Have you played in a featless game?

[greenstone]

How did it go?

What was the reason for not using feats?

[Kane0]

I'm currently running HotDQ no MC and featless for some noobs, they're having fun. PHB Beastmaster ranger in the party too!

Everything still runs solidly without feats, they aren't necessary but they do help provide variety.

[stoutstien]

I have played in one and currently running 1 featless game and one featless and no multiclass game.
The game I played in was fine and it was a blast because the campaign was very satirical and we had 3 new to newish players.

The two games I'm running are actually mostly players with lots of experience and wanted to play 'clean' campaigns to really focus on role-playing and character development.

The featless and non multiclass game has been going 11 months so far I can say martial classes are more impacted by the lack of feats but are still holding their own. I do see more creative actions than "i reckless attack and use power attack" every turn

[Particle_Man]

I am running a featless game. The players seem to be enjoying themselves.

[dragoeniex]

Only one. It was a group of work friends who were all new to D&D- DM included- except me. The decision was made, I believe, to keep things simpler so the other players and our DM didn't have to worry about even more choices and mechanics.

It's a good reason, and I think it worked fine for the group. But as the self-assigned tank who ran around keeping the team of inexperienced squishies from dying, there were a couple of feats I missed being able to flesh out my character's playstyle with.

I always hope for feats but wouldn't outright refuse a campaign that tossed them.

[Phoenix042]

I would never willingly nix feats myself, although I am avoiding them while building characters for my younger nieces and nephews and newer-to-the-game siblings for a family game I hope to run soon.

I've been working super hard to make simple but fun and effective characters and I find that I desperately WANT to go use feats, but I'm holding back so people don't feel overwhelmed with info on first playing.

I'm making all of the characters myself because I know how to build an effective but relatively simple character, but I am having them each make defining choices about their characters and give some consideration to backstory as I build.

[Nhorianscum]

It works. It also favors casters heavily once melemancy falls off.

Ranger is pretty great here. Barb is just... don't play barb featless.

[Sigreid]

I havent been in a featless game, however; I will say it is not uncommon at my table for people to simply not take any and instead improve the underlying character.

[stoutstien]

It works. It also favors casters heavily once melemancy falls off.

Ranger is pretty great here. Barb is just... don't play barb featless.

I'm curious to hear why you think barbarians are worse off in a featless game than other Martial classes.

[Nhorianscum]

I'm curious to here why you think barbarians are worse off in a featless game than other Martial classes.

They're pretty much just meatsacks after tier 1. It's upsetting.

This isn't to say I don't still find them fun to play, but that's entirely due to shenanigans like insisting that you really are a wizard who can cast "mage armor" (IE grabbing and then useing the party wizard as a human shield).

[stoutstien]

They're pretty much just meatsacks after tier 1. It's upsetting.

This isn't to say I don't still find them fun to play, but that's entirely due to shenanigans like insisting that you really are a wizard who can cast "mage armor" (IE grabbing and then useing the party wizard as a human shield).

Oh so it's a lack of options. I thought you believed they fell behind in the area of hitting stuff really hard.
Those shenanigans are exactly why I like running featless games something. Sometime the lack of options actually create more solutions.

[Nhorianscum]

Oh so it's a lack of options. I thought you believed they fell behind in the area of hitting stuff really hard.
Those shenanigans are exactly why I like running featless games something. Sometime the lack of options actually create more solutions.

Oh they also do really poor damage.

The party rouge is better at everything at a cost of 2 hp/level by tier 2.

I just love the MFoV barb joke-subs too much to not use them in low OP games.

[Nagog]

I'm considering limiting feats in my future games to exclude GWM, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter, because I feel they make any martial build that doesn't use them extremely subpar in comparison. However I don't think I'll outlaw all feats, particularly because I have my players roll for stats, and once you have your necessary stats maxed there really isn't a need for ACI's beyond feats.

[Sigreid]

I'm considering limiting feats in my future games to exclude GWM, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter, because I feel they make any martial build that doesn't use them extremely subpar in comparison. However I don't think I'll outlaw all feats, particularly because I have my players roll for stats, and once you have your necessary stats maxed there really isn't a need for ACI's beyond feats.

My experience at the table is that the accuracy penalty balances them pretty well.

[stoutstien]

Oh they also do really poor damage.

The party rouge is better at everything at a cost of 2 hp/level by tier 2.

I just love the MFoV barb joke-subs too much to not use them in low OP games.
I'll give you that rogues shine in featless games but in damage dealt and mitigation is still ruled by the barbarian. In White room theory the rogue pulls ahead of barbs but in actually game play I see a lot of rounds spent by the rogues setting up and repositioning where the barbs just keep chipping away at anything that is dumb enough to get in range.
A lot of people see reckless as a constant source of advantage but it's often overlooked as a constant way of countering disadvantage also.

