Feats Suck

[the_brazenburn]

Sorry to offend anybody, but I just can't get my head around why feats are so common/hyped. I personally just don't like them, and I wondered why people do.

Is it carry-over from 3.5?

Is it simply because some of them are so optimal?

Is there a better reason?

Please help me. I honestly just don't get them.

Thanks!

[sophontteks]

They add variety and help distinguish characters/emphasize one's backstory. They are pretty strong, but not OP. A very good side option vs. ASI. Not sure what's not to like.

[Shumanfoo]

I personally think that many appear to have little use. However depending on the character, they add a lot of useful benefits.

Take my current Bard/Cleric. Warcaster is really handy so that I can cast any spell without juggling for free hands and I can maintain concentration better as needed. Maybe not necessary, very handy.

[Trask]

They add variety and help distinguish characters/emphasize one's backstory. They are pretty strong, but not OP. A very good side option vs. ASI. Not sure what's not to like.

A common refrain but practically untrue. At every table and everywhere on this board feats are discussed in power terms and cloaked in language like "DPR". They are rarely used for the purposes of backstory. How very distinct your 3 GWM players are.

I agree with the OP in that I think feats take more away than they add. They add a lot of power to characters and ultimately foce magic items to be weaker in compensation. They focus the game back on character building which is not my inclination. I think a character without feats but with magic items, and powers aquired through play is a more fulfilling character for the whole game and i have felt that way as a player and a dm.

[sophontteks]

A common refrain but practically untrue. At every table and everywhere on this board feats are discussed in power terms and cloaked in language like "DPR". They are rarely used for the purposes of backstory. How very distinct your 3 GWM players are.

I agree with the OP in that I think feats take more away than they add. They add a lot of power to characters and ultimately foce magic items to be weaker in compensation. They focus the game back on character building which is not my inclination. I think a character without feats but with magic items, and powers aquired through play is a more fulfilling character for the whole game and i have felt that way as a player and a dm.
Do they?
ASI is a very strong thing to miss out on. The only case where I could see a problem is with V'human powergamers trying to milk the best possible start. Otherwise choosing a feat over ASI is a pretty big sacrifice.

[Tanarii]

Suck is totally vague and provoking way to describe them. I approve of the thread title. :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, they do, from the right personal perspective.

I don't allow them IMC, primarily because I'd have to ban the outliers. But also because I played in AL, so I saw how they are used. They're almost exclusively taken only as "must-haves" for the builds in question, and from the most powerful among them, at least the most powerful for the build in question. They distort the game and the archetypes pretty badly.

Also I don't allow multiclassing, so there are some I could have probably kept that would be used, aren't OP by any means, and wouldn't be must-haves at all. Specifically the armor proficiency upgrade feats and Weapon Master. But I decided I like strong archetypes, and it's simpler with a large campaign with many players that wants an old-school feel to just skip the optional rule completely.

[Lalliman]

Please help me. I honestly just don't get them.
I suggest you start by putting into words what you don't like about them. It's pretty weird to put the burden of proof on us when you know yourself to be the outlier. I'm guessing that you're content with the amount of customisation that classes and subclasses provide and thus don't need feats, I can understand that. But is there something about their existence that makes the game worse for you? Is it their propensity to be used for optimisation, or is there more to it?

[Trask]

Do they?
ASI is a very strong thing to miss out on. The only case where I could see a problem is with V'human powergamers trying to milk the best possible start. Otherwise choosing a feat over ASI is a pretty big sacrifice.

Yes they do. You can reasonably get a feat by level 4 instead of an ASI and many do. By 7 most people will pick one. Lets not pretend that feats are no extremely powerful, look at any of the optimization guides here, just look at the charop posts. People use feats, they make their characters a lot more powerful.

[Davrix]

When i first saw them in 5th ed i was like OMG THESE ARE AMAZING.

After 2 years i hate them utterly as they currently are in 5th ed.

The problem is either they are a class defining feature or they are mediocre at best and not worth the loss of the +2. most times and the top tier feats overshadow all the others, such as GWM Sharp shooter, War caster and so forth.

I get what they were trying in making feats more interesting but i feel like they gave us a choice we didn't need to make. I find that it makes many players feel torn between taking the feat that is obviously very good for them like Sharpshooter. But they feel like they are loosing out not taking the +2. Now i get some will say this is the price of choice but I don't think there are enough interesting feats to warrant this cost when half the feats never get taken, at least in my experience. This might not be the case for other tables.

The other problem is at least for me it makes me feel constrained when I want to reward people with special abilities or home-brew new combat rules that either step on some feats or are simply similar. Case in point I want players to be able to have a charge action. But there is already a feat covering that. So do I just ignore the feat or do I hand players that feat at the start of the game? Its a problem as a DM that I feel like 5th is giving me that it shouldn't

The one thing I do like is they made feat's optional so basically at my table I cut them utterly. Players get their +2 at the levels they are suppose to but I do tell them to look through the feats and let me know if there are abilities or perks in them that they want. Which I then either suggest they try to find a mentor during downtime to train with to earn the skill or feature in a few levels or I make a note and give it as a reward if they complete a personal quest or do something extremely heroic.

[Tanarii]

One idea I saw someone post that would make Feats great, is the DM choosing the Feat (and skill) for Variant Humans in their campaigns to distinguish cultures or regions.

It'd enable them to give different human cultures distinctly different feels, as well as control the Feat/Skill combination to certain power levels. Given that unlimited choice is part of what makes Vumans such an overpowering choice, it's not a bad idea. (Conversely if you want mostly or heavily human party members in your campaign, free choice also isn't a bad idea.)

Edit: this route would be especially awesome in an otherwise Feat-free campaign.

[MonkeyIke]

While I am no where near smart enough to figure out a a balanced way of doing it I’ve debated having it so players can can choose both ASI and a feat when they reach a level in class that gives them a ASI. I’ve also thought about having feat options tied to character overall level (pick a feat at level 4, 8, 12 etc), and I’ve also been thinking of handing out feats after players reach a certain milestone through a campaign as a reward.

[the_brazenburn]

I suggest you start by putting into words what you don't like about them. It's pretty weird to put the burden of proof on us when you know yourself to be the outlier. I'm guessing that you're content with the amount of customisation that classes and subclasses provide and thus don't need feats, I can understand that. But is there something about their existence that makes the game worse for you? Is it their propensity to be used for optimisation, or is there more to it?

OK.

My main problem with them is that they are seen either as "must-haves" for a certain build (i.e. SS, GWM, PAM) or are so underpowered that it just wastes the poor player's ASI. Some of them are okay (I love the idea of Weapon Master, for instance), but overall I think they are unnecessary to the simplistic nature of 5e.

[Ellisthion]

Some people like to play the sub-game of builds and character optimization, and having lots of options (like feats) favour that playstyle.

Some people want nothing to do with this, and would rather have a less complicated game with less power difference between "optimal" and "sub-optimal" characters.

This is why Feats and Multiclassing are optional rules in 5E: the latter kind of player disliked 3.x and 4E because all that complexity was mandatory.

5E is popular amongst a wide range of players because it takes this approach: there are multiple ways to enjoy the game, and neither are "right" or "wrong".

[SociopathFriend]

I've played with feats ever since 5e was released and ultimately it's been fine. There's only ever been two guys out of maybe 12-14 players I've frequently played with that go with an "official min/max" build. Of those two, only one has basically destabilized the game to the point where nothing was a threat to him (he balanced it out with roleplaying a very irresponsible character, we had to ress his character I think 5 times).

[Mortis_Elrod]

OK.

My main problem with them is that they are seen either as "must-haves" for a certain build (i.e. SS, GWM, PAM) or are so underpowered that it just wastes the poor player's ASI. Some of them are okay (I love the idea of Weapon Master, for instance), but overall I think they are unnecessary to the simplistic nature of 5e.

I’m not getting it. Just don’t let feats be in your campaign? I mean your right that they are unnecessary, it’s cus they are listed as such. Just like magic items and multiclassing.

I know in AL this isn’t really doable but AL isn’t everything.

Outside of AL I can’t find a single reason why any feat would be considered OP.

[Maelynn]

Personally, I think feats are a great way to customise your character and give them something unique. That said, I'm not one to min/max my stats or to optimise everything for max damage. I care more about the feel of a character and its flavour. If a feat gives my character a nice advantage, if it adds something interesting, if it helps in non-combat situations, then I'm interested. Stats are just stats, you've got gear/items/spells that can increase them, but a lot of the special abilities you get from feats cannot be obtained otherwise.

My current char (Tiefling Vengeance Paladin) is now level 4 and has chosen Heavy Armour Master. Even if she gets hit, I subtract 3 from every blow. Which makes her feel tougher than if she were to get an extra +1 on any other stat.

[Potato_Priest]

I personally like feats because they make the character-building mini game more interesting and customizable for martials, and also help martials stay relevant when compared to spellcasters even into tier 3.

They also boost humans up from being a terrible race to being one of the best. If you don’t like them, I at least suggest letting your humans get expertise in a skill to help represent that human ambition and specialization.

[Daphne]

Feats Suck

I agree, they aren't allowed at my table.

[DarkKnightJin]

Personally, I think feats are a great way to customise your character and give them something unique. That said, I'm not one to min/max my stats or to optimise everything for max damage. I care more about the feel of a character and its flavour. If a feat gives my character a nice advantage, if it adds something interesting, if it helps in non-combat situations, then I'm interested. Stats are just stats, you've got gear/items/spells that can increase them, but a lot of the special abilities you get from feats cannot be obtained otherwise.

My current char (Tiefling Vengeance Paladin) is now level 4 and has chosen Heavy Armour Master. Even if she gets hit, I subtract 3 from every blow. Which makes her feel tougher than if she were to get an extra +1 on any other stat.

My Dragonborn Death Cleric started with a 13 in their Wisdom. And a level of Fighter for the armor proficiency.

So, they didn't have Wisdom save proficiency. My original plan to even out the Wisdom was grabbing something like Observant for fun and flavor. Or maybe +1 to both Wis and Int, even them both out.

After running into a Succubus, and being under the Charm for a while, unable to shake it with repeated saves (Thankfully not in combat with the succybus itself..) the plan was formed to steel his will for future events.
So, now that we've hit 5th level characters, I'm picking Resilient (Wisdom) to both even out the stat for a +2, and gain proficiency in Wisdom saves. Making him more stalwart against people trying to muck with his head.

It's not something I would've thought of without that event happening in the story.

I'm a big fan of getting feats as something the character would be interested in, because it shows how they've grown. Or perhaps is something they learned they weren't strong at, so they wanted to buff it up.


As for vHuman starting feats.. My Human Fighter started with the Skilled feat, to get the proficiencies he needed to make the character work on the whole.
I haven't regretted it at all. It's a flavor feat for the most part, but it's been a massive help in the story, too.

[sophontteks]

We have a v.human who took the obsevant feat. I thought it really helpd distinguish him from everyone else and made some great RP as he is always evesdropping on personal matters.

Remember that this forum generally looks at optimization and combat. This could skew one's perspective on things like feats. Many of the feats are actually pretty good. Very few are useless. From an optimizers POV they may scoff at the lot of them, but many players use these feats to see their characters realized without batting an eye at the sacrifice made to get them.

[Spacehamster]

Sorry to offend anybody, but I just can't get my head around why feats are so common/hyped. I personally just don't like them, and I wondered why people do.

Is it carry-over from 3.5?

Is it simply because some of them are so optimal?

Is there a better reason?

Please help me. I honestly just don't get them.

Thanks!

Not sure if trolling but:

They add flavor(can give some small amount of magic to a non caster, turn your character into Sherlock Holmes with observant)
Ofc there are also “optimal” feats like gwm, polearm master, sharpshooter and lucky that are not that fun but then again being powerful feels rewarding so in a way they too are fun.

Some add rp potential if you rp heavily and are not all about mechanics, so suboptimal feats like actor and such can be fun too.

[Naanomi]

They allow explorations of concepts that aren’t ‘worth’ a whole subclass... mounted combatant, for example; without that feat we’d need what... Paladins with a mounted ability in their class that 70% of would never use, and maybe a ranger subclass specific to mounted combat as well?

As an aside, for those saying they run featless/no multiclassing games... do you not go into high levels? If you do, fighters must feel pretty crummy about thier class-defining features being spent on +1 to some skills you don’t use much and a save... even a completely unoptimized race will have maxed their attack stat and CON before using their ASIs up

[Mith]

If one feels like there are "must haves" or powerful combat options, I am more in favour of just making a general combat rule that anyone can use. For example, one adventure I am running, instead of the -5/+10 for damage, we are doing --proficency/+ double proficiency.

[Tanarii]

We have a v.human who took the obsevant feat. I thought it really helpd distinguish him from everyone else and made some great RP as he is always evesdropping on personal matters.

Remember that this forum generally looks at optimization and combat. This could skew one's perspective on things like feats. Many of the feats are actually pretty good. Very few are useless. From an optimizers POV they may scoff at the lot of them, but many players use these feats to see their characters realized without batting an eye at the sacrifice made to get them.Observant is not a combat feat*, but it's definitely top tier in terms of power and "must have" for many builds. It's highly ranked in terms of optimization.

*edit: except that, of course, it is a combat feat. Part of its high value is making surprise very unlikely for that character. Another part is it's a half feat that gives +1 Wis, increasing saves vs Wis spells and effects.

[sophontteks]

Observant is not a combat feat*, but it's definitely top tier in terms of power and "must have" for many builds. It's highly ranked in terms of optimization.

*edit: except that, of course, it is a combat feat. Part of its high value is making surprise very unlikely for that character. Another part is it's a half feat that gives +1 Wis, increasing saves vs Wis spells and effects.
His is not one of those builds. I just brought it up because it enhanved our game. Haven't noticed it really doing much probably because he's the only one without darkvision. Might be better in other campaigns then the one we are playing.

[Tanarii]

His is not one of those builds. I just brought it up because it enhanved our game. Haven't noticed it really doing much probably because he's the only one without darkvision. Might be better in other campaigns then the one we are playing.
Okay.

You've made me realize I made too strong a claim upthread to emphasize my position, when I said "almost exclusively". I'm sure I saw some characters that didn't take their feat for must-have build purposes.

Not every single person ever taking a Feat has done it purely for optimization reasons. Or at least, not for what others would consider optimal. Clearly the person making the decision considers it the optimal choice to make, because the made it. Using the term broadly, and not in the rather specific TRPG context.

But it was by far and large the purpose behind Feats when I played AL.

As a side note, some day I want to play a campaign where a Linguist code-maker is a must-have. :smallbiggrin:
http://www.critical-hits.net/blog/2014/10/04/tailor-tinker-soldier-spy-the-bard-as-a-spy-cryptography-and-the-fantasy-espionage-team/

[sophontteks]

Okay.

You've made me realize I made too strong a claim upthread to emphasize my position, when I said "almost exclusively". I'm sure I saw some characters that didn't take their feat for must-have build purposes.

Not every single person ever taking a Feat has done it purely for optimization reasons. Or at least, not for what others would consider optimal. Clearly the person making the decision considers it the optimal choice to make, because the made it. Using the term broadly, and not in the rather specific TRPG context.

But it was by far and large the purpose behind Feats when I played AL.

As a side note, some day I want to play a campaign where a Linguist code-maker is a must-have. :smallbiggrin:
http://www.critical-hits.net/blog/2014/10/04/tailor-tinker-soldier-spy-the-bard-as-a-spy-cryptography-and-the-fantasy-espionage-team/
Sorry, the point I wanted to make was that it was something I felt that made the game better, because it distinguishes that character. But I didn't make the point well. Its not about its power, just about if it positively impacts the game.

I really like all of the feats pretty much. But I don't do AL and I forget that this makes a big impact on things. Though I do feel that a lot of people doing V.human for the feat get screwed in game when they realize darkvision is actually a pretty big deal. Course both the campaign I DM and the campaign I play are very very dark.

[MephitBlue]

I personally enjoy feats and I'm glad they are part of the game. Both of the campaigns I'm in allow feats. In one, our DM lets us take both a feat and an ASI when a character hits an ASI level and in the other game feats are an option instead of the ASI.

In the game where we take a feat along with an ASI, it has allowed us to tailor our characters more the way we want. For instance, taking Elemental Adept has let me focus my spells mainly around lightning. My character is a Storm Sorcerer, so it is natural that spells involving lighting (along with thunder and wind) would be easier for him to use and command. My DM allowed me to even tweak the feat a bit so that it changed the Firebolt cantrip into one that does lightning damage.

In the other game I have the choice of doing more damage by upping my main stat +2 or becoming more versatile with a feat. It is honestly a hard choice. I'm leaning towards the feat instead of the ASI, as Warcaster will allow my character to duel wield or use a shield and cast a spell as needed. I'm choosing to enable my character to do something that adds a little versatility than getting a slightly better chance to hit with my attacks. I've also contemplated the Actor feat so my character can pass himself off as someone else more easily. That doesn't add to my combat abilities at all, but allows for some great RP options.

Hey, feats are optional rules, if you don't like them don't use them. I like that they are there and that the games I play in allow them.

[Matticusrex]

Most of the martial feats should have been base-line.

[Theodoxus]

To each their own. I love feats, I've created my own, ripped off other creative DMs for theirs, and imported from previous editions. I've scaled them all down to half feats and stripped the stat boosts though. Then grant feats every odd level and ASIs like the PHB.

Works for me and mine.

[strangebloke]

Sorry to offend anybody, but I just can't get my head around why feats are so common/hyped. I personally just don't like them, and I wondered why people do.

Is it carry-over from 3.5?

Is it simply because some of them are so optimal?

Is there a better reason?

Please help me. I honestly just don't get them.

Thanks!
This is one of the most horribly worded OPs I've ever seen.

"Hey I don't like these. Why do you like them?"

...Because I do? Options that are available to every class add to the level of customization a character can have. My next character is a dwarf wizard in heavy armor. Impossible without feats, Awesome with feats.

One idea I saw someone post that would make Feats great, is the DM choosing the Feat (and skill) for Variant Humans in their campaigns to distinguish cultures or regions.

My DM did this, and I'm not a huge fan. You either have to tell them what humans have what feats (and then suddenly everyone is from the civilization of magic-slinging fools to get Magic initiate, which is the best feat available, or you don't tell them, and the barbarian who gets keen mind is pissed, and so is the Heavy Armor-Wearing Forge Cleric who got medium armor mastery.

OK.

My main problem with them is that they are seen either as "must-haves" for a certain build (i.e. SS, GWM, PAM) or are so underpowered that it just wastes the poor player's ASI. Some of them are okay (I love the idea of Weapon Master, for instance), but overall I think they are unnecessary to the simplistic nature of 5e.

Your problem is balance? Because outside of 3-4 specific feats, they're all pretty balanced, and they're very easy to fix with homebrew.

And if your problem is just balance, why do you hate them as a whole? That you like playing 5e simplistically isn't a good reason to hate feats as a whole. They're an optional part of the game, and while including them or excluding them changes class balance a little (making worse classes better, which I see as desirable) you're ragging on feats as a concept.


We have a v.human who took the obsevant feat. I thought it really helpd distinguish him from everyone else and made some great RP as he is always evesdropping on personal matters.

Remember that this forum generally looks at optimization and combat. This could skew one's perspective on things like feats. Many of the feats are actually pretty good. Very few are useless. From an optimizers POV they may scoff at the lot of them, but many players use these feats to see their characters realized without batting an eye at the sacrifice made to get them.

Feats taken at my table, off the top of my head:
Observant
Ritual Caster
Skulker
Actor
Shield Master
Mobile
Tavern Brawler

Some of those were taken for RP reasons, but many of them were taken because they were strong within the context of my whole campaign. For example, the character with the Actor feat evaded one of the campaign's final bosses by convincing an incredibly powerful servant of the BBEG that he (the character) was the BBEG. The fact the the Boss in question was able to be duped came thanks to the work of the guy with the skulker feat, who scouted out the room and noted that the Boss was blind.

[Foxhound438]

I personally like feats because they make the character-building mini game more interesting and customizable for martials, and also help martials stay relevant when compared to spellcasters even into tier 3.

They also boost humans up from being a terrible race to being one of the best. If you don’t like them, I at least suggest letting your humans get expertise in a skill to help represent that human ambition and specialization.

it's pretty much this for me. Really early, its fine to have your longsword attacks being outdone a few times a day with a multi-target burning hands, and it's even fine for a while to see a fireball outshine your entire encounter as a fighter, but when you get into levels where the wizard has a L3+ spell slot for every enemy that turns up, the martial characters really lose their luster. Basically, you get to a point where your character busting out a stool and reading a chapter from the lusty dragonborn maid instead of attacking has no effect on the outcome of an encounter, because either it's balanced to the casters and you're drops in the ocean or it's balanced to the martials and the casters sweep it up anyways. Magic items can be a fix to this, but you're not garunteed to get those. And yes, I understand that there are encounters that make life hard on casters specifically like beholders or any of the things with magic resistance, but those in my experience are the exception if they're there at all.

[rmnimoc]

I love feats. I've taken them in every game I've been in and my players do too, not necessarily for power, but to make concepts work. For example, with one of my first 5e characters I took magic initiate because I liked the idea that he'd dabbled in magic before he started adventuring. Are Longstrider, Produce Flame, and Mending on a Swashbuckler really going to meaningfully affect the outcome of anything? No, but they're fun. Sure, I could have spent a level on druid to get that and a few things I didn't want (I actually couldn't have thanks to low wis, but still), or I could just take the feat.

Sure, not all feats are equal. Sure, feats can complicate the game slightly. Some feats are even broken and some players abuse them. That doesn't mean that they suck or shouldn't be there. If a player wants to trade a useful ASI for a useful feat, they should have that option, so long as the ASI and feat are roughly balanced and they usually are. If a player doesn't want the complication, they don't have to take one and they can just accept the ASI. If a player intentionally and knowingly abuses a feat, they're almost certainly the kind of person who would have done the same thing with other mechanics, so the feat really doesn't change things. If a feat's too good at your table, balance it.

I kind of got a bit off track there, but the point is I don't think feats suck, I don't think they're used solely for power, and I totally think they deserve their place both on the table and in our threads.

[Sigreid]

OK.

My main problem with them is that they are seen either as "must-haves" for a certain build (i.e. SS, GWM, PAM) or are so underpowered that it just wastes the poor player's ASI. Some of them are okay (I love the idea of Weapon Master, for instance), but overall I think they are unnecessary to the simplistic nature of 5e.

Well, they are completely unnecessary in a strict sense. They do allow you to create a character that is different than other characters of the same race and class.

It's true on these boards a lot of optimization discussion revolves around them, but in practice I've seen them selected because they have helped define the character in some way. For example, the wizard who is obsessed with understanding magic taking linguistics so he can delve into other wizards arcane discoveries.

[Pex]

I like feats because they provide a cool thing for my character to do or have. It's a game mechanic I enjoy purely for the game mechanic. If you don't like that, get over it.

[Wryte]

I like feats in concept, but less so in execution, and it pretty much entirely comes down to the opportunity cost of having to trade an ASI for them. Too many feats fall into either "no-brainer" or "not worth it." Getting half an ASI from half-feats doesn't help as much as you might think, either, since the ASI being predetermined by the feat really restricts which builds they do well with. If you're looking for a half-feat for Charisma, for example, there are precisely 2 half-feats that grant a Cha ASI: Actor, and Resilient.

Actor is a hyper-specialized feat that is going to depend extremely heavily on the nature of the campaign and the flexibility of the DM, while Resilient Charisma is redundant for most Cha-based characters, who will usually have proficiency in the save from their class (and even if they don't, Cha saves are among-if-not-the rarest in the game).

On top of that, a lot of half-feats feel like things I should be letting players attempt without needing a feat for it.

One of these days I'm thinking of sitting down and sorting feats out into different categories, and then just granting access to them by category at certain character levels. Like, each time you reach a character level that gives a proficiency bonus increase, you get a feat point that you can either spend on a cheap feat, or save toward a more expensive feat later.

