How important are the Feats in 5E?

[inexorabletruth]

I'm still learning the ropes in 5E, and I've been looking at the character builds and messing with the crunch.

I've built a Cleric, a Ranger, a Druid, a Blood Hunter, and a Barbarian, so I'm still pretty shiny and new when it comes to crunch. But from what I can tell, the builds are pretty solid without feats, and it looks like Myth-Weavers and DnD Beyond didn't even bother to a section to put feats on their character sheets.

How important are feats in 5E? If I were to DM a campaign in 5E, and I were to ban feats, would that essentially kill game interest. I know if I did something like that in older systems, you'd hear a loud *thunk* from all the jaws simultaneously hitting the floor in shock and horror. But the idea doesn't seem all that radical in 5E.

[2D8HP]

25 years of D&D didn't have "Feats", and 5e plays fine both with and without them.

ASI's are fine instead, Feats aren't bad either.

[Jerrykhor]

Personally, I love feats, and would never consider playing in a game where they are banned. I always want more feats, whether official or homebrew.

In my experience, everyone uses at least a feat or 2. So i would say yes, it might kill a lot of interest.

[Blackbando]

Kinda group dependent. Most of the types of people on these forums tend to use feats a lot, but the average player really doesn't very often. It does make humans kinda suck compared to other races, but it's not a big deal.

[JNAProductions]

They're nice, but the game works perfectly fine without them. In addition, while there might be some minor power differences between a feated and non-feated character, if you both build well, it's going to be minor.

[MadBear]

I'd be happy with or without feats personally.

Really though, I want more feats that are closer to the 1/2 feats, and less like Sharpshooter. I know it's just my opinion, but I'd prefer the classes to have a bigger role in dictating the most optimal options in combat, and feats should be those niche things that you use once in awhile. So feats like Keen Mind, Observant, Dungeon Delver are higher on my list of great niche feats, because they 100% not must have's but they give a character something unique.

[Matticusrex]

Feats make martials relevant. Without feats, the martial caster gap is wide as an ocean.

[JNAProductions]

Feats make martials relevant. Without feats, the martial caster gap is wide as an ocean.

In a word: No. Casters do get more out of combat utility than martials do, though some martials (notably Rogue and to a lesser extent Monk) get nice out of combat abilities, but in combat, which is where feats really shine? Martials and casters are pretty nicely balanced.

[MxKit]

5e builds are definitely solid without feats. I find feats fun, and often like having them as an option, but while I have character builds that I wouldn't play in a featless game, I wouldn't be chased away from a game that didn't allow feats; I'd just play a different character.

I don't think it would kill game interest at all; I've seen more than one successful no-feats game in my area. Depending on where you are and what the D&D crowd is like there, it might make it a bit harder to find players, but it definitely shouldn't make it impossible. Especially since just finding 3-5 players means you're good to go.

[Kane0]

They're great if you want the options and extra depth, but they aren't required. Feats and ASIs are designed to be sidegrades to each other and both have their place, though depending on how they are used feats may be quite a bit more or less useful to you.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

None of us can give you objective truth on this. If you don't want to use feats, tell your players and gauge their response.

[Vorpalchicken]

Feats make martials relevant. Without feats, the martial caster gap is wide as an ocean.

I somewhat agree with this, especially with fighters. Not at low levels but at mid to high, fighters are left behind without feats. I am fairly certain the class was designed with feats in mind.

Monks don't need them and can't really afford them any way. Rogues are fine without them but Mobile and Skulker are really nice. Oh Elven Accuracy too I suppose.

Barbarians are fairly decent without feats. But GWM on a barbarian is brutal so it's hard to pass up.

Paladins, if we are counting them as martial, are ok without. They can smite and cast neat spells.

Rangers don't need them at low levels. Despite their reputation, they are a solid class until mid-high. Then Sharpshooter could help but to be honest most people don't seem to play high level Rangers. Or they multiclass.

[strangebloke]

The main game-changer here is to weapon style balance.

Without feats:
-Sword and board is good at everything. It gets more a lot more AC and isn't far behind its competitors in terms of DPR. Possibly the best overall.
-Two weapon fighting is a nice buff to damage but has a wonky action economy associated with it and gets weaker at later levels.
-Great weapon fighting gives a small bonus to damage without any real drawbacks.
-archery is nice and flexible and consistent, but doesn't have nearly as good of damage potential. Best option is a longbow.