In the game I'm running I'd say the lizard folk barbarian is the star a lot by providing Advantage with shoves and grapples while still laying down the hurt. The arcane trickster in the party is definitely happy to take advantage of the advantage.

[Willie the Duck]

I'm considering limiting feats in my future games to exclude GWM, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter, because I feel they make any martial build that doesn't use them extremely subpar in comparison. However I don't think I'll outlaw all feats, particularly because I have my players roll for stats, and once you have your necessary stats maxed there really isn't a need for ACI's beyond feats.

My experience at the table is that the accuracy penalty balances them pretty well.

In isolation, the accuracy penalty does a good job of checking the benefit of GWM/SS. In combination with barbarian reckless attack advantage, battlemaster fighter accuracy+1dX to hit, hexblade devil's sight advantage, paladin or party cleric's Bless, etc. etc. etc. you can massively outstrip other builds in terms of damage. Synergy works a little too well, in this regard.

OTOH, if the martials are competing (for relevance) with party spellcasters played by players who have mastered the 'batman wizard' style of play, then those feats feel almost required at high levels. In that situation, it isn't that GWM, PAM, SS etc. builds are too good, it is that they are the only builds (with some exceptions) that stay competitive. OTOH, if your party wizard swoons when they learn fireball, perhaps no feats or just no PAM/GWM/SS/XBE is wholly appropriate.

[Sigreid]

In isolation, the accuracy penalty does a good job of checking the benefit of GWM/SS. In combination with barbarian reckless attack advantage, battlemaster fighter accuracy+1dX to hit, hexblade devil's sight advantage, paladin or party cleric's Bless, etc. etc. etc. you can massively outstrip other builds in terms of damage. Synergy works a little too well, in this regard.

OTOH, if the martials are competing (for relevance) with party spellcasters played by players who have mastered the 'batman wizard' style of play, then those feats feel almost required at high levels. In that situation, it isn't that GWM, PAM, SS etc. builds are too good, it is that they are the only builds (with some exceptions) that stay competitive. OTOH, if your party wizard swoons when they learn fireball, perhaps no feats or just no PAM/GWM/SS/XBE is wholly appropriate.

I guess it's a playstyle thing. I'm usually the group wizard and usually conserve power by setting up the martial characters to do their thing rather than trying to dominate.

[Vogie]

I have a sort-of featless game... It's a game with mostly other parents and professionals who don't play much - only myself and the paladin player even have the books. So what I did is on each ASI I allowed them to get a full ASI AND they got to pick from 2 feats that I had chosen for them based on their playstyle up to that point. I plan on allowing each of them to slowly grow the pool of available feats for them, based on their decisions and actions throughout the game.

The EK player, for example, was playing his fighter as a normal sword & board fighter who had picked up a enemy NPCs spellbook after defeating them and was self-taught into magic - in addition to the ASI, he was given the choice between Shield Master and Ritual Caster. The DW Swords Bard player got their ASI, and the choice between the Dual Wielder and Inspiring Leader Feats, and so on.

[Willie the Duck]

I guess it's a playstyle thing. I'm usually the group wizard and usually conserve power by setting up the martial characters to do their thing rather than trying to dominate.

Along with the 'fireball wizards and non-GWM/PAM/SS/XBE martial'/'Batman wizard and force-multiplied martial' split, there also seems to be a big divide in playstyles over how much spellcasters need to conserve their resources.

[Sigreid]

Along with the 'fireball wizards and non-GWM/PAM/SS/XBE martial'/'Batman wizard and force-multiplied martial' split, there also seems to be a big divide in playstyles over how much spellcasters need to conserve their resources.

True that. In our games there could be 1 encounter per day or 20 (exaggerated, but you get the idea). Point being, we can't count on a 5 minute work day or even a limit of 6 encounters per day. It's in the best interest of everyone that encounters cost the fewest resources possible.

[Gignere]

I guess it's a playstyle thing. I'm usually the group wizard and usually conserve power by setting up the martial characters to do their thing rather than trying to dominate.

This is the Batman or GOD wizard. You don’t deal much or even any damage but you do dominate the game. Making quadruple deadly encounters into cake walks, even 6x deadly encounters doable. Without even contributing a single point of damage. The other players may not even notice it unless you were gone for a session and the DM kept the encounters the same that’s when people wipe.

[Sigreid]

This is the Batman or GOD wizard. You don’t deal much or even any damage but you do dominate the game. Making quadruple deadly encounters into cake walks, even 6x deadly encounters doable. Without even contributing a single point of damage. The other players may not even notice it unless you were gone for a session and the DM kept the encounters the same that’s when people wipe.