[Trask]

I find it a shame that so many tables seem to consider magic items optional. Magic items are one of the most fun part of this game, especially unpredictable and cool ones. If you are for some reason running a game that doesnt have magic items, then I think feats come back a bit in terms of importance for me. But generally I find that fun and powerful magic items (that dont just feel like some purely mechanical bs) clash heavily with feats, its hard to have both and maintain the "balance" of the game. So I chuck feats because I find magic items more fun, and I also prefer that attitude when I'm a player.

I get that feats are fun, but I almost feel as if most feats should be non combat oriented. Maybe its just experience but pretty much every feat thats been taken at tables ive played in can be summed up by Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Resilient, and Observant. Its not very "varied" and doesnt really define anyones character but ends up feeling like a big chunk of power gained. And a magic item is also a big chunk of power gained, the difference being that a magic item in the game can feel very cool, rewarding, and can do unexpected and possibly wacky things in the game. Whereas a feat is a purely mechanical thing that almost feels like something you're supposed to have already when you get it, if that makes sense.

For all the people that pick stuff like actor, or linguist or whatever im not really talking about that. I'm just offering a perspective on disallowing feats that stems from what I hope is a cogent position and not based in just denying players "stuff", although I find that doing stuff like this is rarely with a malicious intent.

[strangebloke]

I like feats in concept, but less so in execution, and it pretty much entirely comes down to the opportunity cost of having to trade an ASI for them. Too many feats fall into either "no-brainer" or "not worth it." Getting half an ASI from half-feats doesn't help as much as you might think, either, since the ASI being predetermined by the feat really restricts which builds they do well with. If you're looking for a half-feat for Charisma, for example, there are precisely 2 half-feats that grant a Cha ASI: Actor, and Resilient.


I think the solution to this problem is two-fold.

1. Make more feats.
2. Give more feats
3. Slightly nerf just a very few feats (although this isn't neccessary.)

To illustrate this, just look at the +1 to Charisma feats that now exist in XGtE:

Elven Accuracy, Dragon Fear, Dragon Hide, Fey Teleportation, Flames of Phlegethos, Second Chance.

Are they racially locked? Well, sure. But the point is that now most characters who use Charisma will have at least one feat that's worth for consideration. I mean, all the ones I listed are pretty strong, so they'd at least be worth looking at.

To my mind, an ideal feat is: "Totally worth it if you were already trying to 'X' but not worth trying to do 'X' in the first place and want to specialize." So, GWM should be a no-brainer if you are wielding a greatsword, but it shouldn't be why you're wielding a greatsword.

[2D8HP]

As a player a DM allowing or disallowing Feats is so far from a deal-breaker that it's almost beneath notice.

I've had PC's with the "Alert", "Observant", and "Skilled" Feats, and they seemed useful but not overpowering.

Were I to put on the DM hat again, the less content the easier, but eliminating some classes and sub- classes would be more helpful than not having Feats.


Some people like to play the sub-game of builds and character optimization, and having lots of options (like feats) favour that playstyle.

Some people want nothing to do with this, and would rather have a less complicated game with less power difference between "optimal" and "sub-optimal" characters.

This is why Feats and Multiclassing are optional rules in 5E: the latter kind of player disliked 3.x and 4E because all that complexity was mandatory.

5E is popular amongst a wide range of players because it takes this approach: there are multiple ways to enjoy the game, and neither are "right" or "wrong".


In every version of D&D that I've played I've played Fighters, and that Feats are mandatory for Fighters in 3.x D&D is a big hurdle for me.


One idea I saw someone post that would make Feats great, is the DM choosing the Feat (and skill) for Variant Humans in their campaigns to distinguish cultures or regions.

It'd enable them to give different human cultures distinctly different feels, as well as control the Feat/Skill combination to certain power levels. Given that unlimited choice is part of what makes Vumans such an overpowering choice, it's not a bad idea. (Conversely if you want mostly or heavily human party members in your campaign, free choice also isn't a bad idea.)

Edit: this route would be especially awesome in an otherwise Feat-free campaign.



I personally like feats because they make the character-building mini game more interesting and customizable for martials, and also help martials stay relevant when compared to spellcasters even into tier 3.

They also boost humans up from being a terrible race to being one of the best. If you don’t like them, I at least suggest letting your humans get expertise in a skill to help represent that human ambition and specialization.


Yeah, I just don't find V. humans "OP" at all.

When I described what I wanted my PC to be able to do, and asked:

"Half Elf or Variant Human? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?510603-Half-Elf-or-Variant-Human)

the majority advised: "Half-Elf".

And when I asked":

"Is a Feat really better than Darkvision? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?552468-Is-a-Feat-really-better-than-Darkvision)"

as best as I can tell a Feat is only better than Darkvision at first level if you strangely don't want a PC that sneaks in a dungeon, collecting loot, and occasionally puncturing scaly types with arrows and swords.

I've played plenty of humans, but that was fir sport.

I just don't see the OP.

(If do you have some simple advice on how to make a bow and sword wielding human OP, please let me know, okay?)

[Ignimortis]

If feats hadn't been implemented in 5e, I'm not sure I would've even bothered with it. Race+class+archetype is a poor customization ground. It might've been fine in 2e (race+class or race+class+kit if you're lucky), 30 years ago, but in 2018, when any videogame with RPG elements has more to choose from? I don't think it would really fly as well as it did.
Yes, there is GWM, and there's Lucky. There are also absolute trash feats like Weapon Master. But the middle ground between them is solid, and I really wish they'd divorce feats from ASIs, because how it's implemented now basically means "you either choose to be better at your main thing all the time or get some situational benefit from a feat".

[JoeJ]

... I really wish they'd divorce feats from ASIs, because how it's implemented now basically means "you either choose to be better at your main thing all the time or get some situational benefit from a feat".

So you can either broaden your abilities or become better at your specialty? That sounds like a feature, not a bug.

[jas61292]

I like feats as a concept in 5e. They are interesting and large in scope, but come at a cost. In fact, I consider the trade off of choosing an ASI or a Feat one of the smartest design decisions in the game. Choosing breadth or depth of power is a far better way of handling things than just giving everyone both. Especially with them being optional (another fantastic design decision), as if they were not overlapping, feat games would have straight up more powerful characters than featless games.

That said, in practice... feats suck.

The balance between them is god awful. The balance between feats and ASIs is nearly as bad. And they do not even come close to supporting all pillars of the game evenly. I know people love to argue that feats are good because they add ways for characters to differentiate themselves, but as pointed out in an early response here, that is mostly untrue. Your Sharpshooter archer is not special and unique. It is standard. Because if Sharpshooter is allowed, and you are an archer, you take it or you suck. Period.

Personally, I would love it if feats were changed up to only provide bonuses to non-combat pillars of the game, or at least only ever provided more options where they do effect combat. Any time a feat allows you to get extra attacks, or do more damage, it becomes nearly impossible to balance. Either it is weaker than an ASI in the appropriate stats, and thus is bad, or it is better and is standard. But, if feats were instead all about exploration and social abilities and the like, then they could actually add that variety to the game the people claim they do. D&D is a game that has many elements. Being really good at one element is great, but not necessarily any better than being less good at that one, but good at other things as well. Feats are good when they represent that tradeoff.

Sadly, that is not how feats currently are in 5e, unless you ban a number of them. That's what my table does, but I really wish I didn't have to.

[Ignimortis]

So you can either broaden your abilities or become better at your specialty? That sounds like a feature, not a bug.

I'm sure feats were designed like this, but I find it a bit unpleasant that the progression is so limited that you can't get better at two things at once. Taking Ritual Caster on a sorcerer is a pain, for instance.

[Tanarii]

To my mind, an ideal feat is: "Totally worth it if you were already trying to 'X' but not worth trying to do 'X' in the first place and want to specialize." So, GWM should be a no-brainer if you are wielding a greatsword, but it shouldn't be why you're wielding a greatsword.
Certainly a good argument as to why GWM, PAM and SS all need to be toned down. They drive people into the fighting styles, the don't just make them better if you were going to do it anyway.

[Finieous]

Certainly a good argument as to why GWM, PAM and SS all need to be toned down. They drive people into the fighting styles, the don't just make them better if you were going to do it anyway.

This is why arguments about "balance" are so pointless: GWM, PAM, and SS are all fine in my game, but not GWM + PAM, and I despise (and nerfed) Crossbow Expert. I'm happy if great weapon martials deal the most direct damage and archery specialists are best in ranged combat -- that suits my games. I'm not happy erasing the distinction between melee and ranged. Actually, the Finesse rule annoys me more than GWM, PAM, or SS...

Also, plenty of "suboptimal" feats get used in our games, because we have interests in play outside of combat.

Better to create the content, groups can pick and choose what they like, call it a day.

[Kane0]

If I were doing a 5.5e I'd probably separate ASIs from Feats as well, plus probably add a third thing like traits or something. I'd do this for a couple reasons.
- ASIs are straightforward but often necessary numerical increases
- Feats are more exciting, but also more complex and often situational
- Feats cover a wide range of mechanical and flavor benefits, many of which aren't very well balanced against each other
- Half-Feats are a somewhat clumsy answer to the problem of balancing ASIs with feats
- Adding more feats is difficult because of the limited space to choose them from

So following the Rule of Threes each character can be differentiated by class/race/attributes, then subclass/subrace/background, then feats/skills/traits.
Say you get an ASI (+X to Y stats of choice) every 5 or so levels, a Feat (combat pillar improvements) every 4 or so levels and a trait (exploration or interaction pillar improvements) every 3 or so levels. You could decouple these from class progression again like 3.X did, but whichever ends up being more streamlined in the end works for me. While we're at it go back to Fort/Reflex/Will saves, cut down the number of class levels to 15 and spell levels to 5 or so + cantrips, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Yes, this would increase complexity and annoy 2d8HP, and I feel bad about that. But I think it would be a better midpoint between 3.X's insane levels of (wonky power) customization and super-streamlined (blend-together PCs) TSR D&D.

[Ignimortis]

If I were doing a 5.5e I'd probably separate ASIs from Feats as well, plus probably add a third thing like traits or something. I'd do this for a couple reasons.
- ASIs are straightforward but often necessary numerical increases
- Feats are more exciting, but also more complex and often situational
- Feats cover a wide range of mechanical and flavor benefits, many of which aren't very well balanced against each other
- Half-Feats are a somewhat clumsy answer to the problem of balancing ASIs with feats
- Adding more feats is difficult because of the limited space to choose them from

So following the Rule of Threes each character can be differentiated by class/race/attributes, then subclass/subrace/background, then feats/skills/traits.
Say you get an ASI (+X to Y stats of choice) every 5 or so levels, a Feat (combat pillar improvements) every 4 or so levels and a trait (exploration or interaction pillar improvements) every 3 or so levels. You could decouple these from class progression again like 3.X did, but whichever ends up being more streamlined in the end works for me. While we're at it go back to Fort/Reflex/Will saves, cut down the number of class levels to 15 and spell levels to 5 or so + cantrips, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Yes, this would increase complexity and annoy 2d8HP, and I feel bad about that. But I think it would be a better midpoint between 3.X's insane levels of (wonky power) customization and super-streamlined (blend-together PCs) TSR D&D.

I would sign under all of this, including the stuff for other threads (though I don't think the level pruning would fly well, they're a sacred cow even though that might work way better than what we have right now). Maybe all classes might include some "recommended" feat choices so that people who really don't want to bother with customization can just pick a package and call it a day?

[JoeJ]

If I were doing a 5.5e I'd probably separate ASIs from Feats as well, plus probably add a third thing like traits or something. I'd do this for a couple reasons.
- ASIs are straightforward but often necessary numerical increases
- Feats are more exciting, but also more complex and often situational
- Feats cover a wide range of mechanical and flavor benefits, many of which aren't very well balanced against each other
- Half-Feats are a somewhat clumsy answer to the problem of balancing ASIs with feats
- Adding more feats is difficult because of the limited space to choose them from

So following the Rule of Threes each character can be differentiated by class/race/attributes, then subclass/subrace/background, then feats/skills/traits.
Say you get an ASI (+X to Y stats of choice) every 5 or so levels, a Feat (combat pillar improvements) every 4 or so levels and a trait (exploration or interaction pillar improvements) every 3 or so levels. You could decouple these from class progression again like 3.X did, but whichever ends up being more streamlined in the end works for me. While we're at it go back to Fort/Reflex/Will saves, cut down the number of class levels to 15 and spell levels to 5 or so + cantrips, but that's a discussion for another thread.

Yes, this would increase complexity and annoy 2d8HP, and I feel bad about that. But I think it would be a better midpoint between 3.X's insane levels of (wonky power) customization and super-streamlined (blend-together PCs) TSR D&D.

If I were going to separate ASIs from feats it would be to get rid of ASIs entirely and just have the feats.

[Ignimortis]

If I were going to separate ASIs from feats it would be to get rid of ASIs entirely and just have the feats.

How'd you propose to get to 20 STR, for example, if you started with 16? Taking four half-feats, which are notoriously useless in some cases? I mean, if you're a Fighter, then you'd have only Tavern Brawler, Heavy Armor Master, and Athlete which wouldn't give redundant bonuses. The last point is either from XGE's racial feats or from a feat that doesn't actually give you anything but the ability score.

That being said, I would assume that such a system would necessitate reworking feats anyway.

[MaxWilson]

If I were going to separate ASIs from feats it would be to get rid of ASIs entirely and just have the feats.

Seconded. I don't necessarily *mind* ASIs per se, but it does tend to cheapen things a bit when every PC maxes out at the same point. If every 20th level wizard has Int 20, then there's really no practical difference between rolling Int 14 and Int 18. They both turn into super-geniuses eventually.

Removing ASIs from considering would tend to make your stat rolls a little bit more important, and make characters distinct from each other. So I would be more likely to nix ASIs than to nix feats. Although I would also rename feats something more correct, like "perks" or "specialties." "Feat" in the English language means an accomplishment, not a capability. Killing a dragon is a feat. Being really good with archery is a specialty.


How'd you propose to get to 20 STR, for example, if you started with 16?

How did we propose to get to 18/00 Strength, back in the day, if we started with 16? Either you did you did it by adventuring: finding Gauntlets of Ogre Power, drinking from weird magical wells, spending a bunch of Wishes raising it, etc., or else you just didn't do it, and played a fighter with Str 16. Since Str 16 and 20 in 5E are much, much more similar than Str 16 and Str 18/00 were back in the day (Str 20 is a 60% power boost relative to Str 16, but Str 18/00 was a 500% power boost), this should work out okay.

[Jerrykhor]

Seconded. I don't necessarily *mind* ASIs per se, but it does tend to cheapen things a bit when every PC maxes out at the same point. If every 20th level wizard has Int 20, then there's really no practical difference between rolling Int 14 and Int 18. They both turn into super-geniuses eventually. Eventually reaching 20 in one stat is one thing, but how many ASIs is required is another, and that would be the opportunity cost of putting ASI in other scores or taking feats. Or you can be like me, who prefer to leave it at 18 and take feats.

Removing ASIs from considering would tend to make your stat rolls a little bit more important, and make characters distinct from each other. So I would be more likely to nix ASIs than to nix feats. Although I would also rename feats something more correct, like "perks" or "specialties." "Feat" in the English language means an accomplishment, not a capability. Killing a dragon is a feat. Being really good with archery is a specialty.

I don't think so. The current situation of ASI vs Feats is generally balanced, though ASI loses some importance if one rolled high for stats.

Feats, perks, talents... doesn't matter whatchacallit. But you do need the capability if you plan to accomplish something, unless you want to rely on sheer luck every time.

[Finieous]

If I were going to separate ASIs from feats it would be to get rid of ASIs entirely and just have the feats.

Thirded.


How'd you propose to get to 20 STR, for example, if you started with 16?

For about 26 years, most D&D characters didn't have the maximum prime attribute for their race. If you wanted superheroes, you could load the PCs up with attribute-increasing magic items, but it wasn't an assumption of the game. For some, this was a feature of the game that made PCs more diverse and interesting.

There were even very popular games, such as Traveller, that had no real ability advancement at all.

There's nothing wrong with liking ASIs; there's nothing wrong with disliking them, either.

[JoeJ]

How'd you propose to get to 20 STR, for example, if you started with 16? Taking four half-feats, which are notoriously useless in some cases? I mean, if you're a Fighter, then you'd have only Tavern Brawler, Heavy Armor Master, and Athlete which wouldn't give redundant bonuses. The last point is either from XGE's racial feats or from a feat that doesn't actually give you anything but the ability score.

That being said, I would assume that such a system would necessitate reworking feats anyway.

You get to 20 by rolling an 18 and having a +2 racial bonus. If I were designing 5.5e, ability scores would not change after character creation except as the result of some kind of magic.

[Ignimortis]

You get to 20 by rolling an 18 and having a +2 racial bonus. If I were designing 5.5e, ability scores would not change after character creation except as the result of some kind of magic.

Apparently, we have extremely different perception of how the game should be, then. I do not consider rolling for ability scores to be anything but a remnant of the days long past, and would always prefer point buy, unless it was absolutely impossible to roll worse than what the point buy would provide. Then again, I run my campaigns with 32 PB as the norm, and might even consider raising it.

[JoeJ]

Apparently, we have extremely different perception of how the game should be, then. I do not consider rolling for ability scores to be anything but a remnant of the days long past, and would always prefer point buy, unless it was absolutely impossible to roll worse than what the point buy would provide. Then again, I run my campaigns with 32 PB as the norm, and might even consider raising it.

Apparently so. I never allow point buy, although I do allow players to choose the standard array instead of rolling if they wish. I also even out the element of luck by having each player roll a set of six scores and allowing any player to use any of the sets.

[Unoriginal]

I find it a shame that so many tables seem to consider magic items optional. Magic items are one of the most fun part of this game, especially unpredictable and cool ones. If you are for some reason running a game that doesnt have magic items, then I think feats come back a bit in terms of importance for me. But generally I find that fun and powerful magic items (that dont just feel like some purely mechanical bs) clash heavily with feats, its hard to have both and maintain the "balance" of the game. So I chuck feats because I find magic items more fun, and I also prefer that attitude when I'm a player.

I get that feats are fun, but I almost feel as if most feats should be non combat oriented. Maybe its just experience but pretty much every feat thats been taken at tables ive played in can be summed up by Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, Resilient, and Observant. Its not very "varied" and doesnt really define anyones character but ends up feeling like a big chunk of power gained. And a magic item is also a big chunk of power gained, the difference being that a magic item in the game can feel very cool, rewarding, and can do unexpected and possibly wacky things in the game. Whereas a feat is a purely mechanical thing that almost feels like something you're supposed to have already when you get it, if that makes sense.

For all the people that pick stuff like actor, or linguist or whatever im not really talking about that. I'm just offering a perspective on disallowing feats that stems from what I hope is a cogent position and not based in just denying players "stuff", although I find that doing stuff like this is rarely with a malicious intent.

Magic items are not balanced, nor are they supposed to be.

[Unoriginal]

For about 26 years, most D&D characters didn't have the maximum prime attribute for their race. If you wanted superheroes, you could load the PCs up with attribute-increasing magic items, but it wasn't an assumption of the game.

Yes it was.

3.X absolutely had this assumption. 4e too, thought it was more overall bonus that specifically stat increase.

You may like the Christmas Tree effect of past editions, and it's fine, but let's not pretend it was not assumed as default.

[Quoxis]

The main arguments here are „feats are either OP or useless“ and „every build uses the same feats like GWM etc.“

I‘ve been playing 5e for over two years now, i‘ve met over 100 players according to my roll20 stats, i‘ve played in the low as well as the mid-to-high levels, and i‘ve seen about two GWM users, one single sharpshooter (mine), one heavy armor master (also mine), some people with feats like lucky that can be considered good no matter the build, and that’s about it with the common feats.
My group (with rolled stats) has a mad wizard with multiple „useless“ feats (including „skilled“ and „observant“) which he still regularly uses, mainly outside of combat.

Every single optimization guide i read so far focuses on combat prowess. Ok, D&D is far more combat oriented than other games, but having skills apart from combat and maybe stealth is useful in a balanced campaign.

[Glorthindel]

If I were going to separate ASIs from feats it would be to get rid of ASIs entirely and just have the feats.

Add my vote.

Its one of the changes in 3rd ed which made so much sense at the time (changing from the old stat charts which tracked a half dozen things differently to one simplified modifier based off the stat) but that I feel has caused considerable damage by making stats matter so much more than they did before (and making Dex the god-stat it has become).

[Unoriginal]

Dex is not a god-stat.

Something weird about 5e is that a lot of people see something that is somewhat advantageous and then go "it's OP/broken/god-tier".

Especially prevalent among optimizers, strangel enough.

[Ignimortis]

Magic items are not balanced, nor are they supposed to be.

Except they are. In 5e, magic items are not really unbalanced, because in the end they don't actually let you ignore the d20 roll. If you roll a 2 on your save, chances are you're failing it anyway. Same with attack rolls - even a +3 sword wielded by a level 20 hero with maximum stats gets +14 to attack in total, +15 if they have a relevant feat. That means that an AC of 20 can still be missed sometimes, just like it could be missed with a non-magic sword. Of course, a +3 sword can somewhat disturb the balance of a low-level game, but even then it's not really that much different from a rather more common +1, and it's much better mostly because it's magic and thus nothing resists it. Granted, if you drop a Blackrazor, that's a bit different, but it's a legendary item for a reason.

[Fire Tarrasque]

They're not completely useless, but they can absolutely be used! Sentinel, Power Attacker, Sharpshooter, War Caster, Elemental Adept, the racial feats, they are absolutely usable.

[sophontteks]

They're not completely useless, but they can absolutely be used! Sentinel, Power Attacker, Sharpshooter, War Caster, Elemental Adept, the racial feats, they are absolutely usable.
Yeah. Takes a heck of a stretch to call them useless. Most the feats are great sidegrades to ASI. A couple are OP and a couple are pretty weak.

[2D8HP]

....Because if Sharpshooter is allowed, and you are an archer, you take it or you suck. Period....


I've had plenty of archer PC's, and none of them had the "Sharpshooter" Feat.

I keep seeing posts to the effect that Sharpshooter is the Feat to grab, but it doesn't look as good to me as an ASI, especially when I see that to get the +10 to damage, you reduce the chance to hit.


...Yes, this would increase complexity and annoy 2d8HP, and I feel bad about that. But I think it would be a better midpoint between 3.X's insane levels of (wonky power) customization and super-streamlined (blend-together PCs) TSR D&D.


You know me well.

[Pex]

While I can't give an exact count of the number of players I've played with over the years in 5E, I'll guesstimate it's around 30.

Number of players who had Great Weapon Master: 0
Number of players who had Sharpshooter: 1
Number of players who had Pole Arm Master: 0
Number of players who had Crossbow Expert: 1
Number of players who had Lucky: 1
Number of players who had Observant: 2

If other people are having catastrophic game destroying problems with these feats, sorry to hear it, but their problems are not universal truths or happenstances. They are not so good everyone takes them. They are not so good when they are taken the game collapses into unplayability due to the character ruining everything.

If you need to house rule them to your liking, go for it. Have fun. Those of us who play them as is are not powergaming munchkin rollplayers having badwrongfun.

[Unoriginal]

Except they are.

No, they are not. Neither class nor encounter balance was calculated with magic items in mind.



In 5e, magic items are not really unbalanced, because in the end they don't actually let you ignore the d20 roll. If you roll a 2 on your save, chances are you're failing it anyway. Same with attack rolls - even a +3 sword wielded by a level 20 hero with maximum stats gets +14 to attack in total, +15 if they have a relevant feat. That means that an AC of 20 can still be missed sometimes, just like it could be missed with a non-magic sword. Of course, a +3 sword can somewhat disturb the balance of a low-level game, but even then it's not really that much different from a rather more common +1, and it's much better mostly because it's magic and thus nothing resists it. Granted, if you drop a Blackrazor, that's a bit different, but it's a legendary item for a reason.