With feats
-Sword and board offers a lot more flexibility as well as the AC bonus from before. Is far behind its competition in damage.
-Two weapon fighting is a lot weaker, relatively speaking. Not worthless but its much more niche. Good for rogues, ok for rangers.
-Great weapon fighting is then end-all be-all of melee damage, far outclassing everything, with the only contender being...
-Archery is still nice and flexible... and depending on the build can deal more damage than anything else.

So yeah, the issue is GWM, PAM, Crossbow Expert, and SS. The power of these feats isn't readily apparent until you get to high levels.

The mobile feat is very good for the monk class. Prodigy is really good for grappling/shoving builds.

Otherwise including feats doesn't really change anything one way or another. Certain builds become possible that otherwise wouldn't be, but that's most of it.


I somewhat agree with this, especially with fighters. Not at low levels but at mid to high, fighters are left behind without feats. I am fairly certain the class was designed with feats in mind.


Yes, this is true. Fighters nomally only need STR/DEX and CON, and they can max both of them as early as level 8, even if they're using point buy! So feats give them options that they really really need. Additionally, GWM/SS stack really nicely with fighter abilities.

[Errata]

What level? Feats aren't super common before level 8 anyway, and a lot of campaigns fizzle out before then anyway. Most people don't ever actually play the very high levels. Feats are less frequent than in 3.5e, and people often want a couple of ASIs in their primary stat pretty badly. But at mid levels when they have a few ASIs, the feats get better and better in comparison to secondary stats.

If it's a low level campaign, it's not a huge deal to ban them. If it's a higher level campaign it would significantly reduce the usefulness of many types of builds.

Stepping back though, why would you even want to ban them? I'm not sure what the purpose would be. Choices make things more interesting. 5e is reasonably balanced, feats included, and there isn't as outrageous a disparity in power levels as there was in 3.5.

With no feats that's a pretty direct nerf to fighters. More feats is a significant part of the appeal, and they don't need that many ASIs. There is a lot of synergy between martial feats, and the path they choose tends to be a bigger part of their character than for casters.

[kardar233]

I find martial characters tend to play quite similarly in this edition so I like feats because they let me put a unique stamp on my character. In my current game, my Karrnathi Paladin hails from a long line of scarily effective warriors using oversized polearms, and her second father figure is the one who came to Deneith and taught her the family style. When her father shows up in game, he too will be a Tunnel Fighting Polearm Master.

Also, I like the ability to patch holes in my class’s kit with them. I’d never again play a Moon Druid if it weren’t for War Caster. (Probably wouldn’t play one again anyway, decidedly disappointing.)

~~EDIT~~ I do find one problem with feats is that it makes V. Human way too appealing relative to other races. I prefer to allow a feat at first level for any race (excepting GWM, SS or PAM), and let Human pick another +1 to any stat.

[Errata]

~~EDIT~~ I do find one problem with feats is that it makes V. Human way too appealing relative to other races. I prefer to allow a feat at first level for any race (excepting GWM, SS or PAM), and let Human pick another +1 to any stat.

It's a tangent, but I'm a little confused by this. No feat means no variant humans. The non-variant humans are already balanced around not having a feat, so I wouldn't think they need an adjustment. A variant human that just has +1 to 3 stats seems strictly worse than a non-variant human, or with +2 to 1 stat and +1 to another, seems worse than any number of non-humans that have that plus racial abilities. Besides which, a feat is pretty clearly balanced to be comparable to an ASI of +2 to a stat, +1 would be a half feat.

[MxKit]

It's a tangent, but I'm a little confused by this. No feat means no variant humans. The non-variant humans are already balanced around not having a feat, so I wouldn't think they need an adjustment. A variant human that just has +1 to 3 stats seems strictly worse than a non-variant human, or with +2 to 1 stat and +1 to another, seems worse than any number of non-humans that have that plus racial abilities. Besides which, a feat is pretty clearly balanced to be comparable to an ASI of +2 to a stat, +1 would be a half feat.