Eh, it's just doing my part and letting others do theirs. Sometimes it's a force wall, sometimes it's a fireball but in the end it's just letting them focus.

[Comaward]

I’m currently running two campaigns where feats are not allowed.

It works very well, and in my experience, all you really need to do is make sure the Fighter or Barbarian gets a magic weapon that deals at least one extra dice of damage on a hit.

Otherwise, they WILL fall behind in effectiveness.

[Nhorianscum]

I'll give you that rogues shine in featless games but in damage dealt and mitigation is still ruled by the barbarian. In White room theory the rogue pulls ahead of barbs but in actually game play I see a lot of rounds spent by the rogues setting up and repositioning where the barbs just keep chipping away at anything that is dumb enough to get in range.
A lot of people see reckless as a constant source of advantage but it's often overlooked as a constant way of countering disadvantage also.

In the game I'm running I'd say the lizard folk barbarian is the star a lot by providing Advantage with shoves and grapples while still laying down the hurt. The arcane trickster in the party is definitely happy to take advantage of the advantage.

So what you're saying is featless barbs are meatsacks?

(With the caveat that in real gameplay magic items and creative/team play >>> class. Also fun > all)

Not disagreeing with anything in the above post.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I havent been in a featless game, however; I will say it is not uncommon at my table for people to simply not take any and instead improve the underlying character.

Same. My games do not ban feats, but feats are rarely taken. And when they are, they're not the big combat feats. So far, I've seen the following feats over 4 years of play with a bunch (10+ groups):

* Lucky. Hands down the most common feat.
* Mobile. One group always had someone with it.
* Spell Sniper. Both times on warlocks who wanted to EB from extreme range.

I think that's it. That's over 40+ characters reaching anywhere from level 5 to level 20.

And I've yet to see anyone multiclass except for me, the one game I was a player in.

[Stone-Ears]

The first campaign I played in was a featless game, but that was just to keep it as simple as possible and not overwhelm us newbies with too many options. We also only played strictly with PHB only. Nothing from any other book was allowed. This helped our DM teach the table the game and we eventually got to switch our characters to our new ones.

Featless games are good for keeping it simple and to teach new players the lay of the land.

[olskool]

YES! I played AD&D for a decade (when it was new!). The FEATS in 5e are poorly designed (with previous versions being even worse) and seem to mirror feats a character in a video game might acquire. They are definitely there for "min-maxers" aka "munchkins" whom I despise. 5e has significant promise as a base gaming system without the FEATS and some added restrictions on class abilities (like endless cantrips and Paladin and Bard "superpowers"). Play 5e as a "Featless system" for a session or two and see for yourself.

[stoutstien]

YES! I played AD&D for a decade (when it was new!). The FEATS in 5e are poorly designed (with previous versions being even worse) and seem to mirror feats a character in a video game might acquire. They are definitely there for "min-maxers" aka "munchkins" whom I despise. 5e has significant promise as a base gaming system without the FEATS and some added restrictions on class abilities (like endless cantrips and Paladin and Bard "superpowers"). Play 5e as a "Featless system" for a session or two and see for yourself.

Yep the *insert all but a handful* feat is obviously so powerful that and player who takes it is the bane of the TTRPG hobby.

A-DND was a rushed game so GG didn't have to pay some of his former fellow game designers. For some reason he felt it was necessary to add a bunch of useless rules to shift back to rule lawring and what do you know, min-max player behavior due to over restrictive character creation and combat rules.
Sort of how he claims female and male characters are equal and a few pages later puts a lower cap of female's max strength....

[Sigreid]

Yep the *insert all but a handful* feat is obviously so powerful that and player who takes it is the bane of the TTRPG hobby.

A-DND was a rushed game so GG didn't have to pay some of his former fellow game designers. For some reason he felt it was necessary to add a bunch of useless rules to shift back to rule lawring and what do you know, min-max player behavior due to over restrictive character creation and combat rules.
Sort of how he claims female and male characters are equal and a few pages later puts a lower cap of female's max strength....

To be fair, if I remember right females had lower str, but higher con.

[stoutstien]

To be fair, if I remember right females had lower str, but higher con.

True. I was just pointing out that the editions of the old days had there own issues and 5e was a huge step the right direction to move away from over restrictive rules and mechanical interactions.
I like and still play alot of the older TTRPGs but the size of tje fan base of 5e is a clear indicator of how well it's received by people compared to some of the other ones. I'm really curious how the new Pathfinder 2e is going to do.

[Misterwhisper]

I have not played in one or ran one but I have been around many groups who did, nobody played a fighter, in any of them.

Well not for more that 2 levels.

