My take on all these feats.

[Marcloure]

With the last two Unearthed Arcana released, and that older one about weapon mastery and specializations, the list of feats has significantly increased since the PHB. And that is great, really. Most of the feats seems to be awesome both in mechanical and flavorful ways.
My problem here is: there are so many cool options for so fewer choices. When I was reading the Feats for Races UA, I got so hype by how I could build interesting characters with unique powers and diverse playstyles. "If I choose this feat, with that other one and that one, my character will be so much fun." But then I realised that I also need to spend points into ASI, and even if I did not, it would take like 12 levels to have 3 feats.

"Yeah. Being a master at some thing requires levels." - one could say. But my point is: it would take just a couple of very long steps in that direction for someone be a master-at-someting. I think that Kryx's approach to feats (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/H19CLykV) are to solve this problem, and also are more fun in the end. Basically, he gives one ASI point for each 2 levels, and breaks down the feats into smaller, less abrangent and less power-concentrated unities. I think this makes the climb to mastery smoothier, as a character can have up to 3 smaller feats at level 6, and can build more widely or focus in only one aspect. The players can have a bit of their design right way, not just at later levels. Also, he gives the "trash feats" (Keen Mind, Linguist, some additional proficiencies) a special place called Traits, they do not compete with Feats and ASI.

Even considering the PHB alone, most of the feats are there to be forgotten. Almost every player I see makes his choice between 7 feats (GWM, Sharpshooter, Spellsniper, Warcaster, Resilient, Lucky, Sentinel) and some times comes a Inspiring Leader or Shield Mastery. Most of the games don't go up to level 16, so many player chooses a feat and then starts to maximize his main ability. This is also the cause to the Variant Human to be so much higher than the rest of the races; everyone wants feats, but only they can offer you one right at the start, so you can have 2 feats for a more niche/designed character at level 4, or just start to maximize right away.

I think I'll just start to do as Kryx's Houserules, and split the feats into more numbers. Also give the players more chances for them to gain new feats, so they can have the feeling of getting closer to their final character design.

[DeAnno]

Almost every player I see makes his choice between 7 feats (GWM, Sharpshooter, Spellsniper, Warcaster, Resilient, Lucky, Sentinel)

You forgot Polearm Master, Alert and Crossbow Expert, all top tier! I'd also argue Spell Sniper is a little niche. I'd say feats like Inspiring Leader, Shield Master, Tough, Mobile, Moderately Armored, Mage Slayer, and Healer are all about as used as Spell Sniper and have their places to shine. The problem of not enough feat slots already existed for a lot of characters, this new glut of feats (a lot of the races feats are reasonably good enough to take, and maybe some of the skill feats are) makes it a bit more noticeable I guess.

There are certainly a lot of trash feats, but there's always been a decent amount of variety out there. Even some of the feats neither of us mentioned have niche uses (like Martial Adept can be sort of ok on a UA Scout or Monster Hunter, Elemental Adept probably gets taken at times despite being pretty disappointing, same with Grappler, Ritual Caster, Skulker)

[Marcloure]

You forgot Polearm Master, Alert and Crossbow Expert, all top tier! I'd also argue Spell Sniper is a little niche. I'd say feats like Inspiring Leader, Shield Master, Tough, Mobile, Moderately Armored, Mage Slayer, and Healer are all about as used as Spell Sniper and have their places to shine. The problem of not enough feat slots already existed for a lot of characters, this new glut of feats (a lot of the races feats are reasonably good enough to take, and maybe some of the skill feats are) makes it a bit more noticeable I guess.