Don't misunderstand me, 5e magic items are not *game breaking*, but it doesn't mean they're *balanced*.

No one went to do calculations and see if a Broom of Flying was as advantageous as a Cloak of Protection, or the like.


You could argue that the items themselves
are balanced due to the power they provide being compensated by their rarity and the consequences their nature can have (ex: falling from a Broom of Flying), even if they produce unbalance in the characters, but personaly I think it's splitting hair because magic items don't have an effect unless used by someone.

So sure, the Bard with a Ring of Protection isn't going to break the game or overshadow definitively the Bard who doesn't have it, but the Ring is still a straight up power boost to the character, that balance doesn't take into account.

[Ignimortis]

Well, my personal experience with GWM/SS is rather unpleasant, because people who can guarantee constant advantage rather dominate the low levels and if you're a somewhat competitive player like me, you don't really have other options to keep up in damage. Lucky is also rather annoying.


No, they are not. Neither class nor encounter balance was calculated with magic items in mind.

Don't misunderstand me, 5e magic items are not *game breaking*, but it doesn't mean they're *balanced*.

No one went to do calculations and see if a Broom of Flying was as advantageous as a Cloak of Protection, or the like.

You could argue that the items themselves
are balanced due to the power they provide being compensated by their rarity and the consequences their nature can have (ex: falling from a Broom of Flying), even if they produce unbalance in the characters, but personaly I think it's splitting hair because magic items don't have an effect unless used by someone.

So sure, the Bard with a Ring of Protection isn't going to break the game or overshadow definitively the Bard who doesn't have it, but the Ring is still a straight up power boost to the character, that balance doesn't take into account.

Oh, I agree with that. No argument there, guess I just got a bit overzealous over "balanced" being usually used as "oh no, it breaks the game".

[Pex]

Now we're getting on the case of magic items?

It is absolutely wonderful 5E classes do not need any one particular magic item in order to function at any level. It's perfectly fine buying magic items is not a default thing of assumption. If you as DM don't want them in your game, that's your business. If your players are happy with that arrangement, stupendous. That is not the same thing as magic items should never exist. 5E does not forbid magic items. 5e functions quite well with PCs having permanent use magic items.

Of course a magic item giving +1 to something matters. It is prudent for PCs not to have too many too soon. Magic items should complement a character, not define it. 5E does not collapse into unplayability because a PC has a permanent magic item that helps in combat. That doesn't mean give a 3rd level paladin a holy avenger and all is well. Magic items have different power levels. Good judgment is necessary. That's a feature for everyone to enjoy of the DM's job, not a bug to resent.

[2D8HP]

Well, my personal experience with GWM/SS is rather unpleasant, because people who can guarantee constant advantage rather dominate the low levels and if you're a somewhat competitive player like me, you don't really have other options to keep up in damage.....


COMPLETELY THEORETICALLY!, just how would one "guarantee constant advantage"?

-totally asking for a friend!!!

[strangebloke]

COMPLETELY THEORETICALLY!, just how would one "guarantee constant advantage"?

-totally asking for a friend!!!

Pack tactics and reckless attack are the usual answers...

with all of the associated downsides, of course.

[2D8HP]

Pack tactics and reckless attack are the usual answers...

with all of the associated downsides, of course.


So you need to play a Barbarian, Kobold, or a Wolf?

Thanks.

Eh, I'll my friend will probably stick to hiding, stealth, and surprise.

[GlenSmash!]

I love certain feats like Tavern Brawler and Prodigy that completely unlock a different play style for a character.

I dislike a lot of other feats.

Still I've always allowed Feats in my game, but for over 2 years no player ever took one.

[Zorrah]

Yeah, I don't think feats are one of those things that can make or break 5e, or even 4e for that matter, since powers are what really drove 4e, and they don't with 5e because it is archetypes that drive 5e. Honestly, I've found that I like having more choices in game than upon creation, which is one thing that 4e seemed to feed into, in theory, and honestly a little less in practice, and 5e so far in practice kind of does. The main draw for me in 4e was wizards don't have a 5 minute work day and fighters are more than just hit it a bunch of times with your weapon. 5e goes a long way in both those things without the need for feats.

I am one of those of the opinion that think the choice between whether to just get straight up better at doing things (ASI), or picking up additional tricks (feats) is brilliant, especially in the framework that 5e already lays down with it's archetypes. That you can have a fighter that's only tactical choice is which monster to hit with your weapon (champion) vs two choices that are fighter archetypes that have so much more to them, and this just being in the players handbook, is kind of awesome, and awesome enough to me that a choice between feats and numbers is really an icing on the cake thing. Feats never had to be awesome in 5e, but they had to be in 3e because that was what was driving your choices, both in creation and in game when you really got going (really, I slightly avoided that by playing mostly casters in 3e, but that 5 minute work day at early levels was a drag, until they introduced warlock).

Granted with choosing between ASI or feat, means that feats and ASI's need to be balanced more to each other, well, that was the thing with 4e, it was balanced to a knifes edge and that felt like it was detrimental to the system, over all, especially how it was assumed you would have just your items for your level. An overly or under generous DM blew that balance to crap (which, granted, is something that happens in any edition). I suppose the only real issue with feats is that they shouldn't drive your builds as heavily as they do for some (such as GWF), nor should they really be required to make a whole class of weapon even viable for a fighter (crossbow), but that's just being nit picky. Feats are awesome and pretty balanced as is.

[strangebloke]

I love certain feats like Tavern Brawler and Prodigy that completely unlock a different play style for a character.

I dislike a lot of other feats.

Still I've always allowed Feats in my game, but for over 2 years no player ever took one.

How high level were they? In my experience, feats do great work at keeping level ups exciting past level 6 or so. That first boost to your main stat feels good. That level 12 boost to your ancillary mental stat? Less so. Especially when, for many casters, you only feature for the last three levels has been the occasional high-level spell slot.

[Cynthaer]

Yes, there is GWM, and there's Lucky. There are also absolute trash feats like Weapon Master. But the middle ground between them is solid, and I really wish they'd divorce feats from ASIs, because how it's implemented now basically means "you either choose to be better at your main thing all the time or get some situational benefit from a feat".

Just to give some context, a number of feats in the PHB are basically there to fill gaps in campaigns that don't use multiclassing. In particular, anything that invites the question "why would I take this when I could take one level of ____" was likely designed with this in mind.

Weapon Master and Skilled are the big ones, with effectively zero use in a multiclass campaign. Lightly/Moderately/Heavily Armored hover around here too.

I think others like Martial Adept and Healer serve a similar function, and then there are a lot of feats like Magic Initiate that are common in all sorts of campaigns, but carry a bit of extra weight in single-class campaigns where they are the only way to splash a bit of utility that normally only belongs to another class.

[Ignimortis]

COMPLETELY THEORETICALLY!, just how would one "guarantee constant advantage"?

-totally asking for a friend!!!

Barbarian has two of those, actually. Reckless Attack and Wolf Totem for Pack Tactics (bring friends!)
Shooting is trickier, but it's generally agreed upon that a rogue who uses his bonus action to hide will have advantage on their next attack IF they hide successfully.
And, finally, you can concentrate on Faerie Fire, but that doesn't work as well.

[GlenSmash!]

How high level were they? In my experience, feats do great work at keeping level ups exciting past level 6 or so. That first boost to your main stat feels good. That level 12 boost to your ancillary mental stat? Less so. Especially when, for many casters, you only feature for the last three levels has been the occasional high-level spell slot.

Admittedly never past level level 8 due to DM and campaign shuffling.

[MagneticKitty]

I couldn't even run my build without a feat. Mounted combatant prevents my low hp animal companion from dying instantly. But it's not broken either, those hits have to go somewhere, I take them. I get boosts from riding and my mount gets survivability

[Diebo]

Just to give some context, a number of feats in the PHB are basically there to fill gaps in campaigns that don't use multiclassing. In particular, anything that invites the question "why would I take this when I could take one level of ____" was likely designed with this in mind.

Weapon Master and Skilled are the big ones, with effectively zero use in a multiclass campaign. Lightly/Moderately/Heavily Armored hover around here too.

I think others like Martial Adept and Healer serve a similar function, and then there are a lot of feats like Magic Initiate that are common in all sorts of campaigns, but carry a bit of extra weight in single-class campaigns where they are the only way to splash a bit of utility that normally only belongs to another class.

I agree. I'm in a group that doesn't multi-class much (or at all) and enjoy the challenge of trying to accomplish my build ideas single-class. Feats allow this. I'm playing an arcane trickster and took ritual caster at 4th, opening up a lot of ritual spells. A single level dip in wizard would be more optimal, but I can accomplish what I was looking for with a feat.

If neither feats nor multi-classing were allowed I wouldn't be able to build the character I conceptualize for a lot of builds. I'd still play, but I'd probably stay away from some classes/sub-classes.

[KorvinStarmast]

I personally like feats because they make the character-building mini game more interesting and customizable for martials, and also help martials stay relevant when compared to spellcasters even into tier 3. They also boost humans up from being a terrible race to being one of the best. If you don’t like them, I at least suggest letting your humans get expertise in a skill to help represent that human ambition and specialization. OK, not a bad idea.
Apparently, we have extremely different perception of how the game should be, then. I do not consider rolling for ability scores to be anything but a remnant of the days long past, It's the default method in the rule book.

Magic items are not balanced, nor are they supposed to be. Interesting observation. JC said in XGTE that the design model presumes for a campaign from 1-20 for a group, the idea was that about 100 magic items, total, show up. (To include consumables. )
Just to give some context, a number of feats in the PHB are basically there to fill gaps in campaigns that don't use multiclassing. In particular, anything that invites the question "why would I take this when I could take one level of ____" was likely designed with this in mind. Interesting way to look at it.

[CantigThimble]

I've had plenty of archer PC's, and none of them had the "Sharpshooter" Feat.

I keep seeing posts to the effect that Sharpshooter is the Feat to grab, but it doesn't look as good to me as an ASI, especially when I see that to get the +10 to damage, you reduce the chance to hit.

Personally, I think quadrupling your range and ignoring cover (allowing penalty free fire into melee) is plenty to justify the feat. As an added bonus, when you happen to have advantage you can pile on the damage.

[Quoxis]

So you need to play a Barbarian, Kobold, or a Wolf?

Thanks.


Kobold Wolf Barb 3/Beastmaster 3 (wolf companion)/Moon Druid X anyone?

[Whit]

I agree and disagree with OP

Here are my fantastic arguments for both sides

1. The players characters are suppose to be heroes. Heroes are not always but MOSTLY have abilities and special skills (feats) than ordinary people. See every fantasy hero book movie.
2. Abilities rolled, fixed etc are once again above non heroes but not necessarily way beyond. Increasing stats or putting into feats adds to what a hero is. Extraordinary. If every character only put into stats, they would all be vanilla heroes. But not to say it’s a bad thing but more of a generic thing. Feats add a special hero ability to a vanilla hero in return stats lose an increase
3. Example 1. The 5 heroes increase all their stats the fighter has 18 str the thief 18 dex or 20 int wizard. etc, vanilla but nonetheless hero stats
Feats. the hero has a 17 str or dex which is still way above normal but has sharpshooter feat. Now he’s like Robin Hood or leogolas? From lord of the rings making amazing shots or damage. Or Frodo with lucky feat vs all that happened etc.
It just adds a different special heroistic flavor than just increasing stats.
4. But do I agree with all feats. NO. There are some that imho are to strong or to weak but that is subjective to each person, and how the campaign is played. I’m not a mini max stat or damage player. An example of that imho is the human variant dex fighter archer fighting style with sharpshooter. At lvl 1 with let’s say fixed stats dex 15(16) and sharpshooter feat and archery fight style you have to hit +3 dex and +2 archery and +1 lvl bonus = +6 to hit. Damn high But then you use sharpshooter take a -5 hit penalty so you still get +1 to hit and do an extra 10 damage.

Or you get awareness can’t be surprised and get +5 to initiative so yiur supper reflex to go first almost all the time. Or lucky where you can re roll 3x your hit or hit against you or save. Etc pretty damn buff
Even multi class can add damage dice potential or extra attack’s to increase damage potential.

I would say some feats need to. Hanged but not be removed.

[Chaosmancer]

Thinking on the "every archer has sharpshooter" line of thinking, this is a bigger or smaller problem depending on your groups turn over (either in characters or players).

Lucky has a special place of hatred in my heart, because I see it in almost every game I play and in my long running campaign I think I ended up with THREE characters in the same party using it.

However, sharpshooter? Only one person had it that I can recall, and being the only one capable of shooting massive distances and ignoring cover felt like a really cool thing ONLY that character could do. Sure, intellectually I know any other sharpshooter could do the same, but there were no other sharpshooters in the group.

So, this is a bigger thing if you are doing AL or Westmarches or anything else when you're seeing dozens of different characters a month. But less impactful if there is little overlap between the 6 characters you see for 6 months or longer

[Knaight]

Feats are basically your bog standard talent system, as implemented all over the place for decades - they weren't new when 3e used them, and are hardly just a holdover from 3e specific design.

As for their purpose, it's an axis of character customization. Usually they're paired with a stat/skill system, where everything that isn't either a broad capability (a stat, attribute, whatever) or skill in a particular area (a skill) gets lumped into a talent/advantage/whatever and a flaw/disadvantage/whatever system.

This can make D&D feat implementations a bit awkward, as class abilities fill a bit of a similar niche, and the way feats are gradually gained can prevent a lot of common talents from really working as feats. Still, that's the design space they fill, and it's useful to have something there. That's why they're liked.

[Finieous]

Yes it was.

3.X absolutely had this assumption. 4e too, thought it was more overall bonus that specifically stat increase.


Right, which is why I said it wasn't an assumption for 26 years: 1974-2000.



You may like the Christmas Tree effect of past editions, and it's fine, but let's not pretend it was not assumed as default.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Neither ability score improvement or "the Christmas Tree effect" were assumed as default for Classic D&D or AD&D.

[Ellisthion]

In every version of D&D that I've played I've played Fighters, and that Feats are mandatory for Fighters in 3.x D&D is a big hurdle for me.

I have a friend who is exactly this. She's played Fighters in every edition and she hated 3.5 because they were messy and had a lot of trap options. Her favourite was 1E because Fighters are fairly straightforward and very strong.


[Rolling for stats is] the default method in the rule book.

Aye. People who hate this (and the optional-ness of feats an multiclassing) need to consider that perhaps their experiences are not a representative sample of the entire 5E player-base. There is no single "correct" way of playing: if you don't like it, that's fine, but don't condemn those who do like it.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I like feats in concept, but less so in execution, and it pretty much entirely comes down to the opportunity cost of having to trade an ASI for them. Too many feats fall into either "no-brainer" or "not worth it." Getting half an ASI from half-feats doesn't help as much as you might think, either, since the ASI being predetermined by the feat really restricts which builds they do well with. If you're looking for a half-feat for Charisma, for example, there are precisely 2 half-feats that grant a Cha ASI: Actor, and Resilient.

Actor is a hyper-specialized feat that is going to depend extremely heavily on the nature of the campaign and the flexibility of the DM, while Resilient Charisma is redundant for most Cha-based characters, who will usually have proficiency in the save from their class (and even if they don't, Cha saves are among-if-not-the rarest in the game).

On top of that, a lot of half-feats feel like things I should be letting players attempt without needing a feat for it.

One of these days I'm thinking of sitting down and sorting feats out into different categories, and then just granting access to them by category at certain character levels. Like, each time you reach a character level that gives a proficiency bonus increase, you get a feat point that you can either spend on a cheap feat, or save toward a more expensive feat later.

The third half-feat for Charisma is Inspiring Leader, and it is excellent. My Noble Bard and his entire group will not have it said otherwise.

[mephnick]

Lucky has a special place of hatred in my heart, because I see it in almost every game I play and in my long running campaign I think I ended up with THREE characters in the same party using it.


Lucky is the only feat I ban. GWM and SS are just damage, who cares? Lucky is the only feat that I think makes the game LESS interesting. It slows the game down (I hate almost all reroll mechanics) and turns memorable moments (crits and failures) into "nope, nothing interesting happens, carry on."

[Theodoxus]

I'd be ok with removing ASIs, provided there were guaranteed methods (but not necessarily guaranteed ways to obtain said methods) of boosting attributes permanently. The 'magical waters/tome of X/wish' concepts are all fine. A player can have their character quest to be the strongest human in existence - and through the campaign stumbles upon strength inducing elixirs and herbs.. maybe some with detrimental effects... +2 Str, but -1 to all mental stats? Might be worth the trade off...

I think I'd rather trade off ASIs for Traits - where traits are a significant boost that either differentiates your race (stronger Dragonborn breathweapon, or expanded High Elf magic, for instance) or your class, granting a singular 3rd level ability perhaps (Battlemaster with Champion crit range? A barbearian with the zealots no cost res? A Thief with rakish audacity...) [These would probably be level 8 traits...]

I'll have to brainstorm a bit.

[Mith]

I'd be ok with removing ASIs, provided there were guaranteed methods (but not necessarily guaranteed ways to obtain said methods) of boosting attributes permanently. The 'magical waters/tome of X/wish' concepts are all fine. A player can have their character quest to be the strongest human in existence - and through the campaign stumbles upon strength inducing elixirs and herbs.. maybe some with detrimental effects... +2 Str, but -1 to all mental stats? Might be worth the trade off...

I think I'd rather trade off ASIs for Traits - where traits are a significant boost that either differentiates your race (stronger Dragonborn breathweapon, or expanded High Elf magic, for instance) or your class, granting a singular 3rd level ability perhaps (Battlemaster with Champion crit range? A barbearian with the zealots no cost res? A Thief with rakish audacity...) [These would probably be level 8 traits...]

I'll have to brainstorm a bit.

As someone who likes a lot of 5e's design goals, but still keeps BECMI close to their heart, I look forward to your musings.

[Xihirli]

Well you can make a really powerful character by pumping your secondaries once your primary is maxed so no need for them.

[Morty]

Feats are basically your bog standard talent system, as implemented all over the place for decades - they weren't new when 3e used them, and are hardly just a holdover from 3e specific design.

As for their purpose, it's an axis of character customization. Usually they're paired with a stat/skill system, where everything that isn't either a broad capability (a stat, attribute, whatever) or skill in a particular area (a skill) gets lumped into a talent/advantage/whatever and a flaw/disadvantage/whatever system.

This can make D&D feat implementations a bit awkward, as class abilities fill a bit of a similar niche, and the way feats are gradually gained can prevent a lot of common talents from really working as feats. Still, that's the design space they fill, and it's useful to have something there. That's why they're liked.

Well, yeah, but they've only been a thing in D&D for what, 20 years? It takes a while for features to become respectable and natural in this franchise.

[Daithi]

Personally, I love feats. I want to have a more powerful character and feats provide an option that I need to balance against what an ASI would provide. Picking between these options is part of the fun. It's not much different than deciding which spells to select, or sub-class to select, or... you get the idea. Building your character is part of the fun and feats add to that fun. Simple as that.

[Knaight]

Well, yeah, but they've only been a thing in D&D for what, 20 years? It takes a while for features to become respectable and natural in this franchise.

You're not wrong. I was trying to avoid making cheap jabs at D&D here (despite opportunities for my usual cracks), but it's earned this one, and this does explain why we'd get a thread titled 'Feats Suck'.

[ProseBeforeHos]

Is it simply because some of them are so optimal?

Mostly this. They make or break certain fighting styles (e.g. polearm master for those who want to use polearms).

5e feats are kinda naff. Losing out on an ASI is such a big deal there's not a huge incentive to take any but the very best of them. 3.5 automatically giving you feats as you level was actually much better for character customization.

[jas61292]

Is it simply because some of them are so optimal?

Mostly this. They make or break certain fighting styles (e.g. polearm master for those who want to use polearms).

5e feats are kinda naff. Losing out on an ASI is such a big deal there's not a huge incentive to take any but the very best of them. 3.5 automatically giving you feats as you level was actually much better for character customization.

I find this sentiment odd. In my experience, ASIs matter comparatively little in 5e. Yeah, they are good to have, but the reason you see 1 of the same 5 feats on what seems like 99% of martial characters is because they so outclass an ASI its not even funny. While there are obviously a few feats where the opposite is the case, I find that for most feats, they are comparatively of similar value to a PC as an ASI, at least for a player who knows there is more to the game than just combat. But even if you are mostly concerned with combat, I really don't see ASIs as essential. The scale of 5e is strange in that a single +1 to an ability is very powerful, while at the same time far from essential. Just low level enemies with weak attacks are still relevant at higher levels, a PC with lower stats is still perfectly viable at high levels, so long as they are getting something in exchange for those lower stats. And when ASIs represent increased power, the trade of should be for more options.

When a feat makes you stronger at your main thing than boosting your main stat, it is missing the real point of what feats are good for.

[Morty]

You're not wrong. I was trying to avoid making cheap jabs at D&D here (despite opportunities for my usual cracks), but it's earned this one, and this does explain why we'd get a thread titled 'Feats Suck'.

Cheap jabs aside, D&D 5e inherits most of the problems that feats had since 3e, avoids some and adds more. Removing feat chains and prerequisites avoids some issues, but then all feats are supposed to be equal, and it's pretty clear they're not. Then we've got the usual problem of feats allowing things that should really be a no-brainer for characters using certain skills or weapons. And then you've got Sharpshooter, which even if we ignore the -5/+10 clause, basically bypasses a major part of fighting at range.

[JoeJ]

Cheap jabs aside, D&D 5e inherits most of the problems that feats had since 3e, avoids some and adds more. Removing feat chains and prerequisites avoids some issues, but then all feats are supposed to be equal, and it's pretty clear they're not. Then we've got the usual problem of feats allowing things that should really be a no-brainer for characters using certain skills or weapons. And then you've got Sharpshooter, which even if we ignore the -5/+10 clause, basically bypasses a major part of fighting at range.

Why do you think all feats are supposed to be equal? What would equal even mean given characters with different focuses in campaigns with different mixes of combat, exploration, and social interaction? Sharpshooter is great in its niche, but it's probably not going to help you find out which of the king's advisors is the traitor, or get you past the traps protecting the treasure chamber of some ancient wizard.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Why do you think all feats are supposed to be equal? What would equal even mean given characters with different focuses in campaigns with different mixes of combat, exploration, and social interaction? Sharpshooter is great in its niche, but it's probably not going to help you find out which of the king's advisors is the traitor, or get you past the traps protecting the treasure chamber of some ancient wizard.

This, exactly. We focus way too much on combat and numerical factors here on this forum. I have yet to see anyone take GWM, SS, PAM, or CBE. I've seen one spell sniper, but he rarely used Eldritch Blast anyway. I see people take linguist, observant, alert, and other such feats. Combat is something that happens, not the whole focus of a character.

Edit: I also see people (shock) not dump INT even if it would be numerically advantageous.

[Whit]

I checked around 3 5 player tables and noted
Lvl 1-3 Following results
Table A. 4 human varient duel wield , sharpshooter, keen sense , alert
Table B all human varient alert , luck, luck , GWM, grappler
Table C 2 human varient luck and alert

From what I see more often than not is people taking human varient to get a free feat.

[sophontteks]

I checked around 3 5 player tables and noted
Lvl 1-3 Following results
Table A. 4 human varient duel wield , sharpshooter, keen sense , alert
Table B all human varient alert , luck, luck , GWM, grappler
Table C 2 human varient luck and alert

From what I see more often than not is people taking human varient to get a free feat.
Rookies didn't properly value darkvision.

[Pex]

Rookies didn't properly value darkvision.

If darkvision is such a good thing you'd be a fool not to have it, then variant humans getting a feat is fair exchange for not having darkvision.

Of course this makes dragonborn chumps, but then the problem is with dragonborn not variant humans getting a feat.

[sophontteks]

If darkvision is such a good thing you'd be a fool not to have it, then variant humans getting a feat is fair exchange for not having darkvision.

Of course this makes dragonborn chumps, but then the problem is with dragonborn not variant humans getting a feat.