[Nhorianscum]

I have not played in one or ran one but I have been around many groups who did, nobody played a fighter, in any of them.

Well not for more that 2 levels.

EK counts as a fighter right?

[KorvinStarmast]

Have you played in a featless game?
Yes.
How did it go?
It went fine. We went from levels 1-7. Nobody got a feat. Every one tried to max their base stat for their class. Both my brother and I (Cleric and Wizard) decided that we wanted to get War Caster feat at level 8.
But the campaign ended before level 8. RL is OP.
What was the reason for not using feats?
No vHuman at roll up, which was the DM's call. He said that when we get to level 4, we'd review that and see how it was going.
This was in 2014. We had just started the new edition and he wanted to keep it simple since only three of the seven people had a copy of the PHB during chargen.
We were going to use them later but the campaign ended.

[Chalkarts]

Why yes, I did play during the days of ThAC0.

I like feats, but would definitely be willing to play in a No feats game.
I'd probably play a Bard for maximum versatility.

[Misterwhisper]

EK counts as a fighter right?

Nobody got that far.

People took 2 of fighter for armor, style, and action sure then went caster.

Lots of sorcadins.
Lots of warlocks.
Some monks and bards
No barbarian except as two level dips, same with fighter.

[Nhorianscum]

Nobody got that far.

People took 2 of fighter for armor, style, and action sure then went caster.

Lots of sorcadins.
Lots of warlocks.
Some monks and bards
No barbarian except as two level dips, same with fighter.

That's upsetting given how good EK is featless.

[ezekielraiden]

Load and loads of people talk about banning feats. Gleefully, even. I haven't actually played in one, but that's because a DM who leads with "no feats and no MC" has almost certainly lost me as a player. There's just a certain way people express it that communicates a disinterest in player passion. (Unless it happens to perfectly agree with all of the GM's biases.)

[ad_hoc]

Load and loads of people talk about banning feats.

I don't like this framing.

People don't ban feats.

They just decline from using the optional feat rules.

[ezekielraiden]

I don't like this framing.

People don't ban feats.

They just decline from using the optional feat rules.

You may dislike it all you wish. People specifically use the word "ban." What am I to make of that?

[BurgerBeast]

You may dislike it all you wish. People specifically use the word "ban." What am I to make of that?

Oh, I don’t know...

Maybe restrict your judgment to the person/people who said it instead of generalizing...

so...

you know...

basically just don’t be prejudiced... on a public forum...

Featless games can be awesome. So can single-class only games. And so can single-class-only featless-games. And so can games that use feats and/or use multi-classing.

And DMs that run any of the above can be jerks. They can also be awesome. They can also be average. This is not revolutionary.

[Bjarkmundur]

No, I'm a very hands-on kind of guy.

[ezekielraiden]

Oh, I don’t know...

Maybe restrict your judgment to the person/people who said it instead of generalizing...

so...

you know...

basically just don’t be prejudiced... on a public forum...

Featless games can be awesome. So can single-class only games. And so can single-class-only featless-games. And so can games that use feats and/or use multi-classing.

And DMs that run any of the above can be jerks. They can also be awesome. They can also be average. This is not revolutionary.

Perhaps I was not clear.

When I said that, I meant that the people doing the thing, themselves, called it "banning." As in, "Yes, I ban feats, and I'm proud of it." This is not me projecting the term onto anyone. This is me literally using the very word used by real people who don't permit feats in their games.

[Willie the Duck]

You may dislike it all you wish. People specifically use the word "ban." What am I to make of that?

That you could have clarified what was going on (right at this point here, where you made this response) and saved everyone a lot of grief. Both ad_hoc's and BurgerBeast's responses were perfectly reasonable considering the knowledge you had given them.

As to the subject of your original post ("Load and loads of people talk about banning feats. Gleefully, even. I haven't actually played in one, but that's because a DM who leads with "no feats and no MC" has almost certainly lost me as a player. There's just a certain way people express it that communicates a disinterest in player passion. (Unless it happens to perfectly agree with all of the GM's biases.)") -- it's good that you recognize what you want out of the game, and can readily figure out which games you would want to play in before you or anyone else gets at all invested in you playing at a given table. The part about it communicating a disinterest in player passion, though, well obviously the rest of us haven't met these specific individuals, so we can't draw too many conclusions. However, I certainly wouldn't generalize it to people outside of that sample without further case-making.

[ezekielraiden]

That you could have clarified what was going on (right at this point here, where you made this response) and saved everyone a lot of grief. Both ad_hoc's and BurgerBeast's responses were perfectly reasonable considering the knowledge you had given them.