There are certainly a lot of trash feats, but there's always been a decent amount of variety out there. Even some of the feats neither of us mentioned have niche uses (like Martial Adept can be sort of ok on a UA Scout or Monster Hunter, Elemental Adept probably gets taken at times despite being pretty disappointing, same with Grappler, Ritual Caster, Skulker)

Yes, indeed. But my point here is not that there are less common or trash feats, but that the players can choose one or two feats during all game. When I look at the Racial Feats, I thought "I want it, it fits so well into my character design. But I also want to have the feeling of being a master with polearms (Polearm Master) that controls the frontline (Sentinel)". What to do then? One of the concepts will need to be abandoned during a larger portion of the game's life. What I think that would be better is if the player could choose, say, a racial feat at level 4, one of the sentinel's features two levels after, and finally the second bonus of Polearm Master at level 6. At the same time, without a loss, he could be improving his STR by 1 point. This reduces the awful competition between ASI and feats, and gives the player the possibility of covering all of his character aspects at smaller steps (even though weaker in each of them).

Obs.: It's important to note that none of the feats in Kryx's houserules gives bonus to abilities.

[Mhl7]

"I want it, it fits so well into my character design. But I also want to have the feeling of being a master with polearms (Polearm Master) that controls the frontline (Sentinel)".

I like it the way it is. It encourages players to play different types of characters. For me the sentence above reads like this: "I want an optimize broken character, hence I cannot squeeze in some more flavorful feat."

Well, get over it. Make your choice. You can have a perfectly viable character without taking Poleamr Master, you know?

If I gave you 4 feats by level 8 instead of 2 you would simply take Polearm Master, Sentinel, GWM and (add here an OP Feat from UA). Only to start again complaining that there are not enough feat slots to fit your character concept with flavorful choices.

Rinse and repeat.

[spartan_ah]

I like it the way it is. It encourages players to play different types of characters. For me the sentence above reads like this: "I want an optimize broken character, hence I cannot squeeze in some more flavorful feat."

Well, get over it. Make your choice. You can have a perfectly viable character without taking Poleamr Master, you know?

If I gave you 4 feats by level 8 instead of 2 you would simply take Polearm Master, Sentinel, GWM and (add here an OP Feat from UA). Only to start again complaining that there are not enough feat slots to fit your character concept with flavorful choices.

Rinse and repeat.
+1

besides, you can completely spend your ASI on feats. bounded accuracy keeps you not far behind.
I've played 12 level characters with 18 on primary while the rest is on feats

[Saiga]

I think it's more of an issue that some feats are just so much better that it encourages picking from the same (smaller) list of feats every time. It bothers me how good things like GWM, PAM, SS etc are.

[DanyBallon]

I think it's more of an issue that some feats are just so much better that it encourages picking from the same (smaller) list of feats every time. It bothers me how good things like GWM, PAM, SS etc are.

The issue is not that some feats are so much than other, but that some players only see feats in a optimizer point of view. They believe that if they don't take the feat they won't be effective enough and that they won't be able to make their character concept work. Usually the same players feels that if they don't max out their main ability score in addition to Con, they won't be effective either, hence why they say that having to choose between ASI and feat is problematic for them.

5e while supporting an optimizer style of play, is less geared toward it, and offer much more versatility for casual players that don't try to be the most effective.

I'm currently playing in a game where many of us played D&D from a long time (most of the players started during 3e era, while I started way before that) and our gaming style is much more oriented toward being as effective as we can get. And in another game I'm the dungeon master, the players are for the bigger part new to D&D and RPG in general, and I see much more odd choice as feat selection (Dungeon Delver, Linguist, Weapon Master and the like) yet the group still manage to overcome the challenge from SKT without me having to fudge dice.

Looking back, I think that the DM in the game I play in, must up the encounters to keep it challengeful to our optimized party.

[Saiga]

No I definitely think it's an issue of a few feats being clearly better (and it being the same ones repeatedly). It's all well and good to say 'don't optimise' but I don't think it's right to have the optimal choices be clearly separate from the varied/flavorful ones.

[DanyBallon]

No I definitely think it's an issue of a few feats being clearly better (and it being the same ones repeatedly). It's all well and good to say 'don't optimise' but I don't think it's right to have the optimal choices be clearly separate from the varied/flavorful ones.