Dragonborns are chumps. The problem is very much their own. They are terrible.

And yeah, it is a fair exchange. The fact that the person I responded to was saying they are so prominant is evidence that the players at the table are not realizing this. Espesially any who wish to scout/stealth around.

EDIT: you're not the person I was originally replying to.

[Theodoxus]

Rookies didn't properly value darkvision.

Or you overvalue it.

Darkvision has had zero impact on any AL game I've played. It affects my homebrew because I actually changed it back to Infra/Ultra and Low Light... but in a regular game? lanterns, torches and the Light cantrip are just as effective.

[sophontteks]

Or you overvalue it.

Darkvision has had zero impact on any AL game I've played. It affects my homebrew because I actually changed it back to Infra/Ultra and Low Light... but in a regular game? lanterns, torches and the Light cantrip are just as effective.
This forum overvalues AL.

But consider that dim light confers disadvantage and makes it impossible to sneak. Bright light of a torch is 20 meters. So it the light spell. Any attack outside that is at disadvantage.

[MeeposFire]

The only things I do not like about the current feats and structure is when feats are being used as the only way for most classes to patch basic issues in the game that probably should not be in the game. As for examples I would use the part of warcaster which lets you cast holding a weapon (playing an EK should not be so hard without this on such a basic level) or also how you need dual wielder just to draw two weapons. These sort of things should be baked into the standard rules in some ways (my houserules include how you can draw two weapons with one object interaction so long as you draw both at the same time for instance and certain classes like teh EK could have abilities that allow them to bypass simple problems like casting with a weapon and shield in hand).

I also do not like it if a feat ability feels like something that should be just a normal part of a skill (I get that with some class abilities at least debatably) but that does not bother me as much. To me feats should be mostly combat oriented but allow you to do cool things that are class agnostic.

[Theodoxus]

This forum overvalues AL.

da fuq that even mean?

I'm guessing you must play mostly on Roll20 with their ****ty light mods. Trust me, no one is using darkness and dim light like you obviously think they are/desire.

As much as people bitch about metagaming, the #1 most overmetagamed thing is light levels. Every game I've played - every single one - the DM has hand waved light levels because they're way too much of a pain in the ass to deal with. Some start out hyped up to be 'ultra realistic' and then realize the players are going to overcome the problem and it's just easier to not deal with it.

I'm happy your table is keeping it real. The rest of us realized a LONG time ago that it wasn't a hill worth fighting on.

[sophontteks]

da fuq that even mean?

I'm guessing you must play mostly on Roll20 with their ****ty light mods. Trust me, no one is using darkness and dim light like you obviously think they are/desire.

As much as people bitch about metagaming, the #1 most overmetagamed thing is light levels. Every game I've played - every single one - the DM has hand waved light levels because they're way too much of a pain in the ass to deal with. Some start out hyped up to be 'ultra realistic' and then realize the players are going to overcome the problem and it's just easier to not deal with it.

I'm happy your table is keeping it real. The rest of us realized a LONG time ago that it wasn't a hill worth fighting on.
Wow, no. I play full campaigns. Mini campaigns like AL are much more limited. But, uh, nice assumption?

But yeah, if you ignore light then darkvision sucks. I'm just talking about the rules as written and intended.

[ProsecutorGodot]

This forum overvalues AL.

But consider that dim light confers disadvantage and makes it impossible to sneak. Bright light of a torch is 20 meters. So it the light spell. Any attack outside that is at disadvantage.

There is actually a pretty well discussed thread here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?552468-Is-a-Feat-really-better-than-Darkvision/page5) about specifically Darkvision when compared to a feat.

The general consensus, whether it's from a balance standpoint, a fun standpoint or a usefulness standpoint is that lack of darkvision is much easier to overcome than a lack of feat and that sight rules are commonly misunderstood/abused. I'll also parrot a point I made in that thread, keeping a sword with light cast on it sheathed is a good way to keep a human prepared for a fight in the dark and only the party's scout absolutely needs darkvision.

A character not having darkvision is okay. A party not having darkvision is less okay, but still okay.

[Pex]

Dragonborns are chumps. The problem is very much their own. They are terrible.

And yeah, it is a fair exchange. The fact that the person I responded to was saying they are so prominant is evidence that the players at the table are not realizing this. Espesially any who wish to scout/stealth around.

EDIT: you're not the person I was originally replying to.

I know, but there are some people who think variant humans ruin the game to unplayability worthy of banning because they get a feat.

I say different.

We're likely on the same side in this.

[JoeJ]

Or you overvalue it.

Darkvision has had zero impact on any AL game I've played. It affects my homebrew because I actually changed it back to Infra/Ultra and Low Light... but in a regular game? lanterns, torches and the Light cantrip are just as effective.

Because getting shot by enemies with advantage is fun? Having a light in the dark lets you see for a short distance, but allows others to see you out to the limits of line of sight, and detect you even around corners.

I guess a lot depends on what you think happens in a "regular game." In OOtA a character without darkvision is likely to create significant problems for the party.

[Willie the Duck]

Feats as a concept are fine. Great even. I have a v. human criminal background Champion Fighter 8 (16/16/14/13/12/13) with Medium Armor Master, Healer, Inspiring Leader, and Ritual Caster (wizard) -- At 8th level he still has 16s in his combat stats, but he is multi-talented, adaptable, and fits with any party.

At worst, feats create a lot of stir around certain builds--the ranged sharpshooter/crossbow expert. The melee PAM+GWM+Sentinel. The <insert bizarre build facilitated by taking Magic Initiate or Spell Sniper for a specific cantrip>. Those are unfortunate overspecialization (on the boards at least. I've heard that the standard halberd-martial character is somewhat rare IRL because no one wants to be accused of being cheesy). But that's the case with warlock's darkness spell and devil's sight. And Healing Spirit. And Life Cleric + Goodberry. And Life Cleric 1/Lore Bard X-1. And Wish+Simulacrum. Despite the strong rulings-over-rules mystique 5e tried to go for, people still find abuses, tricks, and optimizations. Certain feats go on that pile, but the certainly aren't the only things, nor are all feats like that (nor underpowered in the other direction. There are plenty of 'just good enough' feats).

[mephnick]

Every game I've played - every single one - the DM has hand waved light levels because they're way too much of a pain in the ass to deal with.

It's actually really easy? But I also track encumbrance and follow travel rules. I guess I'm just a god damn genius and everyone should get on my level.

But yeah, throwing out race and class features because of laziness is probably the way to go.

[sophontteks]

I know, but there are some people who think variant humans ruin the game to unplayability worthy of banning because they get a feat.

I say different.

We're likely on the same side in this.

I got ya. I've seen v.humans get shafted more often then not, espesially v.human rogues. Try playing a human in out of the abyss for a real challenge. I had to get used to DMing light levels right quick.

More specifically,
I let the v.human rogue reroll because being a blind scout wasn't very fun.
And the monk, well he's just blind quite often when the party doesn't want to get jumped. But he's cool with it at least.

[strangebloke]

Or you overvalue it.

Darkvision has had zero impact on any AL game I've played. It affects my homebrew because I actually changed it back to Infra/Ultra and Low Light... but in a regular game? lanterns, torches and the Light cantrip are just as effective.

It's value varies greatly from campaign to campaign. Playing a game where your in the underdark, or where you're fighting kobolds in their warrens? It makes things better for you.

Playing a game where most of the encounters happen in city streets and out doors? Not so much.

It's a "Raise Your Worst Case" ability, as opposed to feats, which are generally, "Improve your best case" sorts of things. Except for Lucky, Resilient, Tough, and a few other notables.

[Finieous]

This forum overvalues AL.

But consider that dim light confers disadvantage and makes it impossible to sneak. Bright light of a torch is 20 meters. So it the light spell. Any attack outside that is at disadvantage.

I may just be misunderstanding you, but are you arguing that attack rolls in dim light are made with disadvantage?

[strangebloke]

I may just be misunderstanding you, but are you arguing that attack rolls in dim light are made with disadvantage?

Correct.

And darkvision only allows you to treat darkness as dim light. So in reference to the light spell, you can think of darkvision as a means of improving your effective range of combat.

[sophontteks]

I may just be misunderstanding you, but are you arguing that attack rolls in dim light are made with disadvantage?

Yes, my bad. Just perception. Still a big deal. Light only goes out 40 meters, thats not far.

[Finieous]

Correct.

And darkvision only allows you to treat darkness as dim light. So in reference to the light spell, you can think of darkvision as a means of improving your effective range of combat.

Yeah, as clarified below, that ain't right.

[Finieous]

Yes, my bad. Just perception. Still a big deal. Light only goes out 40 meters, thats not far.

Yeah, I'm on your side of the argument: darkvision is great. (Dynamic Lighting in Roll20 is also great, despite what Theodoxus says. :smallbiggrin:)

[Whit]

I agree. Light dim and darkness need to be used more. Although what’s a good way without slowing up the game.
I see to many people play humans with no real light source or if there is one they are out of the range. Not to mention the players with low intelligence wisdom or charisma and NOT rollplaying it

[KRSW]

I think the main problem is that regular human is a terrible race and there is no merit to playing it at all. No darkvision, no extra skills, no extra anything, just mediocre stat increases. At least a few of which probably wont matter when you make your character, and will continue to not matter until you stop playing the character. That in comparison to variant human, half-elf, or aasimar (just to name a few) if someone just wants to play a regular human in 5e, why in the world would you ever want to not play variant human? You get the feat anyway, why not pick the best option for what you want to do with the character.

If a feat is underused, its probably because what the feat does is uninteresting. So, can you really blame people for not taking savage attacker when they can just take great weapon master and fulfill the use of their bonus action atleast some of the time? I think GWM and SS are purely metagame feats because they encourage players to estimate armor class and try to build around getting advantage or more bonuses to attack in some way. I feel that type of metagaming isnt bad though, and its more like a probability minigame you do in your head to decide whether you use it or not anyways.

If someone thinks feats are too powerful and you dont use them, what about fighting styles? How are you going to tell your player that you dont allow fighting styles at all because archery is much better than the other fighting styles? Please, do not try to tell me that "Oh well thats a class feature and Paladin, Ranger, Fighter are the only ones that get it so its a class defining ability." No, that is literally the same reasoning for GWM and SS, and those classes in addition to Barbarian are the ones that take those "SUPER OP" feats.

All of 5e is unbalanced, from Challenge Rating to the optional flanking rule in the DMG, denying martial characters the use of these feats and allowing full casters to cast fireball is ridiculous.

[Unoriginal]

5e is balanced. Being equaly good does not mean being equaly good at the same things.

[KRSW]

If you think about it, it's the 'called shot' that everyone loves to try to ask for at some stage, (can I aim for their eye/hand/yarbles?), and it's finally part of the game.

What's funny, is that I think what those feat/fighting style combos end up doing is equalizing spellcasters and martials for optimization-heavy players. They make the martials more interesting, powerful, and fun.

Imbalance is fun.

And I agree with you entirely.

I may have been a bit overzealous saying all of 5e is unbalanced, I am pretty sure I dont actually think that.

Fighter is my favorite class, and the extra ASIs the class gets is pretty underwhelming with no feats. What am I supposed to do with no feats? Max CON after Strength? That's boring.

As a side note, I think Counter-Strike is a good example of a pretty balanced game

[djreynolds]

Sorry to offend anybody, but I just can't get my head around why feats are so common/hyped. I personally just don't like them, and I wondered why people do.

Is it carry-over from 3.5?

Is it simply because some of them are so optimal?

Is there a better reason?

Please help me. I honestly just don't get them.

Thanks!

Like multiclassing, it is optional.

But like multiclassing, it shows growth and adaptation.

The champion fighter gets ASI/feats 7 times in their 20 year career, but the book doesn't tell where to place all these.

It's up to you to determine through practice and experience in game whats more important.

Perhaps +2 in wisdom is not enough to stave off fear. Now is when you learn, adapt and grow.

The paladin is naturally unafraid. She says just stick by me

The cleric has wisdom saving throw proficiency and a high wisdom score and spells. The cleric could teach you how to be proficient in wisdom saves or a spell good versus evil.

The bard, though, tells you the paladin was not always courageous as she seems. He says, the heroism spell is effective for all fear, even dragons.

The barbarian says, I'm scared all the time, so I hold the great sword with two hands and swing it as hard as I can.

The game and other players will mold you, feats and multiclassing really enhances this.

Give yourself in game reasons why you might choose a feat or multiclass or not.

And then weigh those choices.

And have fun

[Tanarii]

If you think about it, it's the 'called shot' that everyone loves to try to ask for at some stage, (can I aim for their eye/hand/yarbles?), and it's finally part of the game. Thats the problem. Called Shot mechanics are inevitably imbalanced when they are at will. Less so when they stick with the abstraction (aka hit points).

That said, GWM's -5/+10 is okay in isolation. Because of bounded accuracy, hit bonuses are uncommon. And its somewhat balanced with the high damage output of a 2h weapon, especially a non-polearm. It is in combination with advantage it is totally imbalanced.

And SS is likewise imbalanced because of the high hit bonus of archery style and low base damage of ranged attacks. Not to mention the rest of the feat making tactical play boring and mostly unnecessary for ranged characters.

[jas61292]

Thats the problem. Called Shot mechanics are inevitably imbalanced when they are at will. Less so when they stick with the abstraction (aka hit points).

That said, GWM's -5/+10 is okay in isolation. Because of bounded accuracy, hit bonuses are uncommon. And its somewhat balanced with the high damage output of a 2h weapon, especially a non-polearm. It is in combination with advantage it is totally imbalanced.

And SS is likewise imbalanced because of the high hit bonus of archery style and low base damage of ranged attacks. Not to mention the rest of the feat making tactical play boring and mostly unnecessary for ranged characters.

This. 100%.

It's not that the power is too much. It's that in practice there is no trade off. And this ties to my single biggest frustration with 5e: the advantage system. I actually love the system in theory. But the design of it is clearly one of a DM controlled system. Yet despite this, players have dozens of ways to basically say "I have advantage." This being in the players hands as all is frustrating, but it being the most common implementation of it is completely contrary to what makes the system good. It makes the best ways to attack be the less about clever plans and actions, and more about routine mechanical procedures. If you only had advantage when you do something neat out unexpected, GWM would be decent, but not ridiculous. But when every barbarian every has advantage 100% of the time, and other classes are not too far behind, it becomes a bit busted.

And then there is sharpshooter that is busted regardless, due to archery fighting style and the feat literally removing every single drawback that ranged combat has. But that's a different issue.

[mephnick]

Reckless Attack comes with drawbacks. If the DM builds encounters properly using it in every combat is a death sentence, even for a raging barbarian. And without Reckless Attack GWM is completely fine, it's a big hit penalty for a bit of damage and an extra attack some times, whoop-de-do. I've whiffed on a lot of GWM attacks.

Sharpshooter is a problem because everything that feat and style does stacks on top of each other. Archery style to improve hit bonus, remove cover to improve hit bonus, now extra damage for no cost.

[Tanarii]

Reckless attack is not a death sentence unless combined with reckless tactics and no rage. Any barbarian worth his salt should not hesitate to use it unless circumstances are highly unusual.

Edit: I say that, but of course players aren't exactly good at NOT combining reckless tactics, poor judgement, and abilities with downsides like reckless comes with. So I'm gonna roll back my arrogant bs statement right now. :smallamused: I've seen barbarians heedlessly charge, by themselves, into a pack of enemies a few times.

[Ignimortis]

Reckless Attack comes with drawbacks. If the DM builds encounters properly using it in every combat is a death sentence, even for a raging barbarian. And without Reckless Attack GWM is completely fine, it's a big hit penalty for a bit of damage and an extra attack some times, whoop-de-do. I've whiffed on a lot of GWM attacks.

Sharpshooter is a problem because everything that feat and style does stacks on top of each other. Archery style to improve hit bonus, remove cover to improve hit bonus, now extra damage for no cost.

I've seen a Bearbarian in play from levels 3 to 8. He did not have any reason at all to not use Reckless Attack. At times he would forgo the damage bonus from GWM, but considering a bearbarian has like twice the effective HP while raging unless you hit him with psychic damage, the advantage on attacking him didn't do that much, because he still killed enemies faster than they did him.


Reckless attack is not a death sentence unless combined with reckless tactics and no rage. Any barbarian worth his salt should not hesitate to use it unless circumstances are highly unusual.

Edit: I say that, but of course players aren't exactly good at NOT combining reckless tactics, poor judgement, and abilities with downsides like reckless comes with. So I'm gonna roll back my arrogant bs statement right now. :smallamused: I've seen barbarians heedlessly charge, by themselves, into a pack of enemies a few times.

And they're about the best class to count on to come out of the pack alive.

[strangebloke]

Reckless attack is not a death sentence unless combined with reckless tactics and no rage. Any barbarian worth his salt should not hesitate to use it unless circumstances are highly unusual.

Edit: I say that, but of course players aren't exactly good at NOT combining reckless tactics, poor judgement, and abilities with downsides like reckless comes with. So I'm gonna roll back my arrogant bs statement right now. :smallamused: I've seen barbarians heedlessly charge, by themselves, into a pack of enemies a few times.

I think what Mephnick is saying is: There are potentially very serious downsides to leaving yourself open to attack beyond taking damage. Rage helps mitigate damage, after all, but it doesn't help with debuff-on-hit abilities like nets.

Lots of monsters have abilities that let them initiate a grapple or a a poison attempt or something else nasty on a successful hit. Some of those things the barbarian is well-equipped to deal with... other things not so much.

Shadows, Vampire Spawn, and ghouls are all great examples of creatures you do not want to be touched by.

Creatures that grapple you on a hit, like an otyugh, are no cakewalk either. Even if a barbarian can escape easily, it costs him his whole action to do that.

[Morty]

Balance aside, GWM and Sharpshooter's -5/+10 features just look odd in 5e's design. I feel like forgoing your proficiency bonus to gain twice that to damage would fit better, even if the balance issues would remain.

[Tanarii]

Balance aside, GWM and Sharpshooter's -5/+10 features just look odd in 5e's design. I feel like forgoing your proficiency bonus to gain twice that to damage would fit better, even if the balance issues would remain.
The problem with that is it scales weird. IIRC your DPR gets worse as your proficiency bonus goes up, for the same base damage. (I could be recalling wrong though.) edit: I must be recalling wrong, otherwise -5/+10 wouldn't ever be worth it. Maybe it drives up the break point AC at which it's worth using the ability then? Something like that, I just remember it has funky scaling.

[Pex]

If a feat is underused, its probably because what the feat does is uninteresting. So, can you really blame people for not taking savage attacker when they can just take great weapon master and fulfill the use of their bonus action atleast some of the time? I think GWM and SS are purely metagame feats because they encourage players to estimate armor class and try to build around getting advantage or more bonuses to attack in some way. I feel that type of metagaming isnt bad though, and its more like a probability minigame you do in your head to decide whether you use it or not anyways.



It's not metagaming. The character is right there facing the creature. He can see what armor it's wearing or has natural tough hide or otherwise how it presents itself. The character is trained in combat, so he knows what to look for in his opponent's defenses that need to be overcome.

[KRSW]

I agree with the common consensus that GWM and SS are some of the more powerful feats, but to be honest I think that the martial classes need these to become and stay relevant in comparison to other classes. Another reason that its fine, is I like playing DnD as a cooperative game, and if the way your party wants to cooperate is by having a sorcerer twin haste on your party GWM/SS and they run in and kill stuff then whats the problem with these feats being powerful?

I guess my main problem with banning/disallowing things because they are too powerful is that once you do that then something else becomes the most powerful thing. Its like that in any game that has any customization choices that impacts how you play the game, always. If you dont use them because you think they bog the game down or whatever thats fine. I would much rather enable the aforementioned twinned hasted martial death duo than watch sorc/wizards spam fireball or shatter or something of the sort. Things that give the team a good reason to work together and support each other in combat is very welcome in my opinion.


It's not metagaming. The character is right there facing the creature. He can see what armor it's wearing or has natural tough hide or otherwise how it presents itself. The character is trained in combat, so he knows what to look for in his opponent's defenses that need to be overcome.

I agree that it is reasonable to say its not true metagaming, more that it makes the player think about all that stuff like armor class and +to hit, which are just game mechanics and not something the character knows anything about. I do the same thing, I play GWM and ask the DM what their armor looks like and if they have a shield or not, then I estimate their armor class and decide if I should use -5/+10. I guess metagame is poor word choice for it but I dont really know how else to describe that situation.

[Willie the Duck]

I agree with the common consensus that GWM and SS are some of the more powerful feats, but to be honest I think that the martial classes need these to become and stay relevant in comparison to other classes. Another reason that its fine, is I like playing DnD as a cooperative game, and if the way your party wants to cooperate is by having a sorcerer twin haste on your party GWM/SS and they run in and kill stuff then whats the problem with these feats being powerful?

And with that, I dislike the idea that the only way martial classes can stay relevant is with one of these few select builds. My games seem to play different than others seem to experience, and the spellcasters spend a lot more time spamming cantrips and conserving their spells than I hear other people talk about. But if they are the norm and GWM or SS are necessary to stay relevant, then they should be removed from the feat list and be made a class feature.

Even then, I would rather just up the martial power level in another way and remove the -5/+10 effect because it seems to have been a miscalculation. The -5 is supposed to be a significant hardship, yet readily available ways of getting advantage seem to make it a minor burden at best. If it is accidentally too good, yet isn't a problem because it fixes another accident of martials not being good enough without it, then the whole design is off and then I wish they could go back to the drawing board*.
*5e being a huge success means they won't, but hey, wishes and horses.

[Pex]

I've seen warriors play without those feats and do just fine, even if you only care about dealing damage. Paladin has his smites. If great weapon style works on smites as it can in my paladin game, the damage increases. I do not have great weapon master and have no desire to take it. I don't need it. Other paladins went with shield and defense.

I haven't seen a Champion in play, but the Battlemaster does fine with his maneuvers. They're good for tactical play and the extra d8 damage is nice where applicable. Action Surge is the goto when they want to nova for a round. The Eldritch Knight went for durability. High AC, high hit points, spells for buffing or an attack cantrip. He does not drop. Monsters are dead before he has to worry about anything. He also took Shield Mastery.

The Barbarians I've seen also depend on durability - resistance to damage to have monsters be dead before they are. Increasing Strength and Constitution have been their priorities.

I notice a pattern. Except for my paladin because great weapon style works on smites, the warriors went for defense and durability. They don't need a combat to end quickly. They're fine with the assist of party members doing their part to make monsters dead. They do their damage, but never dropping themselves is as important if not more important.

[Asmotherion]

@OP:

You don't have a starting point about "why feats suck". You just come and say "I think feats suck, prove me wrong".

I think you already know what people like about feats, and whant someone to engage in an arguement, in order to use their points to "prove them wrong".

Let us focus on how you think feats would not suck, in your words instead, and let's work our way from there.

A) How would you improve feats in any way from the way they are now, without destroying game balance or character customisation options?
B) What is it about Feats that anoys you so much? Do you think the system can realistically be better without them? If yes, is that your Honest oppinion, or just for the sake of not loosing an arguement?

When done with this, and back on your original question: If you still, honestly cannot see how feats affect D&D in any way, I rest my case.

[Mith]

Here's a thought about the -5/+10 mechanic: What if you could minus 1+1/2 your proficiency bonus/ add 2+proficiency bonus to damage. It's a bit wonky, but it means that the penalty and reward scale, and your skill still scales.

It doesn't have to be half, but we already use that number elsewhere in the game. The only reason I add the +1 is that at beginning levels it becomes a flailing hit relying on innate skill, then scales with you.

[Tanarii]

Here's a thought about the -5/+10 mechanic: What if you could minus 1+1/2 your proficiency bonus/ add 2+proficiency bonus to damage. It's a bit wonky, but it means that the penalty and reward scale, and your skill still scales.