As to the subject of your original post ("Load and loads of people talk about banning feats. Gleefully, even. I haven't actually played in one, but that's because a DM who leads with "no feats and no MC" has almost certainly lost me as a player. There's just a certain way people express it that communicates a disinterest in player passion. (Unless it happens to perfectly agree with all of the GM's biases.)") -- it's good that you recognize what you want out of the game, and can readily figure out which games you would want to play in before you or anyone else gets at all invested in you playing at a given table. The part about it communicating a disinterest in player passion, though, well obviously the rest of us haven't met these specific individuals, so we can't draw too many conclusions. However, I certainly wouldn't generalize it to people outside of that sample without further case-making.

I don't really feel like I misspoke. My first post even said, as you quoted, "...people talk about banning feats. Gleefully, even." I don't see how that doesn't say, "People call it banning and do so happily." How can one talk, gleefully, about banning feats....without calling it that, or something meaningfully synonymous?

[Arkhios]

Once, a one shot with 5th level characters.

Didn't feel any different from our campaign "fully open for official stuff" where we're currently at 5th level.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't really feel like I misspoke. My first post even said, as you quoted, "...people talk about banning feats. Gleefully, even." I don't see how that doesn't say, "People call it banning and do so happily." How can one talk, gleefully, about banning feats....without calling it that, or something meaningfully synonymous?

When you talk about 'people' (particularly "Load and loads of people"), it is reasonable to think you are making a general statement about people at large, not that there were actual, specific individual people that you met in real life who used those specific words. If you had started with "I have met people who have talked about banning feats, and done so happily and gleefully," we would be talking about those people now. Instead, we have this derail focusing on your word usage and both ad_hoc and BurgerBeast reasonably coming away with the impression that you were taking the piss out of fictional straw villains. Whether you think you misspoke or not, your word choice didn't end up with the results you wanted.

[Nhorianscum]

When you talk about 'people' (particularly "Load and loads of people"), it is reasonable to think you are making a general statement about people at large, not that there were actual, specific individual people that you met in real life who used those specific words. If you had started with "I have met people who have talked about banning feats, and done so happily and gleefully," we would be talking about those people now. Instead, we have this derail focusing on your word usage and both ad_hoc and BurgerBeast reasonably coming away with the impression that you were taking the piss out of fictional straw villains. Whether you think you misspoke or not, your word choice didn't end up with the results you wanted.

There are several posters in the thread who have issued posts with a gleeful tone who have claimed to have disallowed the feats rule.

If folks are pulling out the idea that the poster referenced is discussing fictional strawmen that's on them. The posters original statement conveyed his point in a clear and understandable manner.

Ixnay on the semantic argumentay

[ad_hoc]

There are several posters in the thread who have issued posts with a gleeful tone who have claimed to have disallowed the feats rule.


Quote one of them.

There is only 1 post I see where the person is stoked on not using the feat rules as they find them unbalanced and they want a more AD&D feel game.

They don't mention 'banning' feats which is what we're now talking. It's not a semantics problem, it's a framing problem. Choosing not to use an optional rule is not 'banning' or 'disallowing'.

[Nhorianscum]

Quote one of them.

There is only 1 post I see where the person is stoked on not using the feat rules as they find them unbalanced and they want a more AD&D feel game.

They don't mention 'banning' feats which is what we're now talking. It's not a semantics problem, it's a framing problem. Choosing not to use an optional rule is not 'banning' or 'disallowing'.

That's a lot of words to spend saying "neener neener" and I'm frankly offended that you would frame such a noble term in this juvenile way.

[Willie the Duck]

There are several posters in the thread who have issued posts with a gleeful tone who have claimed to have disallowed the feats rule.

If folks are pulling out the idea that the poster referenced is discussing fictional strawmen that's on them. The posters original statement conveyed his point in a clear and understandable manner.

Ixnay on the semantic argumentay


That's a lot of words to spend saying "neener neener" and I'm frankly offended that you would frame such a noble term in this juvenile way.

Good gods, man, no. Just provide even a bit of evidence to support your claim. That's literally all that is being asked of you.

[Nhorianscum]

Good gods, man, no. Just provide even a bit of evidence to support your claim. That's literally all that is being asked of you.

How about hell no.

Same thread. The posts ya'll are going postal over are one page back. Click-y, read-y, calm-y.

[Willie the Duck]

How about hell no.

Same thread. The posts ya'll are going postal over are one page back. Click-y, read-y, calm-y.

There is no one going postal over anything, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the thread participants can see that. What they don't see, is evidence of these "several posters in the thread who have issued posts with a gleeful tone who have claimed to have disallowed the feats rule." If you don't want to do anything, you don't have to, you're just not going to convince very many people. That's really all there is to say.