Someone could potentially want the extra skill at first level... I think what I'd do in that case is just make the variant to the human's "+1 to all six of your ability scores" into "alternately, you can increase four of your ability scores by +1, and gain proficiency in one skill of your choice." That seems like a fair trade-off.

[inexorabletruth]

Stepping back though, why would you even want to ban them? I'm not sure what the purpose would be. Choices make things more interesting. 5e is reasonably balanced, feats included, and there isn't as outrageous a disparity in power levels as there was in 3.5.

That's a fair question. It has mostly to do with money. I can't afford the splat books to have access to the feats any sooner than July (assuming nothing goes wrong... something always goes wrong). D&D was kind enough to release the core to the SRD, but not much else is available online except homebrew. I'm trying to have an open mind about homebrew feats, but the more I look into it, the more I realize that most of the homebrew feats I've found are just terrible.

And while I may be a seasoned DM in 3.5, I'm still a bit too new to 5E to open up a homebrew can of worms without at least a co-DM to run the feats by them for balance and functionality.

Still, I'd like to take the plunge and DM some 5E soon. I have been cooking up a lot of campaign ideas, and if I'm feeling confident enough, I'd like to run them in the new system. But I have to be able to function within the confines of the SRD, because that is all I'll have access to.

[Errata]

That's a fair question. It has mostly to do with money. I can't afford the splat books to have access to the feats any sooner than July (assuming nothing goes wrong... something always goes wrong). D&D was kind enough to release the core to the SRD, but not much else is available online except homebrew. I'm trying to have an open mind about homebrew feats, but the more I look into it, the more I realize that most of the homebrew feats I've found are just terrible.

There are plenty of online sources to read the official non-homebrew feats, along with the books they were published in to determine whether they are sufficiently canonical sources. Even if you own the books it can be more convenient to find them indexed all in one place. Plus people are going to want to work on their characters at home and they won't all have every book. There are good reasons to own the books, but sometimes searching is a lot easier for reference material. I don't know the policies about linking to them, but they exist and weren't hard to find.

[kardar233]

It's a tangent, but I'm a little confused by this. No feat means no variant humans. The non-variant humans are already balanced around not having a feat, so I wouldn't think they need an adjustment. A variant human that just has +1 to 3 stats seems strictly worse than a non-variant human, or with +2 to 1 stat and +1 to another, seems worse than any number of non-humans that have that plus racial abilities. Besides which, a feat is pretty clearly balanced to be comparable to an ASI of +2 to a stat, +1 would be a half feat.

No, I meant standard Human (extra skill, +1 to all attributes) with an extra floating +1 to put anywhere. I find standard Human a decidedly weak race as most characters doesn’t care about any attribute past their tertiary stat, or sometimes not even that. Add that to the weak racial of a single skill point, and they’re rather unappetizing. Martial classes tend to prefer Half-Orc or Dwarf, Cha classes have Half-Elf, Int classes have Gnome, etc. Being able to play a Human with a +2 wherever you want it means you have a default alternative to the best race for your class, in case that one is too strange like Firbolg (or maybe you want to play a Wizard and have a totally understandable hatred of gnomes).

[opaopajr]

It's perfectly fine. The game runs without it. Run what you want to deal with as a GM; the players may petition, but in the end their veto is with their feet away from your table. And honestly, most people really, really, really don't care. :smalltongue:

Playing a fictional character that can do cool things in Imagination Land is a far more important selling point than the precise widgets powering how the cool things look. :smallcool: And if someone is hatching an egg from anger about not getting their way, you're probably better off not having them at your table during your first few games under your belt. :smallsmile:

[Cespenar]

Feats are one of the few things that actually give some tactical depth to the non-casters.

If you don't want that, go ahead. I personally wouldn't leave home without them.

[DanyBallon]

If it’s a matter of official source, then just go on and explsin to your player you are doing a featless game for that exact reason, either they’ll all agree to it, or one of your player will offer to provide a PHB for game nights.
And if you get your hands on an official (or unofficial) source, I’d say just allow fests in your game and see for yourselves how popôular they are with your group. I did and realised that with my group (a good mix of longtime D&D players, and players new to TTRPG) they aren’t that much popular.

[inexorabletruth]

It sounds to me like, if I made a low level campaign on PbP (which are naturally slow moving anyway) I could arguably leave feats out of the equation with little fuss.