Again, it all depends on the game style. In a more casual style, you may have both a player that took Athlete and an other taking GWM having a blast as it help define their character. While in a game where most player are optimizing their character, the same player who took Athlete instead of one of the top pick feat will fee less effective. It's not the feat selection that is to blame, but the play style. And like I said, the feats in the PHB supports a more casual style of play. Optimizer have less options and I see this as a feature in order to depart from the 3.X arm race mentality. But even there was a lot more good feats, they will always end up picking the same ones anyway :smalltongue:

Disclaimer: I quit playing the game during the 3.P ere because I was sick and tire of needing to be fully optimized in order to survive on an adventure. I felt it was limiting me from playing odd character concepts. 5e was what brought me back to the game and I'm more than happy the way it distant from an optimized style of play. This can explain my bias toward favoring a more casual style of game and blaming optimizers. :smallbiggrin:

[mephnick]

Looking back, I think that the DM in the game I play in, must up the encounters to keep it challengeful to our optimized party.

He does. Trust me. You could take literally no stat boosts outside of racials and be fine if the game is run close to RAW. A 16 in your main stat is totally fine for the whole game. But that's akin to blasphemy here.

[Corran]

With the last two Unearthed Arcana released, and that older one about weapon mastery and specializations, the list of feats has significantly increased since the PHB. And that is great, really. Most of the feats seems to be awesome both in mechanical and flavorful ways.
My problem here is: there are so many cool options for so fewer choices. When I was reading the Feats for Races UA, I got so hype by how I could build interesting characters with unique powers and diverse playstyles. "If I choose this feat, with that other one and that one, my character will be so much fun." But then I realised that I also need to spend points into ASI, and even if I did not, it would take like 12 levels to have 3 feats.
Exactly my thoughts! Exactly! One of the things that really bugged me with 5e when it first came out, was how it handled feats. I told myself that I was annoyed by the change itself, and rolled with it and kind of got used to it. But every time I see more feats (and feats is a part of the mechanics I always enjoyed through the editions, as it allows a good level of customization), I always remember how I will have such a hard time incorporating them into characters. I like the idea of smaller feats that you get at a faster rate. For example, read lips from the observat feat is one ittle bit I really like for some of my characters, but never seem to get it. I'll have a good look at Kryx's houserules, thanks for pointing them out to me.

ps: Of topic, but I really want to ask. Has someone dared to mesh with the skill system, or is it too much of a sacred cow?

[dejarnjc]

I like Kryx's homebrew on feats a lot and am probably going to incorporate these into one of my games once my players feel a little more comfortable with the basic rules.

I've always been a big advocate of getting a free feat at first level from a limited list (basically none of the strong ones) but this is a much more elegant way of expanding options.

[DizzyWood]

I think for our next campaign we are going to allow everyone to take a racial feat at 1st. V human gets to pick from (maybe) any feat I guess. Then allow feats/ASIs as normal just to see how that goes before trying anything more complicated/crazy.

Frankly if there are racial feats I think the should be limited to character creation any way. But thats is my feeling on it I can't really give a reason why.

[Snails]

+1

besides, you can completely spend your ASI on feats. bounded accuracy keeps you not far behind.
I've played 12 level characters with 18 on primary while the rest is on feats

Exactly.

The game is intended to be friendly to the casual player, who will feel comfortable pushing his primary stat to 18 at level 4, 20 at level 8, and might feel confident enough to fish around for other ideas at level 12.

The adventuresome among us will eye 2-3 feats, and figure out how to make do with an 18 or even 16 over the long haul. The flat math opens up space here to experiment, especially if the players are tactically skilled enough to play for Advantage on the attack rolls.

[Iamcreative]

I think for our next campaign we are going to allow everyone to take a racial feat at 1st. V human gets to pick from (maybe) any feat I guess. Then allow feats/ASIs as normal just to see how that goes before trying anything more complicated/crazy.