[Nhorianscum]

There is no one going postal over anything, and I'm pretty sure the rest of the thread participants can see that. What they don't see, is evidence of these "several posters in the thread who have issued posts with a gleeful tone who have claimed to have disallowed the feats rule." If you don't want to do anything, you don't have to, you're just not going to convince very many people. That's really all there is to say.

Why on earth would I try to convince anyone on a subjective reading of a subjective topic?

That's just thilly.

My point was clearly stated to rephrase from bad pig Latin "shhhhhhhh"

[Myzzrym]

That would seem to make level ups... kind of bland, no? I mean, aside from arcane spellcasters who have to choose which spell they add to their arsenal, a lot of martial classes' build is greatly enhanced by feats. Taking that away may in favor of pure stats, not sure if I'd find that very interesting^^'

[Arkhios]

That would seem to make level ups... kind of bland, no? I mean, aside from arcane spellcasters who have to choose which spell they add to their arsenal, a lot of martial classes' build is greatly enhanced by feats. Taking that away may in favor of pure stats, not sure if I'd find that very interesting^^'

Uhh... are you sure you're talking about the same edition, because in 5th edition just about every martial class gains a new class feature or an improvement at every level you gain. Those few that don't gain new class features at some levels are partial casters, and gain access to more spells at those levels.

Besides, if you go by the numerous class guides out there, there's not much variation anyway. All of them seem to suggest same feats to certain classes.

[Willie the Duck]

<tripling down>
Moving on.


That would seem to make level ups... kind of bland, no? I mean, aside from arcane spellcasters who have to choose which spell they add to their arsenal, a lot of martial classes' build is greatly enhanced by feats. Taking that away may in favor of pure stats, not sure if I'd find that very interesting^^'


Uhh... are you sure you're talking about the same edition, because in 5th edition just about every martial class gains a new class feature or an improvement at every level you gain. Those few that don't gain new class features at some levels are partial casters, and gain access to more spells at those levels.

Besides, if you go by the numerous class guides out there, there's not much variation anyway. All of them seem to suggest same feats to certain classes.

In the end, it is going to depend on mindset.

Without feats (and excluding the spellcaster spell selection that Myzzrym mentions as an exception) there aren't a lot of things that playing a no-feat, no-MC PC allows for you to do with regards to decisions made on your characters sheet, as you level up. Sure, you allocate ASIs, but without feats that's just moving numbers up. Once you've picked race, class, and initial distribution of stats, you've made all your major character build choices.

For certain players, that's a big deal. If you came from 3e, 4e, late 2e, or any of the even more granular non-D&D rpgs with a build-a-bear aesthetic like GURPS or HERO System, tinkering with your characters 'permanent*' qualities is an important part of the game and being able to make real meaningful decisions is a vital part of the game.
*or at least lasting, given that you're not going to be playing the character forever

Other players are not going to put value on that distinction (particularly if you come from oD&D-early 2e era TSR D&D, or other systems like Traveller where the character-build part of the game is muted), and for them, there sure are still important decisions to make. In fact you make them all time. Every round of combat, every branch point in a cave, every time you choose to take the time to check for traps before opening a door, you're making decisions which can mean the difference between success and failure and/or life and death. And for them, this edition does, as you mention Arkhios, give another important change in variability, new features every level (even if there isn't a between-session decision to be made).

[Meichrob7]

Honestly the one time my DM ran a featless game it really expanded my ability to use some of the more basic dnd abilities and spells. Me and the players in my group often focus on the power of specific feats (Its generally not GWM and Sharpshooter thankfully but if i have to see another elven accuracy im gonna tear the DM screen in half) It was also lower level so some of the more strategic options were more viable. None of this is impossible with feats allowed but by taking them away it shifted our focus. Things like dropping prone against ranged enemies, holding our attacks for the first enemy that approaches, stuff like that never happened before that adventure but since then we've done it a lot more.

[BurgerBeast]

Perhaps I was not clear.

When I said that, I meant that the people doing the thing, themselves, called it "banning."

No you were perfectly clear. Perhaps I wasn’t.

What difference does it make whether they say “I ban X” or “we don’t use X” or “this is an X-less game”? Seriously. The message being conveyed is the same. If you decide that you don’t like what is being said because of how It is being said (and not what is being said), that is just you being sensitive. It says more about you than the person doing the saying.


As in, "Yes, I ban feats, and I'm proud of it." This is not me projecting the term onto anyone.

The use of “as in,” here, pretty clearly indicates that this is your interpretation of the speaker’s meaning. “...and I’m proud of it” appears here, in the interpretation, but it doesn’t appear in your own description of what was actually said. So, you are not projecting the term “ban,” based on your account, but you’re projecting “and I’m proud of it.” And I personally don’t take exception to someone being proud to ban feats either. I still think you’re being overly sensitive.