It doesn't have to be half, but we already use that number elsewhere in the game. The only reason I add the +1 is that at beginning levels it becomes a flailing hit relying on innate skill, then scales with you.
I'm fairly sure that does something that makes it slightly worse for the player as they go up in level. At least for -prof/+2*prof. I'll see if I can't find some of Kryx's old comments on it.

[Mith]

I'm fairly sure that does something that makes it slightly worse for the player as they go up in level. At least for -prof/+2*prof. I'll see if I can't find some of Kryx's old comments on it.

Kryx suggests using Disadvantage instead. I am trying for a decreased proficiency bonus, but not a completely nullified one.

[Citan]

A common refrain but practically untrue. At every table and everywhere on this board feats are discussed in power terms and cloaked in language like "DPR". They are rarely used for the purposes of backstory. How very distinct your 3 GWM players are.

I agree with the OP in that I think feats take more away than they add. They add a lot of power to characters and ultimately foce magic items to be weaker in compensation. They focus the game back on character building which is not my inclination. I think a character without feats but with magic items, and powers aquired through play is a more fulfilling character for the whole game and i have felt that way as a player and a dm.
Nobody is entitled to decide how people play, but one is completely alone in choosing who to play with.
Change table, it will get better.

As for these boards, well people around here tend to be fairly autonomous in creating backgrounds and stories, so discussions tend to focus on mechanics.
And because many feats will wildly vary in actual mechanical benefit depending on party, campaign and DM, except when one wants to check if some particular use-case would be deemed reasonable, discussion on them are kinda pointless.

So naturally discussions will tend to focus on mechanics which practical benefits will be a tad easier to evaluate.

[Saggo]

I'm fairly sure that does something that makes it slightly worse for the player as they go up in level. At least for -prof/+2*prof. I'll see if I can't find some of Kryx's old comments on it.

The basic premise he argued with -prof/+2*prof was that it didn't change the average DPR, which you can test in his DPR spreadsheet by just swapping the GWM and SS values. If damage curves stay the same, then the performance of classes with consistent advantage still exceeds other builds at the same rate.

So while it might feel different in play, statistically you haven't addressed the performance gap.

[the_brazenburn]

@OP:

You don't have a starting point about "why feats suck". You just come and say "I think feats suck, prove me wrong".

I think you already know what people like about feats, and whant someone to engage in an arguement, in order to use their points to "prove them wrong".

Let us focus on how you think feats would not suck, in your words instead, and let's work our way from there.

A) How would you improve feats in any way from the way they are now, without destroying game balance or character customisation options?
B) What is it about Feats that anoys you so much? Do you think the system can realistically be better without them? If yes, is that your Honest oppinion, or just for the sake of not loosing an arguement?

When done with this, and back on your original question: If you still, honestly cannot see how feats affect D&D in any way, I rest my case.

1. I would change them so that the overused/broken ones (Alert, Lucky, GWM, PAM, SS, etc.) are severely nerfed, the underpowered ones are buffed, and you gain them automatically at certain levels instead of being forced to choose between taking a feat and dropping an ASI.

2. I'm not annoyed at feats in general, just the way 5e does them and that they are so overused. When people on these boards start talking about how amazing their Great Weapon build is, I just want to cringe. I don't think the feats should be scrapped totally, I just don't like the way they've been implemented in 5e.

I know perfectly well that feats affect D&D. I just don't like the 5e ones.

[Waazraath]

1. I would change them so that the overused/broken ones (Alert, Lucky, GWM, PAM, SS, etc.) are severely nerfed, the underpowered ones are buffed, and you gain them automatically at certain levels instead of being forced to choose between taking a feat and dropping an ASI.

2. I'm not annoyed at feats in general, just the way 5e does them and that they are so overused. When people on these boards start talking about how amazing their Great Weapon build is, I just want to cringe. I don't think the feats should be scrapped totally, I just don't like the way they've been implemented in 5e.

I know perfectly well that feats affect D&D. I just don't like the 5e ones.

I don't recognize most of this. Most campaigns I played in were featless to begin with, and the ones with feats aren't disturbed by using them. As for seeing always the same ones on these kind of fora: of course, true, but that's cause this is a place where people (mostly) share builds. Optimal, cool, look at how long my, eh, I mean high my DPR / AC / Initiatieve etc. is. In real life, playing games, my experience is that those builds are rarely played, and they are ajusted to the campaign, background, stat rolls, party make up, etc. I've yet have to see my first party member with either GWM, PAM or SS. Ymmv, but I've seen nothing being overused. As for the choice between ASI and a feat; well, I somehow understand, especially for the classes that have little wiggling room there (like the monk, that really wants a 20 dex, 20 wis and decent con). But for the most party, it's an interesting trade off, that makes characters really diverse. The +2 stat is so meaningful in 5e, that a feat is a sacrifice, even a really good feat.

That a few are really underpowered, yeah, I see that, that's a shame. But it's an optional rule, and nobody forces you to pick one of the few bad ones, so, meh.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Frankly the only "must have" feat I've seen is Lucky. And that's because my group is seriously risk averse and rolls like crap (and the current DM's dice are brutal--multiple crits in a row).

[strangebloke]

Frankly the only "must have" feat I've seen is Lucky. And that's because my group is seriously risk averse and rolls like crap (and the current DM's dice are brutal--multiple crits in a row).

Hence why it's the only feat banned in my game.

[mephnick]

Hence why it's the only feat banned in my game.

Same. I hate Lucky so much.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hence why it's the only feat banned in my game.

It wouldn't be so desired in my games if the people could routinely roll well (except for the DM's d20s). We had one person who, over nearly 25 rounds, hit a grand total of maybe 6-7 times. Against creatures she should have been hitting 65% of the time. And then she rolled 3 consecutive 1s for damage on firebolt :smallbiggrin:

[Willie the Duck]

1. I would change them so that the overused/broken ones (Alert, Lucky, GWM, PAM, SS, etc.) are severely nerfed, the underpowered ones are buffed, and you gain them automatically at certain levels instead of being forced to choose between taking a feat and dropping an ASI.

Agree I guess. In particularly based on the underbalanced ones. There is no reason, since we have already been through 3e once, that we really need 'options no one will use.' Still, that is hardly unique to feats. There are plenty of places where I would rebalance things. Dragonborn 4 element monk/Champion Fighter/Wild Sorcerers who like two-weapon fighting would like to have a word with the half-elven Paladin/Divine Soul Sorcerers with GWM, PAM, and a +3 Halberd or the like. I don't find the variability in feats to be greater than with the rest of the ruleset (particularly amongst the optional rules, such as multiclassing, and magic items).


2. I'm not annoyed at feats in general, just the way 5e does them and that they are so overused. When people on these boards start talking about how amazing their Great Weapon build is, I just want to cringe. I don't think the feats should be scrapped totally, I just don't like the way they've been implemented in 5e.

I know perfectly well that feats affect D&D. I just don't like the 5e ones.

Beyond that point, I'm going to discuss the bolded part. It seems perhaps that your mostly angry (and not going to take it any more) with the discussion of feats. Specifically on online forums. And how frequently they get brought up? I think it sounds to the rest of us like some outside frustration is getting rolled up into this discussion.

[Pex]

Biased as I may be, I think the real issue some people have with Lucky is that the player makes the DM reroll a die. There's a misstep in the power dynamic. I speak from similar experience. In my old Pathfinder group I played a dual-cursed Oracle with the Revelation that can force others to reroll a die. The DM got bothered quickly when I made him reroll the Natural 20 he rolled for the monsters and bad guys attacking party members. He almost made me retire the character when addition to that I had party members reroll a failed saving throw roll or a Natural 1 on attack rolls, but he eventually calmed down and got used to it.

I agree the feat is strong, but I disagree it's game breaking. Unfortunate events still happen to PCs, but I don't see how tragic it is it happens a few times less often per day.

[strangebloke]

Biased as I may be, I think the real issue some people have with Lucky is that the player makes the DM reroll a die. There's a misstep in the power dynamic. I speak from similar experience. In my old Pathfinder group I played a dual-cursed Oracle with the Revelation that can force others to reroll a die. The DM got bothered quickly when I made him reroll the Natural 20 he rolled for the monsters and bad guys attacking party members. He almost made me retire the character when addition to that I had party members reroll a failed saving throw roll or a Natural 1 on attack rolls, but he eventually calmed down and got used to it.

I agree the feat is strong, but I disagree it's game breaking. Unfortunate events still happen to PCs, but I don't see how tragic it is it happens a few times less often per day.

It's always a power play with you, yeah? I get that you have had bad DMs -so have I- but you're honestly just really insulting.

See, if I was just a power-monger, I would have a problem with portent as well, or with Shield or even with effects that impose disadvantage on my monsters. But I have absolutely zero problem with portent or shield or absorb elements or any of that shiz-niz. I think there are all cool and thematic abilities. The thing is, Lucky has no in-universe justification. In flavor, it's 'luck' but mechanically there's no luck involved whatsoever. It's as predictable as getting an extra attack three times a day. The character doesn't have luck points, as far as he knows, so it's really the Player who is deciding to use them. When a player drops a luck point, nothing is happening in-game. As a result, it isn't fun to narrate.

Shield? Shield is fun to narrate.

Example:

DM: "The giant's eyes settle on you, Ranier. He grabs a chunk of destroyed pillar from the ground and throws it straight for you."
*Rolls a 14*
Ranier: (nervously) "I cast shield? My AC with shield is 22."
DM: "You see the massive boulder headed straight for you. There's no time to get out of the way, so you raise your hand in a simple gesture and the rock shatters as it collides with invisible force, falling into dust around you."

vs.

DM: "The giant's eyes settle on you, Ranier. He grabs a chunk of destroyed pillar from the ground and throws it straight for you."
*Rolls a 14*
Ranier: (nervously) "I use a luck point."
*Rolls a 9*
DM: "You try to dodge out of the way, but your leg catches on something and you aren't able to move. The boulder crashes inches to your left. If you hadn't caught your leg, you would have been hit."

The narration for a Lucky-imposed miss is no different from the narration of a normal miss, really, except that you get to play up how much of a close call it was. If I were to make a Lucky feat I would make it actually random, like the halfling's luck trait. You don't know when it'll come up, but when it does, you will feel plenty lucky.

If you still think this is my sadism as a DM speaking, imagine for a moment a DM who gives every boss monster the Lucky feat. Such a monster wouldn't feel 'Lucky,' he'd feel like he had 3 extra legendary resistances that can also negate crits. Possible to balance, sure, but not the flavor that 'Lucky' usually implies.

[mephnick]

It's got nothing to do with power dynamic. Dice rerolls slow everything in the game down. It breaks down the flow. Instead of describing what happens I have to wait to see if someone wants to use a reroll almost every time something happens whether they use it or not. Multiple players might have this. It's fine in a boardgame, it's terrible design in D&D. Not to mention it makes the game less interesting as crits and failures push the game forward and add drama.

[Mith]

If I were to make a Lucky feat I would make it actually random, like the halfling's luck trait. You don't know when it'll come up, but when it does, you will feel plenty lucky.

What if the DM tracks behind the screen, and therefore the player doesn't know what reserves of Luck they have. Make it count on enemy attacks, and failed saves.

[Sigreid]

Hence why it's the only feat banned in my game.

I've not seen anyone in my group take lucky.

[strangebloke]

It's got nothing to do with power dynamic. Dice rerolls slow everything in the game down. It breaks down the flow. Instead of describing what happens I have to wait to see if someone wants to use a reroll almost every time something happens whether they use it or not. Multiple players might have this. It's fine in a boardgame, it's terrible design in D&D. Not to mention it makes the game less interesting as crits and failures push the game forward and add drama.

Just curious, do you also have a problem with counterspell/shield/portent and other limited-use reaction abilities? I know that they slow things down less than lucky does, due to being much more narrow in application, but they still have the effect of slowing things down and removing some drama.

[sophontteks]

In the game I DM the halfling drunken monk took lucky. I suggested it because his entire character concept is that he is just incredibly lucky. The only problem is that he really is incredibly lucky IRL and has yet to even use his halfling luck ability.

It would be an annoying feat if multiple people took it, but it still has its place in moderation under the right circumstances.

[strangebloke]

What if the DM tracks behind the screen, and therefore the player doesn't know what reserves of Luck they have. Make it count on enemy attacks, and failed saves.

If you don't know whether it's being used or not, seems kind of lame.


I've not seen anyone in my group take lucky.

Same here, but I've played at AL tables where people had it. Even if it was the best feat ever for my character I wouldn't take it. I think it's obnoxious.

[mephnick]

Just curious, do you also have a problem with counterspell/shield/portent and other limited-use reaction abilities? I know that they slow things down less than lucky does, due to being much more narrow in application, but they still have the effect of slowing things down and removing some drama.

Portent and counterspell are fine because they take place before the roll. The player just dictates it's happening. I'm pretty hardline about them jumping in and stating it immediately though, they don't get to mull it over. Shield is more annoying but like you say it's limited to one specific thing which makes it bearable, it's also quite important to most who take it so I grant it some leeway. No one needs Lucky so I feel free to ban it.

[Tanarii]

The basic premise he argued with -prof/+2*prof was that it didn't change the average DPR, which you can test in his DPR spreadsheet by just swapping the GWM and SS values. If damage curves stay the same, then the performance of classes with consistent advantage still exceeds other builds at the same rate.

So while it might feel different in play, statistically you haven't addressed the performance gap.
No, thats no the issue.

The issue is that +6/-12 is worse than -2/+4. Because you need a lower base damage, or have a higher threshold AC, before it becomes useful to use.

[Saggo]

No, thats no the issue.

The issue is that +6/-12 is worse than -2/+4. Because you need a lower base damage, or have a higher threshold AC, before it becomes useful to use.

You may be thinking of a different conversation, but it is an issue, and it was one Kryx pointed out.

[Pex]

It's not so difficult to describe luck happening. The easy out is you don't have to. Presuming the luck roll turned a defeat into a victory the defeat never happened in the first place. The victory result was always the case. Game mechanics meant there was an extra d20 rolled, but the narrative never changed. If you were to describe it that's where coincidence comes into play. Turning a miss into a hit could mean the opponent was blocking but just then slightly stumbled on a pebble at the right moment to have his defensive maneuver falter giving you the landed blow. Making a saving throw against being charmed could mean your inner voice reminded you who your new friend really is. When making the bad guy's success a failure, the orc's arrow was about to hit you but a brief gust of wind just happened to pass by blowing the arrow off course. The evil warlock was about to blast you with his Eldritch might, but he sneezed losing his aim.

[sophontteks]

It's not so difficult to describe luck happening. The easy out is you don't have to. Presuming the luck roll turned a defeat into a victory the defeat never happened in the first place. The victory result was always the case. Game mechanics meant there was an extra d20 rolled, but the narrative never changed. If you were to describe it that's where coincidence comes into play. Turning a miss into a hit could mean the opponent was blocking but just then slightly stumbled on a pebble at the right moment to have his defensive maneuver falter giving you the landed blow. Making a saving throw against being charmed could mean your inner voice reminded you who your new friend really is. When making the bad guy's success a failure, the orc's arrow was about to hit you but a brief gust of wind just happened to pass by blowing the arrow off course. The evil warlock was about to blast you with his Eldritch might, but he sneezed losing his aim.
IMO Luck is not declared before the roll. Its declared after. So you would have to narrate both. I wouldn't allow it any other way. And luck is great fun to narrate.

Arrow missed. Hits wall, arrowhead ricochets into weakpoint of opponents armor anyway.

Missed punch and slipped, but in the process they accidently elbow the opponent, saving them from falling while hurting them just the same.

Tried to dodge spell, failed dex, by freak chance a bird flies by at the last moment and takes the damage.

Oppnent charms you. But as the charm spell takes your mind, and the evil wizard begins to grin, you loudly fart, breaking the silence along with the wizards concentration.

[JoeJ]

IMO Luck is not declared before the roll. Its declared after. So you would have to narrate both. I wouldn't allow it any other way. And luck is great fun to narrate.

Arrow missed. Hits wall, arrowhead ricochets into weakpoint of opponents armor anyway.

Missed punch and slipped, but in the process they accidently elbow the opponent, saving them from falling while hurting them just the same.

Tried to dodge spell, failed dex, by freak chance a bird flies by at the last moment and takes the damage.

Oppnent charms you. But as the charm spell takes your mind, and the evil wizard begins to grin, you loudly fart, breaking the silence along with the wizards concentration.

It's declared after the roll, but that doesn't have any necessary impact on the narration. You can just as easily narrate based on the outcome of the whole process.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's declared after the roll, but that doesn't have any necessary impact on the narration. You can just as easily narrate based on the outcome of the whole process.

That's how I've always conceptualized it. Until the action as a whole is resolved, in-game time is paused. Narration is done based on the end result, not on any sub-component of the action. Lucky (just like any other conditional reroll) is a modification to the resolution mechanic, not a separate effect, and thus takes place as part of the action resolution.

[sophontteks]

That's how I've always conceptualized it. Until the action as a whole is resolved, in-game time is paused. Narration is done based on the end result, not on any sub-component of the action. Lucky (just like any other conditional reroll) is a modification to the resolution mechanic, not a separate effect, and thus takes place as part of the action resolution.
I have only one question.
Why?

It seems if you can narrate dice rolls, especially when an ability was used to change the outcome, why wouldn't you? Its just missing out on a good roleplaying opportunity. I literally force my players to narrate luck every time they used it. You got lucky. Show me how.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have only one question.
Why?

It seems if you can narrate dice rolls, especially when an ability was used to change the outcome, why wouldn't you? Its just missing out on a good roleplaying opportunity. I literally force my players to narrate luck every time they used it. You got lucky. Show me how.

You can do both--

"That blade would have hit me, but instead as I went to dodge, I slipped on a pebble, making it glance off my armor."

But you don't narrate anything until the action is resolved completely, because otherwise you have to deal with temporal inconsistency or ret-cons.

Additionally, I don't insist on narrations of every attack roll. Usually only special things, like killing blows, witty bon mots, critical hits, etc. get special narration. Otherwise the flow of things slows down too much. But that's pure taste on my part--I prefer fast flowing action to lengthy narration.

[Snails]

Fighter is my favorite class, and the extra ASIs the class gets is pretty underwhelming with no feats. What am I supposed to do with no feats? Max CON after Strength? That's boring.


It "should" take some skill/teamwork to make a feat better than an ASI in your primary stat. So if some posters are saying that they seem not quite good enough at level 4, the designers did that on purpose.

The real question is how they compete with a secondary stat ASI circa level 12.

But, yes, once the Fighter has pumped his starting Str 16 to 18 to 20, having no real option but boosting Con is kind of bor-ring at level 8.

[sophontteks]

You can do both--

"That blade would have hit me, but instead as I went to dodge, I slipped on a pebble, making it glance off my armor."

But you don't narrate anything until the action is resolved completely, because otherwise you have to deal with temporal inconsistency or ret-cons.

Additionally, I don't insist on narrations of every attack roll. Usually only special things, like killing blows, witty bon mots, critical hits, etc. get special narration. Otherwise the flow of things slows down too much. But that's pure taste on my part--I prefer fast flowing action to lengthy narration.
Neither do I. It can get a bit repetitive. I agree that time is stopped. You narrate it all as one sequence of events. I just insist that the sequence is honored.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Neither do I. It can get a bit repetitive. I agree that time is stopped. You narrate it all as one sequence of events. I just insist that the sequence is honored.

But it's not inherently a sequence of events at all. It can be narrated that way, but each roll has no meaning unless you give it one. In real terms, there was only one roll--the one that ended up getting resolved. The "lucked" roll supplants the previous one. It doesn't sequentially follow it.

"The dragon breathed right at me, but I didn't take the brunt of it somehow." That could be a successful DEX save or a failed one with a luck point added. Or you could narrate that "a sudden draft of wind blew some of the acid away at the last second", which is clearly a luck point. Both are identical, except for the narration. And that's dealer's choice.

Same goes for anything else. You could narrate a normal success as a near-failure, saved by something lucky (especially in a more silly/slapstick game). Or that could be a luck point. There is no difference unless you want there to be.

[sophontteks]

But it's not inherently a sequence of events at all. It can be narrated that way, but each roll has no meaning unless you give it one. In real terms, there was only one roll--the one that ended up getting resolved. The "lucked" roll supplants the previous one. It doesn't sequentially follow it.

"The dragon breathed right at me, but I didn't take the brunt of it somehow." That could be a successful DEX save or a failed one with a luck point added. Or you could narrate that "a sudden draft of wind blew some of the acid away at the last second", which is clearly a luck point. Both are identical, except for the narration. And that's dealer's choice.

Same goes for anything else. You could narrate a normal success as a near-failure, saved by something lucky (especially in a more silly/slapstick game). Or that could be a luck point. There is no difference unless you want there to be.
I consider failing a roll and using a feat to roll again a pretty deliberate sequence of events. In game terms there were two rolls. One was a miss. And another came from an ability called lucky. If we just play this as a hit, then its not luck. I would never let someone use lucky without being lucky. Its just poor roleplay.

You can roleplay other roles as whatever you want. But if you hit someone with a sword, you roleplay that you hit with a sword. If you hit someone with luck roll, well, thats a very different thing to roleplay.

[JoeJ]

I consider failing a roll and using a feat to roll again a pretty deliberate sequence of events. In game terms there were two rolls. One was a miss. And another came from an ability called lucky. If we just play this as a hit, then its not luck. I would never let someone use lucky without being lucky. Its just poor roleplay.

That's a sequence of events at the table, not a sequence of event in the game world. In the game world there was only one event; the action that succeeded or failed.

[sophontteks]

That's a sequence of events at the table, not a sequence of event in the game world. In the game world there was only one event; the action that succeeded or failed.
In your game world. In mine roleplay is not optional.

You may think that divination wizards can only change rolls before they are rolled for balance. But the truth is they can't because it represents them predicting the future and they can't change a roll after the fact because it actually happened in the game world.

Luck can, because luck changes the narrative after the fact.

[ProsecutorGodot]

In your game world. In mine roleplay is not optional.

You may think that divination wizards can only change rolls before they are rolled for balance. But the truth is they can't because it represents them predicting the future and they can't change a roll after the fact because it actually happened in the game world.

Luck can, because luck changes the narrative after the fact.

If you narrate it that way at your table. If you decide to narrate a failure before you're sure that it was explicitly a failure, that's on you. Your players can't roleplay being lucky that they dodged the dragons breath at the last second, all they know is that one of their two rolls successfully dodged. It's on you to be the narrator in this sense.

Your players literally cannot roleplay inexplicable luck. Things happens, that's luck, good or bad.


You can roleplay other roles as whatever you want. But if you hit someone with a sword, you roleplay that you hit with a sword. If you hit someone with luck roll, well, thats a very different thing to roleplay.

Gosh I can just imagine being at your table, having to come up with incredibly ridiculous ways my sword found its way into the heart of my enemies.

"I rolled poorly, let me use luck, okay 18"

"That's a hit, tell me how you did it"

"Well I swung for his head and it struck true, decapitating him"

"Gee that doesn't seem very lucky, I'll have to take your first roll instead, which was a miss. You should have roleplayed attacking them with your out of game world luck dice instead of your in game world sword. We'll have to talk about you not properly roleplaying your lucky feat later."

[sophontteks]

If you narrate it that way at your table. If you decide to narrate a failure before you're sure that it was explicitly a failure, that's on you. Your players can't roleplay being lucky that they dodged the dragons breath at the last second, all they know is that one of their two rolls successfully dodged. It's on you to be the narrator in this sense.

Your players literally cannot roleplay inexplicable luck. Things happens, that's luck, good or bad.



Gosh I can just imagine being at your table, having to come up with incredibly ridiculous ways my sword found its way into the heart of my enemies.

"I rolled poorly, let me use luck, okay 18"

"That's a hit, tell me how you did it"

"Well I swung for his head and it struck true, decapitating him"

"Gee that doesn't seem very lucky, I'll have to take your first roll instead, which was a miss. You should have roleplayed attacking them with your out of game world luck dice instead of your in game world sword. We'll have to talk about you not properly roleplaying your lucky feat later."