Frankly if there are racial feats I think the should be limited to character creation any way. But thats is my feeling on it I can't really give a reason why.

I agree with you and as for why (at least for me) is because by definition, a racial trait is something you're born with. Sure you could study polarms and become a 'polarm master' but wings, spiked skin, or being a prodogy arnt really things that come after trying really hard.

Edit: although sometimes they are. *magic*

[Fixer]

I generated a character with a passive Perception score (at level 1) of 22. Nothing sneaks up on him.

Human Rogue, Wisdom 16
Expertise in Perception and Persuasion

+3 from Wisdom, +2 Proficiency, +2 Expertise, +5 from Observation feat.

The character is a socialite and con-artist. When a fight happens, he tends to hide behind the other characters (he later multi-classes, a lot, to be able to lend assistance). He is never going to be great at anything, but he is very competent at a lot of things.

I think my plan for him is something like a Rogue 1 / Bard 1 / Druid 2 / Warlock 2 / then lots of bard and druid levels mixed in for a very diverse set of spells. He has a Dex of 10 (which is another reason he started with Rogue).

Warlock 2 allows him the 1-way telepathy so he can always talk to folks, and allows access to invocations to let him read/write/speak to anything. In addition he knows both Druidic and Thieves' Cant, so there largely isn't much he can't talk to, read, or con without using any magic whatsoever.

Not all feats have to be stellar to be useful.

[DizzyWood]

I agree with you and as for why (at least for me) is because by definition, a racial trait is something you're born with. Sure you could study polarms and become a 'polarm master' but wings, spiked skin, or being a prodogy arnt really things that come after trying really hard.

Edit: although sometimes they are. *magic*

Or if not born with at least something you would have to start working on at a very young age. Thank you for putting my unformed thoughts into words!!!

Would racial feats at creation then ASIs/feats as normal be too much work for the DM to re-balance? What is it like playing with the home brewed feat rules mentioned above?

[Marcloure]

I think for our next campaign we are going to allow everyone to take a racial feat at 1st. V human gets to pick from (maybe) any feat I guess. Then allow feats/ASIs as normal just to see how that goes before trying anything more complicated/crazy.

Frankly if there are racial feats I think the should be limited to character creation any way. But thats is my feeling on it I can't really give a reason why.

Giving all players a bonus feat at level 1, and banning V. Human, is what I'm doing for now. This let them start to personalize their characters right from the beginning.

And I agree with you about the racial feats. I think it could be a kind of "choose a feature for your individual that makes him a bit different from others of his race".

[Marcloure]

I like it the way it is. It encourages players to play different types of characters. For me the sentence above reads like this: "I want an optimize broken character, hence I cannot squeeze in some more flavorful feat."

Well, get over it. Make your choice. You can have a perfectly viable character without taking Poleamr Master, you know?

If I gave you 4 feats by level 8 instead of 2 you would simply take Polearm Master, Sentinel, GWM and (add here an OP Feat from UA). Only to start again complaining that there are not enough feat slots to fit your character concept with flavorful choices.

Rinse and repeat.

My problem here is not with optimization, but with characterization. Feats makes a character unique, ASI does not. But in the design of feats in 5e, they are powerful enough to take the place of an ASI. I would like to have a Cooker paladin with Inpiring Leader and Mounted Combatant (I actually play with a paladin that have this flavor, he is a father that travels to protect his family from the evils beyond the wall), but even though I can make this flavor through roleplay, I can only archive this mechanically at level 12 (he is half-elf). I would like to see my character personality affecting his mechanical counterpart, even if through weaker and subtle feats.
Also, by the way it is, combat-oriented feats are more appealing since it compensates the ASI loss and keeps you in line for 4 more levels. If feats were given at every 2 levels, you could take a less substantial feat now, and after two levels, not four, you would come back to trails. Or you could just keep taking the best and nothing will really change from what it is now (but in a smoothier climb, with lesser power spikes).