This is me literally using the very word used by real people who don't permit feats in their games.

No.

1. This is you literally using the very word used by some real people who don’t permit feats in their games.

2. You are using their words, but you are also apparently adding “...and I am proud of it,” which doesn’t appear in your own account of what they said.

3. Even if they did say it, I wouldn’t care, which is why I’m saying it seems overly sensitive.

4. If you do care, you should notice that your irritation seems to be aimed at the particular people who are using words that you don’t like, and aim your criticisms at them, instead of aiming it at GMs who “ban” feats, generally.

For example, I might run a featless game. If someone phrased it as “feats are banned in this game,” or “BurgerBeast bans feats in his game,” I would not disagree. They seem to me to indicate the same thing: no feats.

[SuperFerret]

All of my 5e games, aside from the occasional pbp game I've been in, have been featless. Mostly, I run one-shots with newbies, so feats are an extra complication that gets in the way of learning the core of the game. I also don't like feats much, but I wouldn't necessarily disallow them if/when I run a longer campaign.

[sithlordnergal]

I've never run or played in a featless game, nor have I ever really been interested in running or playing a featless game. Feats are what help me flesh out a character and a build, and it makes PCs more interesting. I'm not really much for fluff...if it doesn't do anything mechanically the fluff may as well not exist. In my eyes, there's no difference between a featless Fighter who claims to be a master of polearms and any other Fighter because the master of polearms has no way to back that up mechanically. Both Fighters are equal in ability with whatever weapon they use, provided they have similar ASIs.

I also find Feats make character building more interesting. This is also why I enjoy multiclassing. Unless you're playing a Caster, you have no interesting decisions to make once you reach level 3 for most of the classes. And that bores me. I'd much rather weigh the pros and cons of taking a feat at level four or gaining an ASI, calculating if I should do an ASI or feat at level 8, or trying to figure out the best time to multiclass to get the most out of all my classes. I doubt I'd be able to play a No Feat/No Multiclass game...I'd get bored with the character too quickly and try to swap out characters too often.

[sithlordnergal]

Uhh... are you sure you're talking about the same edition, because in 5th edition just about every martial class gains a new class feature or an improvement at every level you gain. Those few that don't gain new class features at some levels are partial casters, and gain access to more spells at those levels.

Besides, if you go by the numerous class guides out there, there's not much variation anyway. All of them seem to suggest same feats to certain classes.

I mean, they get stuff, sure...but after level three most martial classes are set in stone and you don't make any fun or interesting decisions that can change up their build or how you play them. There's no point in planning out a build after level 3 if there are no choices that you have to make outside of the occasional ASI or subclass ability.

[Nhorianscum]

I mean, they get stuff, sure...but after level three most martial classes are set in stone and you don't make any fun or interesting decisions that can change up their build or how you play them. There's no point in planning out a build after level 3 if there are no choices that you have to make outside of the occasional ASI or subclass ability.

What are you talking about I can't wait to get brutal critical as my only feature on a level up!

[Arkhios]

I mean, they get stuff, sure...but after level three most martial classes are set in stone and you don't make any fun or interesting decisions that can change up their build or how you play them. There's no point in planning out a build after level 3 if there are no choices that you have to make outside of the occasional ASI or subclass ability.

I'd like to disagree.

In general, (for example) Oath of the Ancients Paladin is often suggested to be played as Sword & Board, but if you're willing to set aside all prejudices, I can guarantee that Dual Wielder with two one-handed weapons does make the class feel very different, even if you don't get the fighting style for it.

Add Divine Favor and you're quite effective powerhouse in melee even without using Divine Smite whenever possible.

[Nhorianscum]

I'd like to disagree.

In general, (for example) Oath of the Ancients Paladin is often suggested to be played as Sword & Board, but if you're willing to set aside all prejudices, I can guarantee that Dual Wielder with two one-handed weapons does make the class feel very different, even if you don't get the fighting style for it.

Add Divine Favor and you're quite effective powerhouse in melee even without using Divine Smite whenever possible.

Not to jump all over this or to go into caster vs martial distinctions but...

(Paladin is one of if not the worst possible example for showing balance in a featless game. It's Paladin.)

As for meaningful choice after 3rd level. FS is not one of those. Things like FGS are though. (Again Paladin is beyond loaded)

[RickAllison]

It's telling that the positive experiences with featless games are primarily at a lower level. At this point, unless you need a feat to function in that build (and so wouldn't use it in a featless game), most characters are just boosting their primary stat and there is usually a nice ability at the next level-up or two, plus there aren't so many spell slots being thrown around to auto-solve problems and skill DCs are still low enough that the fighter's skills matter. This is also where most games are played at, so it's not too bad for it to be the case.