Do you notice how everyone else hates luck as a feat and I love it.

Everyone else says its mechanically too strong and doesn't add to the game while I'm talking about my player who loves coming up with awesome RP reasons to explain his drunken monk halfling's luck?

Oh woe is me. Its so hard to come up with a hilarious lucky stint three times per long rest. Is that seriously too difficult for some people?

[SodaQueen]

I love using feats. They're a great way to customize a character in a game with few customization options. Most recently, I offered a free "fluff feat" at level one which worked great. Otherwise, my only restrictions are "please don't take Sharpshooter or GWM as your Human variant feat" and "if you take Lucky, you gotta roleplay it and make it part of the character," a lá Matrim Cauthon.

Haven't had any issues and everyone at my tables has fun. But that's the great thing about feats: they're a variant feat so you don't have to use them!

Sure, I'd be a little bummed not being able to take Actor for my exiled drow bard who masquerades as a wood elf pretending to be a drw in order to hide in plain sight, or to not be able to take Keen Mind for my intuitive high Int "weak third son of a noble lord" human fighter. But feats really just make a character better at the things the player wants them to be able to do, in combat or in roleplay. You can do it without feats, but the feats sure help (plus, I like having a familiar so Magic Initiate is always a favorite!)

[JoeJ]

In your game world. In mine roleplay is not optional.

You may think that divination wizards can only change rolls before they are rolled for balance. But the truth is they can't because it represents them predicting the future and they can't change a roll after the fact because it actually happened in the game world.

Luck can, because luck changes the narrative after the fact.

What's the hostility about? Roleplay isn't optional in my game either, but not every die roll represents a separate event in world. Do you also insist on narrating the hit roll separately from the damage roll? How do you handle the Shield spell, which mechanically takes place after the character is hit, but has the possibility of changing what just happened and undoing the hit?

[SodaQueen]

Do you notice how everyone else hates luck as a feat and I love it.

Everyone else says its mechanically too strong and doesn't add to the game while I'm talking about my player who loves coming up with awesome RP reasons to explain his drunken monk halfling's luck?

Oh woe is me. Its so hard to come up with a hilarious lucky stint three times per long rest. Is that seriously too difficult for some people?I completely agree. My players who have taken Lucky work with me to come up with fun and interesting ways with how their inexplicable luck influences them and the world around them.

This is a world where people can shoot fire out of their hands and where creatures as large as dragons can somehow fly. It's not that hard to believe that someone is just really, really, supernaturally lucky.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Do you notice how everyone else hates luck as a feat and I love it.

Everyone else says its mechanically too strong and doesn't add to the game while I'm talking about my player who loves coming up with awesome RP reasons to explain his drunken monk halfling's luck?

Oh woe is me. Its so hard to come up with a hilarious lucky stint three times per long rest. Is that seriously too difficult for some people?

You've missed my point entirely if you think my problem is with the mechanics of luck.

"If we just play this as a hit, then its not luck. I would never let someone use lucky without being lucky. Its just poor roleplay."

This is my problem. Don't force your players to roleplay out some rube goldberg like machination, luck doesn't have to be something extravagant. Inexplicable luck could just as easily be observed in a consistently skilled marksman making near impossible shots as it could in a court jester making a fool of himself but somehow coming out of every tumble just fine. If one of your characters is roleplaying his luck as "I swing my sword and hit" people around him might see it as "He swings his sword and never misses" that's just as cool as some drunken monk whose belt always seems to save him from falling down in my opinion.

I guess I might have misinterpreted you at some point, but it looks to me like you're trying to decide how a player should be role playing their character.

[sophontteks]

What's the hostility about? Roleplay isn't optional in my game either, but not every die roll represents a separate event in world. Do you also insist on narrating the hit roll separately from the damage roll? How do you handle the Shield spell, which mechanically takes place after the character is hit, but has the possibility of changing what just happened and undoing the hit?

I'm not hostile, well, I was to the other person who thinks its impossible to roleplay luck three times a day.

To you I meant it literally. The only thing that exists in your game world is the mechanics. If it didn't do something mechanically, it doesn't exist. In your game world, roleplay is optional.

I do not insist on narrating every role, but let me remind you your position before you try to shift it...
"That's a sequence of events at the table, not a sequence of event in the game world. In the game world there was only one event; the action that succeeded or failed."

I already said I don't narrate everything.

No, every roll on the table is real. My divination example showcased this perfectly. Divination predicts the future. It doesn't change the future. As soon as the die is rolled it represents something real.

The shield spell an attack strikes true and a burst of energy repels it. You made a mistake saying "mechanically." What is a hit in "roleplay?" What are hitpoints? Every time you are hit, its not literally you being hurt.

[Tanarii]

In your game world. In mine roleplay is not optional.wait, what?

Roleplay has nothing to do with narration/description. It has to do with making decisions. Most people would add "in character".

Not to mention that nothing says that narration/description requires describing each component of a resolution. The end result is the only thing that has to make sense in relation to the narration/description.

[sophontteks]

Not to mention that nothing says that narration/description requires describing each component of a resolution. The end result is the only thing that has to make sense in relation to the narration/description.
Nothing says it doesn't require it either. People can run their world as they want. I don't have a clue where they are coming from when they say the only thing that exists in the game world is the roll that resolves.

[strangebloke]

Do you notice how everyone else hates luck as a feat and I love it.

Everyone else says its mechanically too strong and doesn't add to the game while I'm talking about my player who loves coming up with awesome RP reasons to explain his drunken monk halfling's luck?

Oh woe is me. Its so hard to come up with a hilarious lucky stint three times per long rest. Is that seriously too difficult for some people?

woah woah woah.

I've never said it's over-powered.

It's too generically good. Make a character. Is Lucky a worthwhile addition? Is Lucky better than 90% of all other feats for that character? Yeah it is. No matter the character. That's bad design. It makes all other feats less likely to be picked, and diminishes the value of feats as a tool for customizing your character. As overpowered as GWM is, it's something that will only be taken by martial characters who have the extra attack feature, use two-handed weapons, are strength based, and have a source of advantage. So it's totally fine, because it serves it's purpose.

As to narration, my point was not that it isn't possible to narrate, merely that it's boring. There is literally nothing that it adds to a scene. You can ham up the 'luckiness' of the miss, but you could do that anyway, since there's already a mechanic for luck: the d20 roll. Did they save with a 14 against a 14 DC? Same narration, either way.

A usage of Lucky is always a result of player action. Not character action. It's literally a meta-power that is on your character's sheet but is completely abstracted away from the character. In other games like Fate or Dread this sort of thing is common, that's what the game is designed around. But DND is kind of a loosy-goosy simulatory game with a few combat abstractions for the sake of expediency. Lucky is outside of the usual mechanics by a long shot. It is a total game-power that takes me, the player out of the narrative, since my character doesn't have luck points.

I worry that I'm not being coherent, so here's an example:

My rogue Defflin is moving towards the trap which he knows could easily kill him. I, the player, know that he has two luck points left, and can probably escape the trap regardless of what it throws at him. +/- 5 is no joke. Defflin, despite knowing that he's rather lucky, has no clue that I exist, and that I have two points of luck left to aid him in his travels. He might have no luck left. Whatever! And yet that's definitely something that would influence his action. So you either have to say that suddenly Defflin's totally aware of his luck pool at all times.

Comparatively, something like inspiration or guidance is a lot easier to figure out. His confidence has been boosted by the inspiration. That both makes him more likely to succeed and more likely to try. Inspiration wears off, so the effect obviously doesn't linger too long.

TL;DR: It's a meta-power that goes against DND's typical design ethos, which gives me hives.

[JoeJ]

I'm not hostile, well, I was to the other person who thinks its impossible to roleplay luck three times a day.

To you I meant it literally. The only thing that exists in your game world is the mechanics. If it didn't do something mechanically, it doesn't exist. In your game world, roleplay is optional.

You presume far too much. You get to decide what exists in your world. You don't get to tell me what exists in mine. Your statement about roleplay being optional is both absolutely wrong and insulting. Of the two of us, you're the one who said you require that the world exactly follow the die roll mechanics, not me.

[Tanarii]

Nothing says it doesn't require it either. People can run their world as they want. I don't have a clue where they are coming from when they say the only thing that exists in the game world is the roll that resolves.
Not the roll that resolves. The result of resolution. That can be a bunch of rolls if necessary.

I agree that nothing stays you can't narrate/describe the individual components of a result. But what matters, the absolute minimum, is the total resolution, including all mechanics involved, and the description/narration, have to sync enough to make sense.

For example, you can narrate making multiple melee attacks in a round to drop an enemy monster to 0 hit points and killing them as a flurry of blows drawing blood on each strike, or a series of feints followed by a single stab that drops them. Mechanically, the end result was the same. You killed them in one round.

[Asmotherion]

1. I would change them so that the overused/broken ones (Alert, Lucky, GWM, PAM, SS, etc.) are severely nerfed, the underpowered ones are buffed, and you gain them automatically at certain levels instead of being forced to choose between taking a feat and dropping an ASI.

2. I'm not annoyed at feats in general, just the way 5e does them and that they are so overused. When people on these boards start talking about how amazing their Great Weapon build is, I just want to cringe. I don't think the feats should be scrapped totally, I just don't like the way they've been implemented in 5e.

I know perfectly well that feats affect D&D. I just don't like the 5e ones.

Now I think we're getting somewere. However I disagree with Nerfing (that is a personal oppionion).

-What I can understand is, you not wanting to choose between a feat and an ASI; Here is a counter proposal: Don't. Make a House Rule at your Table were you take both, and everyone is happy. I view RAW as a reflection of what is appropriate for the Adventure League, and a set of balanced rules in order not to make too powerful characters. If however you feel comfortable with slightly more powerful characters as they level up, nothing stops you from actually investing in this Rule, in order to make things more Fun for your Table.

-Alternativelly, either Ban feats at your table, or work on a campain that is going to make your players value more the "under-rated" feats, and less the more obvious ones. Make combat less significant for example, and suddently, the combat oriented feats are a lot more "situational" wile the RP oriented ones more useful than before.

[Citan]

Reckless Attack comes with drawbacks. If the DM builds encounters properly using it in every combat is a death sentence, even for a raging barbarian. And without Reckless Attack GWM is completely fine, it's a big hit penalty for a bit of damage and an extra attack some times, whoop-de-do. I've whiffed on a lot of GWM attacks.

Sharpshooter is a problem because everything that feat and style does stacks on top of each other. Archery style to improve hit bonus, remove cover to improve hit bonus, now extra damage for no cost.


Reckless attack is not a death sentence unless combined with reckless tactics and no rage. Any barbarian worth his salt should not hesitate to use it unless circumstances are highly unusual.

Edit: I say that, but of course players aren't exactly good at NOT combining reckless tactics, poor judgement, and abilities with downsides like reckless comes with. So I'm gonna roll back my arrogant bs statement right now. :smallamused: I've seen barbarians heedlessly charge, by themselves, into a pack of enemies a few times.
Well yeah it can be.
If you face a group of enemies that has several archers, or creatures that have tactical intelligence and can use nasty effects on you, using Reckless Attack could multiply the amount of damage you take much beyond what you can withstand. Especially at lower levels, like until level 7-8 or so, when your HP isn't that high yet, and your effective rage time is good but not great (few uses per day, can end early with some bad luck).

Unless you consider that fighting enemies with a brain is "highly unusual" of course. :=)

That's why I always find funny people that consider that because Barbarian has that feature people should consider it always attacks at advantage, the same people also considering he's always under the benefits of rage too, making feats or multiclass that add resilience or advantage useless.
And that's why, conversely, Barbarian is proficient in STR (you at least avoid a good chunk of restraining effects as well as Shoves/Grapples) and CON (you have a good chance of resisting a whole lot of extremely dangerous effects), but in spite of that you are not invincible, by far.
You do have much better chances to survive tactical mistakes or enemy's craftyness than (mostly) anyone else though. ^^


I think the main problem is that regular human is a terrible race and there is no merit to playing it at all. No darkvision, no extra skills, no extra anything, just mediocre stat increases. At least a few of which probably wont matter when you make your character, and will continue to not matter until you stop playing the character. That in comparison to variant human, half-elf, or aasimar (just to name a few) if someone just wants to play a regular human in 5e, why in the world would you ever want to not play variant human? You get the feat anyway, why not pick the best option for what you want to do with the character.

If a feat is underused, its probably because what the feat does is uninteresting. So, can you really blame people for not taking savage attacker when they can just take great weapon master and fulfill the use of their bonus action atleast some of the time? I think GWM and SS are purely metagame feats because they encourage players to estimate armor class and try to build around getting advantage or more bonuses to attack in some way. I feel that type of metagaming isnt bad though, and its more like a probability minigame you do in your head to decide whether you use it or not anyways.

If someone thinks feats are too powerful and you dont use them, what about fighting styles? How are you going to tell your player that you dont allow fighting styles at all because archery is much better than the other fighting styles? Please, do not try to tell me that "Oh well thats a class feature and Paladin, Ranger, Fighter are the only ones that get it so its a class defining ability." No, that is literally the same reasoning for GWM and SS, and those classes in addition to Barbarian are the ones that take those "SUPER OP" feats.

All of 5e is unbalanced, from Challenge Rating to the optional flanking rule in the DMG, denying martial characters the use of these feats and allowing full casters to cast fireball is ridiculous.
That's an incredible amount of arrogance pushed on designers here... :/
You make them responsible of symptoms that are only caused by player's taste or DM's managing style.

---
About regular humans first: a +1 in all stats may seem little, but it's a nice way to get decent overall stats with point-buy. If having dump stats is not a problem in your games, it may simply be because your DM is not playing all strings that are available to him or you always play in parties large enough that every skill is nicely covered and resilience spells are readily available.

And when you roll for stats, that +1 everywhere can sometimes amount to an efficiency increase that goes far over whatever else you could get with a race (when "converting" to point-buy cost), especially when you have several odd scores.
Like if you roll a 17 / 14 / 13 / 16 / 9 (reasonable) or a 18 / 11 / 17 / 14 / 15 / 5 (lucky, overall).

---
About feats: that's plain narrowness of mind here. If feats seem underused on these forums, it's because of what stressed earlier (these forums tend to focus on optimization, and evaluating benefits that don't rely on numbers only is hard so people tend to put them aside by "safety"). If they seem underused in your experience, it's simply because either you are a munchkin so you tend to play with munchins, or because you play with DMs that focus on the tactical fight pillar of the game and underexploit the social and exploration pillars.

The only feats that are really too situational or lackluster to be taken by anyone even for niche concepts are Savage Attacker (would be perfectly fine without the "once per turn" limit) and Charger (would be perfectly fine without the "use the action to Dash" of the Dash condition).

But take Observant and Keen Mind for examples. In combat-heavy games, they are shallow. If I was playing a D&d game mastered by one of my friend though? They would be a thousand times better than any GWM or the like, because that guy puts a whole lot of effort in creating a living world that evolves on its own but can also be heavily influenced by PC's actions.


---
Finally, how is estimating Armor Class metagaming? Seriously, your characters are supposedly fighting in life or death situations, wouldn't you expect to try and evaluate as quickly and accurately as possible whether an enemy is someone they can take on and how to dispatch them with maximum efficiency for minimum risk?
That's just playing with the minimum brain expected. Every player I played with, even the non-munchkin ones that were not interested in feats in the slightest way, were attentive to this.

woah woah woah.

I've never said it's over-powered.

It's too generically good. Make a character. Is Lucky a worthwhile addition? Is Lucky better than 90% of all other feats for that character? Yeah it is. No matter the character. That's bad design. It makes all other feats less likely to be picked, and diminishes the value of feats as a tool for customizing your character. As overpowered as GWM is, it's something that will only be taken by martial characters who have the extra attack feature, use two-handed weapons, are strength based, and have a source of advantage. So it's totally fine, because it serves it's purpose.
This assertion is so wrong I don't even know where to start from.:smallbiggrin:

Oh, wait, I know...
0. Translating Luck into "bullet-point list of mechanics".
You can use one of the following effects three times per long rest...
- Impose advantage on an ability check, attack roll or saving throw you make, even if that one was initially made at disadvantage.
- Get super-advantage (three rolls, choose best) on an ability check, attack roll or saving throw.
- Impose disadvantage on an attack roll made against you, even it it was initially made with advantage (depending on how DM interprets RAW, since the "time limit" of deciding to use your feature is not written clearly).


1. Fact-checking assertion against race choices
- Bountiful Luck: gives "half-advantage" (reroll, use new roll) once every turn on any kind of d20 roll for you or any close ally.
If you go Halfling and goes Xanathar's this feat is magnitudes better than Lucky: sure, you have to use the new roll, but it's available every round (at the very minimum 25 times over a session of play imx). It can also affect allies, so it's easy enough to get a situation in which the initial roll was so bad that just getting another chance is plenty enough of a benefit.
- Fade Away: once per short rest, become invisible as a reaction: high chance of completely avoiding several incoming attacks and/or spells as a result even if you don't use that chance to Hide away. Probably at least 2 times over a session.
- Svirfneblin Magic: just free Blur every day means you will impose disadvantage on attacks against your for possibly a whole encounter (so ~4-6 rounds of being targeted on average). Plus Nondetection at will which is great in some campaigns.
- Prodigy: while Luck will give you a much better chance of succeeding any roll, this feat ensures you don't even care about rolling in the first place. As long as you don't need to be a skill-monkey but will rely on one skill regularly (basic examples: Stealth for a Rogue/Monk/Warlock/Fighter, Athletics for a Fighter/Rogue/Barbarian/Paladin), this is much much better than Luck.

"Hey, stop here, you are talking racial feats: requiring a specific race is incompatible with the idea of generally".
Ok, fair enough.

2. Fact-checking assertion against basic character archetypes...
Melee Extra Attack character?
Mobile gives you 100% chance to evade opportunity attacks (by blocking their trigger) as long as you try to hit the creature: meaning you completely evade damage reliably, several times per round, every round. Compared to the "impose disadvantage", this could be called "impose failure"). Plus extra mobility may even prevent it(s) to get in reach to attack you or needing to rely on lesser ways (like throwing weapons).

Magic caster, non-proficient in Constitution?
While Lucky may help you keep alive an important spell that would have otherwise failed, Resilient instantly gives you a much, much better chance of saving against 10 DC checks, so anything equal or below a 20 damage threshold.

Shield-user?
Clerics, Druids, Barbarians, some Fighters, Rangers, some Bards and Warlocks can use shields and cast spells, and while they have some options for bonus action, they don't necessarily have options that can be used consistently round after round.
While Luck can ensure you succeed on one important attack, Shield Master gives you an extra chance every round to enable advantage on your (or friend's) attack. The benefit, party-wide, is magnitudes better than Luck.
While Luck can ensure you succeed on your save against that powerful AOE up to three times per rest, Shield Master gives you a flat bonus and evades all damage as a reaction, every round.

Lucky is for a character exactly what Diviner is for a Wizard dip: the thing you take, not because it would be extremely powerful. It's in fact much lesser than many, many other feats.
The reasons why people take it are that it's extremely bland (0 RP strings attached) and its triggers makes it universally compatible with whatever feature you use, so you know you will always have a use for it every day.
But as long as you know where you want to go with a character, Lucky drops immediately in the bottom-half of the list.

[KRSW]

That's an incredible amount of arrogance pushed on designers here... :/
You make them responsible of symptoms that are only caused by player's taste or DM's managing style.

---
About feats: that's plain narrowness of mind here. If feats seem underused on these forums, it's because of what stressed earlier (these forums tend to focus on optimization, and evaluating benefits that don't rely on numbers only is hard so people tend to put them aside by "safety"). If they seem underused in your experience, it's simply because either you are a munchkin so you tend to play with munchins, or because you play with DMs that focus on the tactical fight pillar of the game and underexploit the social and exploration pillars.

The only feats that are really too situational or lackluster to be taken by anyone even for niche concepts are Savage Attacker (would be perfectly fine without the "once per turn" limit) and Charger (would be perfectly fine without the "use the action to Dash" of the Dash condition).

But take Observant and Keen Mind for examples. In combat-heavy games, they are shallow. If I was playing a D&d game mastered by one of my friend though? They would be a thousand times better than any GWM or the like, because that guy puts a whole lot of effort in creating a living world that evolves on its own but can also be heavily influenced by PC's actions.


---
Finally, how is estimating Armor Class metagaming? Seriously, your characters are supposedly fighting in life or death situations, wouldn't you expect to try and evaluate as quickly and accurately as possible whether an enemy is someone they can take on and how to dispatch them with maximum efficiency for minimum risk?
That's just playing with the minimum brain expected. Every player I played with, even the non-munchkin ones that were not interested in feats in the slightest way, were attentive to this.


First off, I have no idea how you can blame or criticize any other person besides the designer of the game for any clear imbalance the game has in it.

Second, yes there is social aspects of the game and I actually like exploration and social interaction just as much as combat. But, everyone's table is different and when you are talking Allowing Feats vs No Feats, you have to consider how that impacts all classes. I actually think Observant is a great feat, Keen Mind less so because that's nothing good note taking by the player cant solve.
Either way, for me, this discussion is more about how it negatively impacts the martial characters much more so than the other classes. Just as everyone's table is different, maybe your DM just has easy encounters. For me, the DM(sometimes me) is generally brutal and encounters and social situations have high difficulty because (I think) our players are good and know what they are doing. This makes feats a must for our table because often times we just need them for our characters to live. Actor, is a great feat, so is Alert, and in the right campaign even dungeon delver can be fantastic. A lot of the feats are good and have niches, but the most powerful ones are the ones that are always relevant. There is almost always combat in DND, and that combat will still just be dice rolls and damage. Social interactions are totally unique from table to table because there are little rules for them in 5e. In that regard, I think that is the main reason people will always go back to talking about only combat feats in conversations like these because that's the one steady, stable thing that you can actually put a legitimate, numerical value on. You may never get a chance to actually use actor in a campaign, you might never trigger a trap for dungeon delver to be effective. Maybe your DM doesn't like Secret Doors for Observant. Maybe the whole campaign you never need to know any language other than common. You probably get what I am trying to say.

Third, I said in another post that maybe metagaming is poor choice for it, and even in that post you quoted that type of metagaming isn't bad at all and I do think every player should do what you described.

Anyways, if I sound arrogant I apologize its not really what I was going for.

[Glorthindel]

I've not seen anyone in my group take lucky.

Over the games I have played in, I've seen Lucky taken twice - firstly by a player in my group who has had such comedically bad luck in previous campaigns that it has become a group meme (so probably a fair choice), and secondly by a player who was replacing a character who died due to failing a string of saving throws (the party now has a new statue to ornament our base if we can ever haul him home). So in both cases, it was taken as a reaction to suffering at the hands of the dice. I have never seen it taken as a "power" option.

As for GWM, PAM, and SS, I have yet to see a player in any group I have been in take it (and this is with two campaigns being human-only, so having a higher-than-normal number of feats in the party).

The one feat that has been taken in every group I have played in is Inspiring Leader.

[Citan]

But, everyone's table is different and when you are talking Allowing Feats vs No Feats, you have to consider how that impacts all classes. I actually think Observant is a great feat, Keen Mind less so because that's nothing good note taking by the player cant solve.
Just as everyone's table is different, maybe your DM just has easy encounters. For me, the DM(sometimes me) is generally brutal and encounters and social situations have high difficulty because (I think) our players are good and know what they are doing.
That's the crux of what I wanted to point out: designers had to design feats for all kind of games, but they also provided guidelines to propagate their own idea of how to manage it best.

But they are just it, guidelines, with totaly liberty to ignore them. Which is why we play roleplaying games and not videogames imo.

So obviously feats will be more or less interesting depending on how close, or far, are games actually practiced. :=)

Your critics about GWM and Sharpshooter follow the same logic as the ones shout against Ranger's Natural Explorer / Favored Enemy or Assassin's Impersonate and higher features.
People say they are worthless because they tend to play games with high focus on encounter jumps, rather than enforcing a complete world (also the same way people say STR is a dump stat for many classes because at their table DM does not enforce encumberance nor uses STR-based tactics regularly).
If your DM gives importance to it though, these could change your influence on the world far more and far better than just hitting creatures extra good and hard.