[Iamcreative]

My problem here is not with optimization, but with characterization. Feats makes a character unique, ASI does not. But in the design of feats in 5e, they are powerful enough to take the place of an ASI. I would like to have a Cooker paladin with Inpiring Leader and Mounted Combatant (I actually play with a paladin that have this flavor, he is a father that travels to protect his family from the evils beyond the wall), but even though I can make this flavor through roleplay, I can only archive this mechanically at level 12 (he is half-elf). I would like to see my character personality affecting his mechanical counterpart, even if through weaker and subtle feats.
Also, by the way it is, combat-oriented feats are more appealing since it compensates the ASI loss and keeps you in line for 4 more levels. If feats were given at every 2 levels, you could take a less substantial feat now, and after two levels, not four, you would come back to trails. Or you could just keep taking the best and nothing will really change from what it is now (but in a smoothier climb, with lesser power spikes).

I could almost see dividing them up into 'feats' and 'traits' (or something) where every 4 levels or so you could take a 'trait' thats basically the non-stat boosting part of a half feat. So say at level 4 you could boost int by 2 or take warcaster. But you coould also gain the ability to always know which way is north and remember everything that happened during the past month. (Or whatever)

[Biggstick]

I like it the way it is. It encourages players to play different types of characters. For me the sentence above reads like this: "I want an optimize broken character, hence I cannot squeeze in some more flavorful feat."

Well, get over it. Make your choice. You can have a perfectly viable character without taking Poleamr Master, you know?

If I gave you 4 feats by level 8 instead of 2 you would simply take Polearm Master, Sentinel, GWM and (add here an OP Feat from UA). Only to start again complaining that there are not enough feat slots to fit your character concept with flavorful choices.

Rinse and repeat.

I'd like to add another +1 to this. Agree 100 percent.


I generated a character with a passive Perception score (at level 1) of 22. Nothing sneaks up on him.

Human Rogue, Wisdom 16
Expertise in Perception and Persuasion

+3 from Wisdom, +2 Proficiency, +2 Expertise, +5 from Observation feat.

The character is a socialite and con-artist. When a fight happens, he tends to hide behind the other characters (he later multi-classes, a lot, to be able to lend assistance). He is never going to be great at anything, but he is very competent at a lot of things.

I think my plan for him is something like a Rogue 1 / Bard 1 / Druid 2 / Warlock 2 / then lots of bard and druid levels mixed in for a very diverse set of spells. He has a Dex of 10 (which is another reason he started with Rogue).

Warlock 2 allows him the 1-way telepathy so he can always talk to folks, and allows access to invocations to let him read/write/speak to anything. In addition he knows both Druidic and Thieves' Cant, so there largely isn't much he can't talk to, read, or con without using any magic whatsoever.

Not all feats have to be stellar to be useful.

You can't multiclass into or out of Rogue unless you have 13 Dexterity.

It's still not that hard to generate the PC you're talking about generating though. it's stats would look something like:

9 Strength
13(+1) Dexterity
14 Constitution
8 Intelligence
13(Observant feat +1) Wisdom
15(+1) Charisma

This character is still a solid PC that can multiclass the way you'd like. You could swap the Charisma with Wisdom if you want, I just figured you'd take advantage of Eldritch/Agonizing Blast alongside plenty of Bard levels. S/he's not the most intelligent bugger out there, but they're good at noticing things!

[Kryx]

I'm glad to hear that many people have had positive reactions to the work I did on feats. I've played with it for quite a while now and can report that in my experience there have been no negative balance implications.
In my experience it has increased the build options a bit more via the split feats and through the traits it has increased the flavorful options that have been chosen. It's nice to see more diversity.

I should probably put some effort into the UA feats, though I wasn't so fond of the weapon feats and would probably make many of them default properties. I'll need to read up on the racial ones.