Get more into T2 or higher and that changes. The pure martials (Barbarian, most Fighters) have their primary stat maxed out and they have the choice between more HP or having a slightly higher modifier on a set of skills but still not enough to really matter. This can be mitigated by subclass choice; an Eldritch Knight can be fine because they can work on their casting, a Purple Dragon Knight can feel okay with working on Charisma because they have the modifiers to still matter with it compared to other classes, etc. Featless games can certainly work and work well, but there are certain archetypes that are absolutely gutted once you remove the feats.

As for the question on banning feats vs. not using an optional rule, let's not beat around the bush. The only reason feats are optional is for the sake of making the base game simple for new people to enter. Fighters were designed for feats; they get two bonus ASIs while also being one of the most SAD classes out there, because the fighter's special trait is getting all those combat feats.

[sithlordnergal]

I'd like to disagree.

In general, (for example) Oath of the Ancients Paladin is often suggested to be played as Sword & Board, but if you're willing to set aside all prejudices, I can guarantee that Dual Wielder with two one-handed weapons does make the class feel very different, even if you don't get the fighting style for it.

Add Divine Favor and you're quite effective powerhouse in melee even without using Divine Smite whenever possible.


What are you talking about I can't wait to get brutal critical as my only feature on a level up!

Sooo, I think you guys are misunderstanding me. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy getting features like Brutal Critical, Divine Favor, and other abilities...but you're not making a choice, you're being given an ability. You can't choose to have an ability that lets you prevent people from Disengaging from you in exchange for Brutal Critical. You just get Brutal Critical. There's no choice being made, so there's no real reason to plan out your build outside of "How many levels left till I get Brutal Critical"

Same with the Dual Wielding Paladin. You do end up playing differently...but there is no variation in class features. A dual wielding Paladin of the Ancients will have the exact same abilities of a Sword and Board Ancients Paladin, with the only exception being their Fighting Style.The only difference is one makes a bonus action attack, and the other has higher AC.

Now compare that to an Ancients Paladin with feats. Yes, they have the standard class features that all Ancients Paladins get, but they also have extra abilities on top of those, abilities that tend to be comparable to class abilities.

[KorvinStarmast]

As for the question on banning feats vs. not using an optional rule, let's not beat around the bush. The only reason feats are optional is for the sake of making the base game simple for new people to enter. Fighters were designed for feats; they get two bonus ASIs while also being one of the most SAD classes out there, because the fighter's special trait is getting all those combat feats. I think this is right, and for some reason I think that one of the devs mentioned this. Memory foggy.

[Nhorianscum]

Sooo, I think you guys are misunderstanding me. Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy getting features like Brutal Critical, Divine Favor, and other abilities...but you're not making a choice, you're being given an ability. You can't choose to have an ability that lets you prevent people from Disengaging from you in exchange for Brutal Critical. You just get Brutal Critical. There's no choice being made, so there's no real reason to plan out your build outside of "How many levels left till I get Brutal Critical"

Same with the Dual Wielding Paladin. You do end up playing differently...but there is no variation in class features. A dual wielding Paladin of the Ancients will have the exact same abilities of a Sword and Board Ancients Paladin, with the only exception being their Fighting Style.The only difference is one makes a bonus action attack, and the other has higher AC.

Now compare that to an Ancients Paladin with feats. Yes, they have the standard class features that all Ancients Paladins get, but they also have extra abilities on top of those, abilities that tend to be comparable to class abilities.

The joke here was that feats are a cherry on top of the Paladin Sunday.

Paladin is feature heavy feat light. More so than any other class, and to top it off they're ASI starved.

On the other hand... feature light classes that rely on feats exist. Most of these are SAD.

The second category is often worse than Paladin in feat games. Featless is hilariously in favor of paladin.

[Daphne]

because the fighter's special trait is getting all those combat feats.

If that was true Fighters would gain them as class features, but that's not the case.

[RickAllison]

If that was true Fighters would gain them as class features, but that's not the case.

They... they have that. They get more ASIs which are the way to pick up feats.

[Protolisk]

They... they have that. They get more ASIs which are the way to pick up feats.

I believe they mean that actually getting the feats themselves would be part of the class like an "improved Fighting Style" or features like Action Surge or Second Wind, instead of getting more ASIs and then using an optional rule that allows you to replace ASIs for Feats. As in, at level 6 you'd just "get" SS or GWM instead of an ASI that can be swapped out for a feat that happens to be SS or GWM.

[Theodoric]

I always play without feats. They make the game a bit too kludgy and mechanics-driven, IMO. They're optional for a reason. They don't fit everyone's playstyle.