Keen Mind people seem to see mainly as a way for Wizard to get a great safety net and loot tool (which it is), and Observant as mainly a way to get much better at Perception/Investigation checks (which it is too). But...

Play a character that wants to dig his own way into bureaucracy and nobility to become a powerful one? Or "just" a spy for someone else? Taking either one will make you much much better. Taking both makes you a formidable negociator, scout, investigator and what not, without needing any spells (so always-on abilities).

Technically, even for combat characters, as long as your DM gives you some in-world access to information, Keen Mind is on a whole better level than any direct combat feat: no need for Mastermind Rogue or Battlemaster or dedicated spells: just take half a day to compulse a local library on environing fauna/flora/monsters and you can now in-character guide your party into being prepared, equipment and tactics-wise, against any creature of the zone (so no waste of a spell to discover a resistance, no need to succeed on several Arcana/Religion checks to learn information about one creature).
But, of course, if players around a table always metagame and DM lets them do it, or if DM is too lazy to prepare those "downtime bits", it's useless.

So you just cannot say that you want to evaluate feat/no feat and impact on all classes on one side, and ignore the fact that the only true factor in determining the real value of a feat but also spell or class feature for a character, is how DM works.
And that cannot be theorycrafted (yet? Maybe in 10 years if everyone playing or mastering games would provide detailed feedback to a neuronal network of IA?). ^^


Over the games I have played in, I've seen Lucky taken twice - firstly by a player in my group who has had such comedically bad luck in previous campaigns that it has become a group meme (so probably a fair choice), and secondly by a player who was replacing a character who died due to failing a string of saving throws (the party now has a new statue to ornament our base if we can ever haul him home). So in both cases, it was taken as a reaction to suffering at the hands of the dice. I have never seen it taken as a "power" option.

As for GWM, PAM, and SS, I have yet to see a player in any group I have been in take it (and this is with two campaigns being human-only, so having a higher-than-normal number of feats in the party).

The one feat that has been taken in every group I have played in is Inspiring Leader.
I'll back this one. I see it regularly present in groups, which is easily explained by the facts that...
- probability of having 0 character with high CHA in party is extremely low.
- number of parties that grow beyond 6 characters is also extremely low (at least around me).
- ability provides a strong, party-wise benefit, can or not be roleplayed depending on humor but has otherwise no strings attached, and scales automatically.

[KRSW]

But, of course, if players around a table always metagame and DM lets them do it, or if DM is too lazy to prepare those "downtime bits", it's useless.

So you just cannot say that you want to evaluate feat/no feat and impact on all classes on one side, and ignore the fact that the only true factor in determining the real value of a feat but also spell or class feature for a character, is how DM works.
And that cannot be theorycrafted (yet? Maybe in 10 years if everyone playing or mastering games would provide detailed feedback to a neuronal network of IA?). ^^

Why can I not say that? There is literally spreadsheets for GWM / SS vs X AC and more variables depending on if you have advantage or certain buffs. I have never seen anything like that for other feats. You agree with me in saying that the game has to be balanced for a wide range of tables. I think on average most tables have a large portion of the game centered around combat. Maybe they dont. But, they will assuredly fight something at some point in the campaign. That's the point I was making.

Yes, you can compare feats vs no feats and how that impacts all classes. Martial classes are much less versatile in what they can do/how good they are at other stuff vs the other classes. Feats, not just GWM and SS, add to a characters versatility. Lucky, Skilled, Linguist, and many more can add alot to what the character can do in pillars besides combat. In fact, GWM and SS dont add anything to the other pillars besides combat. That is my point, is that no feats vs feats limits the martial classes more, they dont get to excel in the combat pillar because of no GWM and SS and they also get outclassed by the other classes because they dont have as many skills/spells. Martial classes are supposed to excel at combat, a large pillar of the game. Other classes are ENABLED to excel at the other pillars of the game and it is easy for them to do so while also being pretty okay to as good as martial characters.

Combat is an activity that everyone in the party can and should participate in. Heavy armor characters participating in group stealth is pretty much only detrimental to the party(the way your dm does group checks may make this not matter). Non-charisma characters trying to steal the FOP spotlight are just being rude. You can certainly try, but doing so and succeeding still doesnt mean you should have. Martial characters should excel at the combat pillar. Other classes do excel at the other pillars. In my opinion, how much better the martial character is at combat is much less than how much more the other classes excel at the other pillars in comparison(besides paladin). To me that is a balance issue that using feats fixes pretty well because it lets the martial character take GWM or SS or take a different feat that helps in the other pillars.

Personally, I would like every feat to have both an incombat and out of combat effect, but that sounds almost impossible.

Edit- Spelling

[Naanomi]

Over the games I have played in, I've seen Lucky taken twice
It probably depends on what level play... it isn’t a great 1st, 2nd, or 3rd ASI for most characters... but it makes a great 5th+ for almost any character. In all three campaigns I’ve played level 1-20, a *lot* of characters became lucky at 16 and 19

[Willie the Duck]

It probably depends on what level play... it isn’t a great 1st, 2nd, or 3rd ASI for most characters... but it makes a great 5th+ for almost any character. In all three campaigns I’ve played level 1-20, a *lot* of characters became lucky at 16 and 19

I think the high-level save issues are a very valid concern for this edition, but kinda-sorta too big of their own problem to really deal with in the middle of this one (lest it complete dwarf other feat-related concerns).

[sophontteks]

You presume far too much. You get to decide what exists in your world. You don't get to tell me what exists in mine. Your statement about roleplay being optional is both absolutely wrong and insulting. Of the two of us, you're the one who said you require that the world exactly follow the die roll mechanics, not me.

Again, let me just remind you our positions here. You really like to change your position, and mine.


That's a sequence of events at the table, not a sequence of event in the game world. In the game world there was only one event; the action that succeeded or failed.
You told me how the game world works, as if what you are saying is RAW or RAI.


In your game world. In mine roleplay is not optional.
And I said that's not how my game world works.


It's declared after the roll, but that doesn't have any necessary impact on the narration. You can just as easily narrate based on the outcome of the whole process.
And this this is why I said roleplay is optional. "Doesn't nessesarily impact the narration" means optional. In my world that is not optional. You roleplay what you did. In yours, its optional.

I went on to even show examples of where unresolved die roles matter to defend the fact that I am totally following the rules as written in my game world.

[Theodoxus]

Congratulations, another thread devolved into a screaming match between a gamist and a simulationist yelling "BADWRONGFUN!!!" at each other.

Neither playstyle is wrong, but they tend to be incompatible. Hence why you're yelling past each other and neither will accept the others argument.

Best to "agree to disagree" and go back to talking about feats.

BTW, I changed the Lucky feat to work like Portent. Works better, imo.

[Citan]

Yes, you can compare feats vs no feats and how that impacts all classes. Martial classes are much less versatile in what they can do/how good they are at other stuff vs the other classes. Feats, not just GWM and SS, add to a characters versatility. Lucky, Skilled, Linguist, and many more can add alot to what the character can do in pillars besides combat. In fact, GWM and SS dont add anything to the other pillars besides combat.

That is my point, is that no feats vs feats limits the martial classes more, they dont get to excel in the combat pillar because of no GWM and SS and they also get outclassed by the other classes because they dont have as many skills/spells. Martial classes are supposed to excel at combat, a large pillar of the game. Other classes are ENABLED to excel at the other pillars of the game and it is easy for them to do so while also being pretty okay to as good as martial characters.

Aaaaaaaaah ok. Well, I'm very sorry then, I absolutely didn't understand your point like this. My bad.
What you say here, I am totally 100% backing up. ;)

It probably depends on what level play... it isn’t a great 1st, 2nd, or 3rd ASI for most characters... but it makes a great 5th+ for almost any character. In all three campaigns I’ve played level 1-20, a *lot* of characters became lucky at 16 and 19
I honestly don't understand why (I mean, really, not trying to be provocative or anything).

I understand the appeal of being able to significantly influence the probability of events when, for example, a Paladin or Rogue tries to blow a heavy hit (Divine Smite / Sneak Attack) against a high CR (and AC) creature and was put at disadvantage, because that one hit carries a lot of damage potential (thus a big influence on the fight)...

Or when a raging Barbarian hopes that Lucky will give decent chance of preventing some critically party-bad effect (like being dominated or being entrapped in a Maze or banished etc which would be a pretty hard hit on party forces), because it works whatever mental stat is targeted at the time...
Or when a caster such as a non-Abjurer Wizard expect to regularly face extremely dangerous DEX/CON effects such as creature's large AOE (Dragon Breath), spells such as Disintegrate or Contagion, because their chance of succeding on save is usually low.

But between low-to-high-level spells that can provided by self or allies (Cleric, Bard, to a lesser extent Druid / Sorcerer / Wizard: Foresight, Death Ward, Protection from Energy, Absorb Element, Shield, Magic Circle+Dimension Door etc) and improved class features (Wisdom proficiency, Expertise, Auras, Evasion etc) for protection, and the incredibly varied ways to get advantage (so you can at the very least "counter" disadvantage in the worst case) or attack roll buffs through spells/features/feats...

I just don't understand the appeal being that strong to pick it over any other feat when considering that, even if a character would be fine with only 18 in both main stats for some reason, for each and every (let's say "mostly" because there are certainly some cases I didn't think of) class or character conceptyou can easily find two or three feats that would bring more than Lucky on a day-to-day basis.

In my view, the only thing real painful at high level, on which you have very little control, is hostiles's resilience, aka saving throw. IF Lucky could also be used to affect enemy's saving throw, then I'd agree this would be powerful and a prime choice for everyone, especially casters but not only.
In its current state, its rather a "I don't know what to choose" / "I just want something generalist" choice, for example because you play the character in many different groups, or you face many different kinds of enemies, or you play in a party that lacks the most prominent "enhancing features" (no Cleric nor Bard, no Paladin)...

[KRSW]

Aaaaaaaaah ok. Well, I'm very sorry then, I absolutely didn't understand your point like this. My bad.
What you say here, I am totally 100% backing up. ;)

No need to be sorry, I think I could have formatted my ideas much better. I think our conversation was good and I appreciate you sharing your opinions with me.

[strangebloke]

I honestly don't understand why (I mean, really, not trying to be provocative or anything).

Things Lucky can prevent:

Failed death saving throw
Critical hit from a boss monster
Failed saving throw against lethal effect
Failed bluff check that would otherwise have gotten the whole party branded as outlaws.
Failed counterspell check against an enemy's spell.

The list goes on.

It's also important to remember, that as an actionless, long-rest resource, it's basically a god-tier feat in campaigns that only run 1 deadly encounter a day. It's all very well to say "Over the course of a typical day, Lucky won't have that much impact," but that simply is not true for most campaigns. If I'm only in one fight all day, three rerolls is absolutely awesome.



This assertion is so wrong I don't even know where to start from.:smallbiggrin:

"Hey, stop here, you are talking racial feats: requiring a specific race is incompatible with the idea of generally".
Ok, fair enough.

Mobile
Resilient
Shield Master

The reasons why people take it are that it's extremely bland (0 RP strings attached) and its triggers makes it universally compatible with whatever feature you use, so you know you will always have a use for it every day.
But as long as you know where you want to go with a character, Lucky drops immediately in the bottom-half of the list.

How am I horribly wrong when everything in your post agrees with mine?

Racial feats are good for characters who are playing those races. That's fine.

Mobile, Resilient, Shield Master, and Sharpshooter are all very strong for general archetypes. Hence why I said 90%, not 100%. Every conceivable build will at least consider Magic Initiate, Resilient, and a few build/race specific feats like GWM, PAM, or Warcaster, before they look at Lucky.

But there are lots of feats.


Mage Slayer
Charger
Dual Wielder
Durable - half-feat (Con)
Keen Mind - half-feat (Int)
Linguist - half-feat (Int)
Martial Adept
Medium Armor Master
Mounted Combatant
Savage Attacker
Spell Sniper
Tavern Brawler - half-feat (Str/Con)
Dungeon Delver (moves up in a trap-heavy campaign)
Grappler
Skilled
Orcish Fury


Yes, some of those feats are good in the right build, but generally, for most builds where they fit thematically, Lucky is better. We already have a strong generic option in the form of ASI's. Lucky is even blander than an ASI. Lucky is too generically good.

[Citan]

Things Lucky can prevent:

Failed death saving throw
Critical hit from a boss monster
Failed saving throw against lethal effect
Failed bluff check that would otherwise have gotten the whole party branded as outlaws.
Failed counterspell check against an enemy's spell.

The list goes on.

It's also important to remember, that as an actionless, long-rest resource, it's basically a god-tier feat in campaigns that only run 1 deadly encounter a day. It's all very well to say "Over the course of a typical day, Lucky won't have that much impact," but that simply is not true for most campaigns. If I'm only in one fight all day, three rerolls is absolutely awesome.
Hey, thanks for the list. ;)
Totally forgot about "high chance of negating a critical", good one. :=)
Honestly though that's the only thing I really find impressive here, again because I have the preconception of characters being in parties of reasonable size (3-4) and complementarity (at least one fullcaster with access to healing).

- Death: healing spells (of course healer has to be in range), features (Long Death prevents going into death saves, Samurai, some Barbarian, Shadow Sorcerer), Death Ward (4th level spell accessible to Cleric, Paladin, Bard, Divine Soul Sorcerer).

- Critical: impose disadvantage beforehand, although means to do so are indeed fairly limited at high level with creatures having all kind of annoying features like blindsenses and legendary saves. ^^ But Adamantine Armor is an uncommon magic item (which is stupid imo but that's another story), so there is that too. Plus ways to prevent enemy from being able to attack you in the first place (you invisible, him "blinded", you out of reach etc) which is another big array of options that are not very costly to get. :)

- Failed saving throw against lethal effect: not sure if you're talking about lethal as in Disintegrate or lethal as in "enough to put you down from your current state". The former is not really a threat for at least half of the classes (DEX > Barbarian, Fighter with Shield Master, Rogue, Monk, some Ranger, Paladin), the latter would be usually a DEX or CON effect from what I can recall right now, so there are ways to anticipate it too.

- Failed bluff check (or any check): between Guidance, Expertise, Bardic Inspiration, Enhance Ability, Bend Luck, Diviner, Help, Skill Empowerement, Prodigy... You have several ways to get extra good permanently in a few skills or good enough when it counts, for a limited cost, whatever your party composition is.

- Failed Counterspell: although that particular one is incompatible with many potential buffs and is hard to anticipate, there are still several ways to buff it, unless you have no Bard nor caster with Foresight nor Wild Mage Sorcerer nor Diviner Wizard (and I think I forgot another thing but I don't remember).

You actually kinda stress my point: Lucky is good basically when you build your character to be self-dependant (as opposite to someone building with expectations about party composition and teamwork) and "versatile" (having a potential "out of jail" card whatever kind of danger he/she will face) for some reason, but that's basically all of it. ^^

(Edit: last part put in new post for better readibility of discussion ;)).

[strangebloke]

You actually kinda stress my point: Lucky is good basically when you build your character to be self-dependant (as opposite to someone building with expectations about party composition and teamwork) and "versatile" (having a potential "out of jail" card whatever kind of danger he/she will face) for some reason, but that's basically all of it. ^^

Yes, I am stressing your point, because I don't think that we're actually in disagreement.

It's a generic feat that is flavorless and good, better than an ASI for any class, particularly after you've maxed your main stat, particularly if you build your character without considering party comp (which many don't, do to AL or other restrictions). An ASI is arguably better, even then, but it's function is different so the comparison is flawed. Lucky lessens the worst case, whereas an ASI betters the average case of a specific part of your character.

For example, a boost to CON might have prevented you from making death saves at all, but in the event that you do make death saves, Lucky is better.

Tough falls into this category as well for some classes, by being a strong generic option that is good for all classes, but I forgive it because it only improves one aspect of the character, and because, IMO it's more flavorful and isn't an abstract thing that exists apart from the character.

[Pex]

woah woah woah.

I've never said it's over-powered.

It's too generically good. Make a character. Is Lucky a worthwhile addition? Is Lucky better than 90% of all other feats for that character? Yeah it is. No matter the character. That's bad design. It makes all other feats less likely to be picked, and diminishes the value of feats as a tool for customizing your character. As overpowered as GWM is, it's something that will only be taken by martial characters who have the extra attack feature, use two-handed weapons, are strength based, and have a source of advantage. So it's totally fine, because it serves it's purpose.

As to narration, my point was not that it isn't possible to narrate, merely that it's boring. There is literally nothing that it adds to a scene. You can ham up the 'luckiness' of the miss, but you could do that anyway, since there's already a mechanic for luck: the d20 roll. Did they save with a 14 against a 14 DC? Same narration, either way.

A usage of Lucky is always a result of player action. Not character action. It's literally a meta-power that is on your character's sheet but is completely abstracted away from the character. In other games like Fate or Dread this sort of thing is common, that's what the game is designed around. But DND is kind of a loosy-goosy simulatory game with a few combat abstractions for the sake of expediency. Lucky is outside of the usual mechanics by a long shot. It is a total game-power that takes me, the player out of the narrative, since my character doesn't have luck points.

I worry that I'm not being coherent, so here's an example:

My rogue Defflin is moving towards the trap which he knows could easily kill him. I, the player, know that he has two luck points left, and can probably escape the trap regardless of what it throws at him. +/- 5 is no joke. Defflin, despite knowing that he's rather lucky, has no clue that I exist, and that I have two points of luck left to aid him in his travels. He might have no luck left. Whatever! And yet that's definitely something that would influence his action. So you either have to say that suddenly Defflin's totally aware of his luck pool at all times.

Comparatively, something like inspiration or guidance is a lot easier to figure out. His confidence has been boosted by the inspiration. That both makes him more likely to succeed and more likely to try. Inspiration wears off, so the effect obviously doesn't linger too long.

TL;DR: It's a meta-power that goes against DND's typical design ethos, which gives me hives.

Obviously you have a problem with it, but it hasn't been established your complaint against it is objectively true. In your gaming circle maybe everyone would take it if they could and nullify things that shouldn't be nullified because it makes the game feel wrong somehow. In my gaming circle only one person has taken it, and when he does use it no one resents it. We want him to succeed where he failed. He has also been generous to spend his luck on party members. It's an ability resource to help the party succeed, not an exploitation of in your face.

As for verisimilitude, that is people's own aesthetic taste. I can't make you rationalize how the feat works in your games, so if it breaks immersion for you it breaks immersion. For others, they're able to explain the luck manifesting for gameworld atmosphere or ignore it without issue and accept it as just a game mechanic not needing gameworld explanation.

Edit Correction: Need to amend my point. Something was off. Double checked Lucky. It doesn't say you can give it to someone else. If you affect another creature it's an attack roll against you, not just anyone for anything. Therefore the player with Lucky has been using it wrong when spending one on another player. This is not a house rule but a Mistake. The player and DM thought this could be done. I will need to let them know about the error. The DM may decide to let the player continue using it as he has. Despite the error I don't think it ruins my point. The feat has accidentally been made more powerful than it is supposed to be, but it still did not cause other players to choose the feat nor resentment the player used it.

[Citan]

How am I horribly wrong when everything in your post agrees with mine?

Racial feats are good for characters who are playing those races. That's fine.

Mobile, Resilient, Shield Master, and Sharpshooter are all very strong for general archetypes. Hence why I said 90%, not 100%. Every conceivable build will at least consider Magic Initiate, Resilient, and a few build/race specific feats like GWM, PAM, or Warcaster, before they look at Lucky.

Because everything in my post actually DISAGREES with you.
I made comparisons to who you that whatever kind of character you make, there is a handful list of actions that will take >75% of what you're doing on a day, every day. And for that short-list, basically any feat is better than Lucky when taken in isolation because they bring long-lasting / permanent benefits, instead of 3 times per day.

For any character, Resilient is better because there is always one of the three "strong" feats you can expect to "meet" often.
For any character relying on melee (meaning two-thirds of all classes potentially), Mobile is better because of permanently improving your offense (reach) and defense (no OA) every round of every day. Then comes Sentinel (your main target won't ever flee from you). Other feats do depend on class usually.
For any character playing at high level, Mage Slayer is better than Lucky because you got a chance at shutting off the nasty effect before it was even unleashed at you (melee) or got good at ending early nasty concentration spells (melee/ranged).
For any character mixing weapons and magic, Warcaster is better than Lucky because you get better flexibility (no somatic), better resource management (concentration) and better offense (spells on reaction).
For any caster, being proficient in Constitution becomes mandatory except specific builds.
For any character, being proficient in Wisdom becomes mandatory except specific builds.
For anyone wielding shields and not having Evasion, Shield Master is a great way to boost your resilience against DEX effects, much more than Lucky in the long run, when getting proficiency is not an option. Plus the offense ability which benefits all party and/or you.
For any character, having Observant or Alert greatly increases self-survivability by becoming much better at avoiding bad surprises.
For any character, getting Magic Initiate is a quick way to expand utility in new directions that would be otherwise unavailable (although this one, as much as I love, I wouldn't put in "must-have" at all ^^).
For any party, having one with Inspiring Leader or one/several with Healer brings a cheap and efficient way of healing.
For any party (even one with casters having ritual-casting), having Ritual Caster is a great way to expand adventuring options or free someone's "learning slots".




Mobile, Resilient, Shield Master, and Sharpshooter are all very strong for general archetypes. Hence why I said 90%, not 100%. Every conceivable build will at least consider Magic Initiate, Resilient, and a few build/race specific feats like GWM, PAM, or Warcaster, before they look at Lucky.

What you say in bolded part is EXACTLY the reverse of what you said few posts above which was for reminder...
"Is Lucky better than 90% of all other feats for that character? Yeah it is. No matter the character."
Even putting aside the racial feats, weapon-specific (two-handed, polearm, dual-wielding) feats and build-specific ("tank", "striker", "assassin") feats I still easily listed up quite a handful of feats being "applicable" on very broad conditions.
Which has no real sense though because what you implies does not hold: *every* character is "born" with a race and a class, which in turn pushes it in specific directions, meaning you have to consider all feats that would apply to the race and possible focus (either by "kind" melee/magic/mobility/utilityor by "role" striker/healer/tank/etc).

So at the very least somewhere around 6-7 feats would be in competition before even considering Lucky, whatever character you're trying to make, that would bring strong, definitive/permanents benefits, with one or two of them being clearly above the top while the others may be on a YMMV level.

And there are less than 60 feats in total (yeah, sorry, UA is not a thing).
And there is a big opportunty cost because you usually have only 5 ASIs (except Rogue and Fighter) and you also usually want to boost two stats, sometimes three.

>>> Yeah, sorry, that assertion is still extremely wrong. :)
It wouldn't if we could stack feats on top of ASI. ^^


Yes, I am stressing your point, because I don't think that we're actually in disagreement.

It's a generic feat that is flavorless and good, better than an ASI for any class, particularly after you've maxed your main stat, particularly if you build your character without considering party comp (which many don't, do to AL or other restrictions). An ASI is arguably better, even then, but it's function is different so the comparison is flawed. Lucky lessens the worst case, whereas an ASI betters the average case of a specific part of your character.

I agree with you on the statement that Lucky is flavorless and good, but strongly disagrees on the rest.

Especially on the "better than an ASI for any class" (which is another topic than "better than 90% other feats" ^^): this is the kind of opinion I could maybe support if you consider building a character "in the void", because then it's not safe to count on other people's help...
But even then, there are many classes for which an ASI would be overall much better in the long run.
From memory...

1. Monk: you get proficiency in all saves plus Diamond Soul anyways and end with resistance to all damage and invisibility. It's not like you are in dire need of resilience. However, people WILL count on your Stunning Strike to land. And while the attack roll is something you can tweak easily, DC is a thing only you (mostly) can improve and as you advance nothing is more frustrating than having an encounter-changing stun fail because of 1-2 points missing. So getting WIS at least to 18 is a hard priority imo, except, again, specific builds for specific parties.

