an ability score to a maximum of 22, instead of the maximum of 20 used everywhere else).
I love feats, but i tend to use them more as flavour. I have a bard who is a Tasha fangirl, so as a variant human i said she developed the fey touched feat during her bard studies. Later the dm allowed us to choose another feat after a big story moment and i did struggle with the whole optimizing thing, i wanted eldritch adept and i knew devils sight was the best choice. Instead, because she's a bit power hungry and wants to gather esoteric power, i gave her eyes of the runekeeper. My favourite feat is skill expert, and i think every character should have have it automatically. It's impact is noticeable without being gamebreaking, and it can really help with characterization and making sure everyone feels unique. Was your character raised by wolves? Survival expert. Did they spend their youth in study dedicated to their god? Religion expert. Have they spent most of their lives on the run from some insidious force, constantly looking over their shoulder? Perception expertise.
The only right feat is the one you and DM agree too. And you both have fun. Did you say banned the player or beat? Rewinds. Banned. Rats I been doing wrong.
Adventure League does allow most feats. Limited by which books are allowed in which campaign you are running in.
Chef is a good roleplaying feat. I have used it twice. But currently AL has 88 feats of the 106. You can take Skilled, Tough, or Magic Initiate for free.
When I was homebrewing, I preferred players who discovered their character powers and abilities during play against people who had a build from 1 to 20 planned out.
What I hated is the reason they gave during one their UA podcasts. Because people were ignoring their backgrounds after they took the skills from them.