And as a gained experience and confidence (hopefully by the time they reach level 4) I could start considering the homebrew feat selection and provide a list I approve of to allow.

That should keep things simple enough for me to run my first 5E campaign, while remaining flexible enough to appease any players hoping to customize their class template.

[2D8HP]

.....I do find one problem with feats is that it makes V. Human way too appealing relative to other races. I prefer to allow a feat at first level for any race (excepting GWM, SS or PAM), and let Human pick another +1 to any stat.


:confused:

Better than Darkvision?

Please tell me more, as usually, in my experience, the need for light makes humans very handicapped compared to most races, and a Feat at first level doesn't compensate.

Please tell me more.

[Willie the Duck]

:confused:

Better than Darkvision?

Please tell me more, as usually, in my experience, the need for light makes humans very handicapped compared to most races, and a Feat at first level doesn't compensate.

Please tell me more.

Depends entirely on the campaign.
From previous threads, we've established that the two of us really like the dungeon-crawling aspect. Other players do a lot less underground adventures. Darkvision is nice (particularly for the rogue who wants to stealth off at night and walking around with a lantern will give themselves away), but not required.

Regardless, the #1 thing that V. human does is allow a character concept that is kind of predicated upon a given feat (for mechanic or thematic reasons) right from level 1.

The mechanical example that comes readily to mind is a non-nature domain cleric that wants to use shillelagh (by taking the feat Magic Initiate: Druid) and a club or staff as their combat option. If they have to wait until level 4 to take that feat, what should they do until then-rely on cantrips or a mace and their undoubtedly low strength?

The thematic ones that I can think of are my favorite Champion fighter Quadruplets-- Eenie, Meenie, Mini and Moe-- all are v. human Champions, but one has Healer and is effectively a fighter/cleric, the next Medium Armor Master (and criminal background) and thus the fighter/thief, and the last has Ritual Caster and functions as the fighter/magic user, and then Moe has polearm master, which just increases his combat output and is the fighter/fighter I guess. Thus I have a full old-school adventuring party, without really needing to deal with the complexities of the more rest-limited classes (or rogues, which can be tricky to play for beginners). I bring that foursome out as premades for when I'm introducing newbies to 5e (besides which, I want newbies to have to deal with light and vision and bringing enough torches for the dungeon, etc.).

[Errata]

Better than Darkvision?

Please tell me more, as usually, in my experience, the need for light makes humans very handicapped compared to most races, and a Feat at first level doesn't compensate.

The darkvision races are handicapped without light too. Everyone needs light, unless they enjoy being at disadvantage all the time. Being at a disadvantage to perception, whether to spot traps while dungeon crawling, or your opponents before they spot you, negates a lot of the advantage of darkvision.

Yes, darkvision is generally better for stealth, even despite the risk of blundering into a trap, but stealth has limits within a party. There's always going to be that one brute who isn't stealthy at all. It's rare that you'd have an entire party of silent, darkvision assassins actually getting the drop on opponents and getting a surprise round. Not to mention that most of the enemies would either have light or darkvision themselves (or both, because intelligent races don't like hanging out in dim light, taking a disadvantage). In practice, there is a dedicated scout who is good at stealth, but they just have to report back what they see anyway, so there ends up not being a huge tactical advantage. Even if everyone was built like a scout, it would still be harder to make the stealth rolls for everyone rather than just one scout.

[kardar233]

As Errata says, darkvision isn't really that important because you still need a light source; this isn't 3.5 or earlier where darkvision meant you could see with no light source at all. There's lots of ways to get light with minimal investment: the cantrip comes to mind, or a casting of Continuous Flame, or Produce Flame, etc. I'm currently playing a Paladin/Shadow Sorcerer so I get Darkvision anyway.

[Beelzebubba]

Backing up what some others have said.

A few feats, like Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master, and a few others, are better than an ASI for most martial class builds.

Other feats are very useful to a character concept, and one of them is a great way to make them unique and will add a lot to the game play in breadth, if not power. So, Magic Initiate on a non-spellcaster gives a lot of flavor.

One feat is enough to create a character-defining set of mechanics.

Otherwise, an ASI is really powerful, and the way the classes get more powers and abilities as they level means taking an ASI will make a whole lot of the stuff they already get significantly better.