2. Paladin: Charisma affects so many things I don't even understand people that would not max it really: prepared spells, number of uses of several features, Aura efficiency, spell DC.
Yeah, I'll say it, and I 100% think it: taking Lucky before having at the very least 18 CHA is "doing it wrong" in my view for any theorycraft Paladin.

3. Clerics: number of prepared spells, spell DC and many features across domains are based on WIS.
While you could certainly work fine with only a starting 16 and ending 18, you are wasting a good part of your potential. Plus you have Guidance and Enhance Ability to help you succeed on rolls when it counts, and good AC + several ways to offset HP damage, even heavy, so attack damage is nasty but manageable.

4. Wizard: you have so many running on concentration spells, and you have so little of a hit die, than getting Resilient: Constitution and at least 14 CON should be the priority. And because you're a spellcaster, getting the most of each spell is important too, so it would be a shame not to get 20 INT before you get to level 20.

5. Rogues: there is so much of its contribution to the fight rolling on a single attack (let's say two if you're dual-wielding) that I don't see many people around me that would pick Lucky over DEX. Actually I don't think any of them would ever do that. Of course, once you have max DEX and decent CON, everything is on. Plus you have one more feat. ;)

[Tanarii]

And this this is why I said roleplay is optional. "Doesn't nessesarily impact the narration" means optional. In my world that is not optional. You roleplay what you did. In yours, its optional.You're using a particularly niche & unusual definition of roleplay, then using it to accusing him of not roleplaying.

JoeJ hit the nail in the head when he said your statement about roleplay being optional is both absolutely wrong (as in it's nowhere near universal) and insulting.

[strangebloke]

snip

I think we need to take a step back here, because I think I've miscommunicated my main point, and used hyperbole to a degree that's unacceptable. I could argue a little bit with some of your claims, but mostly I agree with you and I don't want to get lost in the weeds.

My initial statement of "90% of everything" is not true. Fair. Massive overstatement.

However, both of us have stated repeatedly that it is strong, and is generic, which was the drive of my argument. Moreover, I think it's a lot stronger in the types of campaigns most people play, particularly at high level. Survey data shows that the "One Deadly++ encounter per day" structure is incredibly common. In such a context, Lucky is absurd. If your whole adventuring day is shorter than 10 rounds of swingy combat (because it's deadly++), the ability to influence 3 important rolls is strong.

I don't like strong generic options because I think it undercuts the purpose of feats: To allow for great customization.


Obviously you have a problem with it, but it hasn't been established your complaint against it is objectively true. In your gaming circle maybe everyone would take it if they could and nullify things that shouldn't be nullified because it makes the game feel wrong somehow. In my gaming circle only one person has taken it, and when he does use it no one resents it. We want him to succeed where he failed. He has also been generous to spend his luck on party members. It's an ability resource to help the party succeed, not an exploitation of in your face.
Where the heck did I say that I resent it, or that I resent players using it?? I've not said that! If you take the feat, use it! You seem to think that I'm some ogre who hates players being strong. Stop that. If anything, I'm too permissive.

I have said:

It's a character feat that the player, not the character, uses. More comparable to fate points than to anything in DND. IMO this makes it very weird, from an in-game perspective.
It makes combat less swingy, but in a narratively uninteresting way.
Feats exist to cutomize a character. Strong but unflavorful feats are not conducive to customization of characters, since people pick them over more flavorful options. Lucky is strong and is very generic. More generic than Tough, Resilient, or an ASI.
The feat would probably be better called 'plot armor' than 'lucky,' because in principle, you're only lucky when it really matters.


As for verisimilitude, that is people's own aesthetic taste. I can't make you rationalize how the feat works in your games, so if it breaks immersion for you it breaks immersion. For others, they're able to explain the luck manifesting for gameworld atmosphere or ignore it without issue and accept it as just a game mechanic not needing gameworld explanation.

That's fair. I am not saying that everyone needs to ban it. I'm just expressing why I don't like it in my games. People have been contesting that some things I dislike for subjective reasons (like it being generic and strong) are not even there to begin with.

[sophontteks]

You're using a particularly niche & unusual definition of roleplay, then using it to accusing him of not roleplaying.

JoeJ hit the nail in the head when he said your statement about roleplay being optional is both absolutely wrong (as in it's nowhere near universal) and insulting.
I'm not apologizing.


Just kidding. I'm sorry I I offended JoeJ. I should have specified that roleplaying lucky is not optional in my world. Though I still highly recommend it, especially to people who think the feat is bland. Its been nothing but hilarious stories.

[Tanarii]

I'm not apologizing.


Just kidding. I'm sorry I I offended JoeJ. I should have specified that roleplaying lucky is not optional in my world. Though I still highly recommend it, especially to people who think the feat is bland. Its been nothing but hilarious stories.
You should have specified that not describing & narrating the individual rolls in your world. That's not "roleplaying" except in your own personal niche definition of the word.

Roleplaying is also not optional in my world. Meaning the players have to make decisions for what their characters do. But they don't have to narrate each individual component of a series of rolls that cause a resolution, because that's optional and has nothing to do with roleplaying.

[sophontteks]

You should have specified that not describing & narrating the individual rolls in your world. That's not "roleplaying" except in your own personal niche definition of the word.

Roleplaying is also not optional in my world. Meaning the players have to make decisions for what their characters do. But they don't have to narrate each individual component of a series of rolls that cause a resolution, because that's optional and has nothing to do with roleplaying.
Tanarii.
We were talking about roleplaying a feat called lucky. They said that, because only the final result matters, roleplaying the actual luck is optional. If you want to play that way, where luck has no impact on roleplay. Great, but don't continue berrating me as if this idea is somehow unreasonable, or even unpopular. I've already apologised and at this point you are the one being disrecpectful.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Tanarii.
We were talking about roleplaying a feat called lucky. They said that, because only the final result matters, roleplaying the actual luck is optional. If you want to play that way, where luck has no impact on roleplay. Great, but don't continue berrating me as if this idea is somehow unreasonable, or even unpopular. I've already apologised and at this point you are the one being disrecpectful.

That's not what "we" said. That's at the very least not what I said.

I don't understand why you believe that I think Luck shouldn't be roleplayed, my only belief is that when you said:


I literally force my players to narrate luck every time they used it. You got lucky. Show me how.
AND


If we just play this as a hit, then its not luck. I would never let someone use lucky without being lucky. Its just poor roleplay.

You can roleplay other roles as whatever you want. But if you hit someone with a sword, you roleplay that you hit with a sword. If you hit someone with luck roll, well, thats a very different thing to roleplay.

That you were stepping on your players toes on how they should roleplay their character.

Their character's might not have the world bending type of luck that causes their opponent to slip on their own sweat in the heat of battle. Their character might have the kind of constant luck that could simply manifest in an idea like "Johnny has always worn that polka dot cuirass, and for as long as he's had it he's never once been felled in battle. You think it's gaudy, I think it's the best damn armor in the world."

I just get the feeling that if you weren't somehow satisfied with their idea of "luck" you wouldn't allow them to take the feat.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding anything here.

[Tanarii]

Tanarii.
We were talking about roleplaying a feat called lucky. They said that, because only the final result matters, roleplaying the actual luck is optional. If you want to play that way, where luck has no impact on roleplay. Great, but don't continue berrating me as if this idea is somehow unreasonable, or even unpopular. I've already apologised and at this point you are the one being disrecpectful.
The only person who said that is YOU. And you continue you be disrespectful, by claiming muktiple times your definition of roleplaying means they are not roleplaying if they don't narrate your particular way. Even after its explicity pointed out to you, you claim to be apologizing and then do it again in the very same post. An apology thay repeats the disrespectful offense is noy an apology.

[sophontteks]

That's not what "we" said. That's at the very least not what I said.

I don't understand why you believe that I think Luck shouldn't be roleplayed, my only belief is that when you said:


AND



That you were stepping on your players toes on how they should roleplay their character.

Their character's might not have the world bending type of luck that causes their opponent to slip on their own sweat in the heat of battle. Their character might have the kind of constant luck that could simply manifest in an idea like "Johnny has always worn that polka dot cuirass, and for as long as he's had it he's never once been felled in battle. You think it's gaudy, I think it's the best damn armor in the world."

I just get the feeling that if you weren't somehow satisfied with their idea of "luck" you wouldn't allow them to take the feat.

Correct me if I'm misunderstanding anything here.

We were talking about how luck was a bad feat and the prevailing thought was banning it from the game. I offered a suggestion to roleplay luck. My players, by the way, thoughly enjoy this. I am far from stepping on their toes. Its a powerful feat that interupts the game flow, as others have pointed out, and creating some fun roleplay out of it makes it worth it. If they don't want to do this they can pick another feat. As others pointed out, its rather OP on its own anyway.

I don't DM AL if thats what this is about. This is a home campaign where we drink and have a good time.

I was told thats not how the game world works.
And that my beliefs on roleplay was nitch and unusual.
No one offered alternative ways to roleplay luck.
Only that my way was wrong.

When you tell me that I am stepping on my players toes. You are telling me that I am DMing wrong, right? Why shouldn't I be defensive about this? There is literally nothing RAW or RAI that I am violating. I've pointed that out already.


The only person who said that is YOU. And you continue you be disrespectful, by claiming muktiple times your definition of roleplaying means they are not roleplaying if they don't narrate your particular way. Even after its explicity pointed out to you, you claim to be apologizing and then do it again in the very same post. An apology thay repeats the disrespectful offense is noy an apology.

Or you jumped into the conversation late and missed the part where I'm being told to change how I DM my own campaigns.

[ProsecutorGodot]

We were talking about how luck was a bad feat and the prevailing thought was banning it from the game. I offered a suggestion to roleplay luck. My players, by the way, thoughly enjoy this. I am far from stepping on their toes. Its a powerful feat that interupts the game flow, as others have pointed out, and creating some fun roleplay out of it makes it worth it. If they don't want to do this they can pick another feat. As others pointed out, its rather OP on its own anyway.

I don't DM AL if thats what this is about. This is a home campaign where we drink and have a good time.

I was told thats not how the game world works.
And that my beliefs on roleplay was nitch and unusual.
No one offered alternative ways to roleplay luck.
Only that my way was wrong.

When you tell me that I am stepping on my players toes. You are telling me that I am DMing wrong, right? Why shouldn't I be defensive about this? There is literally nothing RAW or RAI that I am violating. I've pointed that out already.

This is not a response to my question. I'm not trying to attack your sensibilities, this isn't me being rude to you. I want to clear up a misunderstanding, because as I see it you're trying to make an argument towards enforcing a certain type of roleplaying for your players if they want to take Lucky. You claim not to have a problem with the mechanical benefit of the feat, but enforcing a particular roleplaying trait onto characters who take it leads me to believe you do.

I'm asking if you truly believe that only your drunken halfing players interpretation of luck is suitable for a player to take the luck feat. Is it possible to be lucky in your game world in ways that do not involve the world around you bending reality to accommodate the required comical roleplay? Can someone just be generally "lucky" or does it required a deus ex machina to take place every single time the roll changes a success to a failure?

On the bolded note. No. Absolutely untrue, and if you think that's the case then you're either ignoring the examples given or you seriously just want a reason to be offended. I've literally given you an example in the post you quoted me on, and in posts prior many other people have given examples. I'm against your (apparent) assertion that if someone uses their luck die to land a blow that it's required to be roleplayed in a way that you would consider "lucky". The way you've said things makes me think "Against all odds, even with your vision clouded by your own blood dripping down your brow, your blow lands true and the villain is slain" isn't lucky enough to warrant them being allowed to use Lucky at your table.

Why is your definition of lucky the only one your players are allowed to roleplay? Am I not supposed to see that as enforcing a certain type of roleplaying on your characters?

Nobody said your DMing is wrong, roleplaying the feat is something I would recommend as well, but if you're demanding that someone roleplay it to your standards I'd consider that you're stepping too far into their character's actions.

This could of course be one large misunderstanding, but your insistence on being offended instead of just saying "well of course they could just be an extraordinarily lucky person who doesn't often miss their shots, I just think the over the top drunken buffoon luck is more fun" leads me to believe that it might not be.

I am allowed to disagree with how you run your game but that does not mean I am telling you that you are wrong and you should feel terrible. I just want to understand whether or not you are arbitrarily putting your own definition of "roleplaying luck" on a feat as a prerequisite for picking it. If you are, I feel like (*caution* this is my opinion that you are free to disagree with) you would be better off just banning the feat full stop because some people might not appreciate having to make their character seem like an idiot savant to be considered "lucky".

[Pelle]

We were talking about how luck was a bad feat and the prevailing thought was banning it from the game. I offered a suggestion to roleplay luck.

Sorry to be interfering, but you don't seem to understand what Tanarii is complaining about, which is what you mean when you use the word 'roleplay'. You seem to use it to mean "narrate what's going on, describe or act out what your character is doing and saying". "I offered a suggestion to [narrate] luck". To Tanarii, 'roleplay' means "making decisions".

So when you are saying that "roleplaying is optional in your game", I think you mean "describing what is going on is optional in your game". To others it sounds like you are saying "making decisions for your character is optional in your game", which is both offensive and ungrounded. "Doesn't nessesarily impact the narration" doesn't mean roleplaying [making decisions] is optional, it means narration is optional.


The only person who said that is YOU. And you continue you be disrespectful, by claiming muktiple times your definition of roleplaying means they are not roleplaying if they don't narrate your particular way. Even after its explicity pointed out to you, you claim to be apologizing and then do it again in the very same post. An apology thay repeats the disrespectful offense is noy an apology.

If other people are using words "wrong", but you understand what they really mean, could you perhaps engage with their intention instead of arguing against what the words mean to you? :smallsmile:

[sophontteks]

This is not a response to my question. I'm not trying to attack your sensibilities, this isn't me being rude to you. I want to clear up a misunderstanding, because as I see it you're trying to make an argument towards enforcing a certain type of roleplaying for your players if they want to take Lucky. You claim not to have a problem with the mechanical benefit of the feat, but enforcing a particular roleplaying trait onto characters who take it leads me to believe you do.

I'm asking if you truly believe that only your drunken halfing players interpretation of luck is suitable for a player to take the luck feat. Is it possible to be lucky in your game world in ways that do not involve the world around you bending reality to accommodate the required comical roleplay? Can someone just be generally "lucky" or does it required a deus ex machina to take place every single time the roll changes a success to a failure?

On the bolded note. No. Absolutely untrue, and if you think that's the case then you're either ignoring the examples given or you seriously just want a reason to be offended. I've literally given you an example in the post you quoted me on, and in posts prior many other people have given examples. I'm against your (apparent) assertion that if someone uses their luck die to land a blow that it's required to be roleplayed in a way that you would consider "lucky". The way you've said things makes me think "Against all odds, even with your vision clouded by your own blood dripping down your brow, your blow lands true and the villain is slain" isn't lucky enough to warrant them being allowed to use Lucky at your table.

Why is your definition of lucky the only one your players are allowed to roleplay? Am I not supposed to see that as enforcing a certain type of roleplaying on your characters?

Nobody said your DMing is wrong, roleplaying the feat is something I would recommend as well, but if you're demanding that someone roleplay it to your standards I'd consider that you're stepping too far into their character's actions.

This could of course be one large misunderstanding, but your insistence on being offended instead of just saying "well of course they could just be an extraordinarily lucky person who doesn't often miss their shots, I just think the over the top drunken buffoon luck is more fun" leads me to believe that it might not be.

I am allowed to disagree with how you run your game but that does not mean I am telling you that you are wrong and you should feel terrible. I just want to understand whether or not you are arbitrarily putting your own definition of "roleplaying luck" on a feat as a prerequisite for picking it. If you are, I feel like (*caution* this is my opinion that you are free to disagree with) you would be better off just banning the feat full stop because some people might not appreciate having to make their character seem like an idiot savant to be considered "lucky".

I totally agree that lucky is OP. I would never just allow the feat. Instead of banning it, I insist it is roleplayed. Its an alternative to banning the feat in response to people saying the feat is bland and universally too good. One that allows players who want to roleplay a lucky character to do so without running a game where everyone is picking the feat.

So, I actually do have a problem with the mechanical benefit of the feat. I said this frankly. If players are just using it for the mechanical benefit, I wouldn't allow it. Feats are optional rules. I want to see them used to enhance character concepts or see a playstyle realized, not picked because they are universally good.

And I helped the drunken halfling player come up with the concept and suggested lucky to him to help him see his character concept realized. Similiarly the divination wizard plays out how his seeing into the future fortells rolls.

I want players to see the game I am creating, not die being rolled on the table. If players are just shouting "I want to reroll that." Its distracting from this. They have to explain in character how this bad roll was changed.

As a player I play a bard and I follow this by actually playing out how I give inspiration to people. And another player plays out how he gives guidance to people.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I want players to see the game I am creating, not die being rolled on the table. If players are just shouting "I want to reroll that." Its distracting from this. They have to explain in character how this bad roll was changed.


But that's exactly what you're doing by making every roll have to be narrated. Making them focus on the dice instead of the action that's being resolved. I could see lucky as something the character doesn't even know about--he's just fortunate. It happens in completely invisible ways. Other people are confused because that darn well should have hit, but somehow didn't. Making it a big dramatic thing is a choice that drastically restricts the available play space.



As a player I play a bard and I follow this by actually playing out how I give inspiration to people. And another player plays out how he gives guidance to people.

I play a bard and that would seriously annoy my table. YMMV. This is a taste issue.

[sophontteks]

But that's exactly what you're doing by making every roll have to be narrated. Making them focus on the dice instead of the action that's being resolved. I could see lucky as something the character doesn't even know about--he's just fortunate. It happens in completely invisible ways. Other people are confused because that darn well should have hit, but somehow didn't. Making it a big dramatic thing is a choice that drastically restricts the available play space.

Before we go down this rabbit hole. I do not insist every roll be narrated. I am talking about changing rolls on the table, which happens much less often. I already said that I don't force players to narrate every swing of their sword.

By using luck, it is the action being resolved. That was a luck die they used so they should narrate it appropriately, showing how luck was involved. Its something drastic, something they can only do up to three times per long rest and its not hard to come up with strokes of luck. How is this drastically restricting the available play space?

The character may not know about the luck, but the player can still explain how the luck saved them. In fact, the character's ignorance is part of the glory of it.



I play a bard and that would seriously annoy my table. YMMV. This is a taste issue.
I silently strum a few notes and my lute whispers their name.
vs.
I give player X inspiration.

[Tanarii]

If other people are using words "wrong", but you understand what they really mean, could you perhaps engage with their intention instead of arguing against what the words mean to you? :smallsmile:People who are claiming other people aren't Roleplaying, even indirectly by claiming their way is Roleplaying and it's not optional to do it, are leveling one of the biggest insults you can level at someone on a RPG forums. That's my "complaint". Making a very niche & narrow definition of Roleplaying, then saying Roleplaying isn't optional, thus implying other are NOT Roleplaying. When they almost certainly are, both in the general and in the specific.

Like you, I stepped in to explain to another forum member why their behavior was doing was an issue, since they apparently couldn't see it. Clearly that was a mistake. It's not my job to be a forum behavior police. :smallamused:

[Willie the Duck]

By using luck, it is the action being resolved. That was a luck die they used so they should narrate it appropriately, showing how luck was involved. Its something drastic, something they can only do up to three times per long rest and its not hard to come up with strokes of luck. How is this drastically restricting the available play space?

You are adding a requirement (in comparison to PhoenixPhyre's conceptual 'in completely invisible ways'). To the larger universe of potential ways that the scenario-event could progress, you are putting a limiter (only those that include the flag 'narrated appropriately'). It is a filter criteria for potential outputs.


The character may not know about the luck, but the player can still explain how the luck saved them. In fact, the character's ignorance is part of the glory of it.

Emphasis on the can. They can. But do they have to? If they have to, then they are constrained/restricted from any other potential option.

[GlenSmash!]

I believe the onus is on the DM to describe the narrative effects of Lucky changing the outcome of scenario, not the player.

The player describes their approach to a scenario, the DM narrates the result. In this case the DM would typically use some variant of:

[Something] was just about to happen (or not happen), but by [Some description of inexplicable luck] it didn't (or did) happen.

Putting the onus on the Player to describe the outcome of their approach is backwards IMHO.

[Tanarii]

I believe the onus is on the DM to describe the narrative effects of Lucky changing the outcome of scenario, not the player.

The player describes their approach to a scenario, the DM narrates the result. In this case the DM would typically use some variant of:

[Something] was just about to happen (or not happen), but by [Some description of inexplicable luck] it didn't (or did) happen.

Putting the onus on the Player to describe the outcome of their approach is backwards IMHO.
I'm a fan of player declares intent, DM describes resolution too. It sure seems backwards to do it otherwise if it's all your used to, but there's nothing that particularly requires it to be that way. Lots of groups play with player describing the result to one degree or another. As long as they aren't pre-supposing a result before the dice (if any) are rolled, or changing the result of a roll, it works fine.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I believe the onus is on the DM to describe the narrative effects of Lucky changing the outcome of scenario, not the player.

The player describes their approach to a scenario, the DM narrates the result. In this case the DM would typically use some variant of:

[Something] was just about to happen (or not happen), but by [Some description of inexplicable luck] it didn't (or did) happen.

Putting the onus on the Player to describe the outcome of their approach is backwards IMHO.

That's my position too (and the one that's in the PHB). I don't have a problem with players wanting to narrate or being given a chance to narrate ("how did you kill him?"), but I do have a problem with forcing players to narrate. Especially in the name of balancing an ability, because that's pants-on-head. Players that like to narrate take that as a reward (strengthening the ability), while players that don't like to narrate take it as a penalty. So it has nothing to do with power, just with player type.

[GlenSmash!]

I'm a fan of player declares intent, DM describes resolution too. It sure seems backwards to do it otherwise if it's all your used to, but there's nothing that particularly requires it to be that way. Lots of groups play with player describing the result to one degree or another. As long as they aren't pre-supposing a result before the dice (if any) are rolled, or changing the result of a roll, it works fine.


That's my position too (and the one that's in the PHB). I don't have a problem with players wanting to narrate or being given a chance to narrate ("how did you kill him?"), but I do have a problem with forcing players to narrate. Especially in the name of balancing an ability, because that's pants-on-head. Players that like to narrate take that as a reward (strengthening the ability), while players that don't like to narrate take it as a penalty. So it has nothing to do with power, just with player type.

You both make good points.

[Elric VIII]

The narration for a Lucky-imposed miss is no different from the narration of a normal miss, really, except that you get to play up how much of a close call it was. If I were to make a Lucky feat I would make it actually random, like the halfling's luck trait. You don't know when it'll come up, but when it does, you will feel plenty lucky.

I played a Lore Bard with lucky as a witch doctor and both my Cutting Words and (bad) Luck points were me actively using a fetish to curse the enemy after gazing a second into the future.

Luck doesnt have to be boring. Maybe he has a lucky rabbits foot that he rubs, maybe he has prophetic visions, etc. If you can't narrate it in a way that satisfies you, it's not the fault of the feat.

[strangebloke]

I played a Lore Bard with lucky as a witch doctor and both my Cutting Words and (bad) Luck points were me actively using a fetish to curse the enemy after gazing a second into the future.

Luck doesnt have to be boring. Maybe he has a lucky rabbits foot that he rubs, maybe he has prophetic visions, etc. If you can't narrate it in a way that satisfies you, it's not the fault of the feat.

Except that what you're narrating is a reaction not a player action that occurs outside of the turn order, which is what Lucky is. Indeed you narrate Lucky the same way you narrate cutting words, which is a reaction.

You're refluffing something that isn't an action, as an action on the part of your character.

This is moslty fine, of course, but your refluffing is refluffing.

If Lucky was a reaction and was fluffed as a curse/blessing I wouldn't have a problem with it.

[Tanarii]

Characters can do a variety of stuff in game world without it being Actions.