Do you play without Feats? How's that going?

[Schwann145]

Feats, despite being an optional rule, are pretty much just assumed to be part of 5e gameplay from all I can tell. They're an option that, in theory, should widely open up customization for characters, but because of how wildly imbalanced they are, we kinda end up with character homogeneity anyway (Sentinel, GWM, PAM, Resilient: Con, Warcaster... we all know the culprits).

So who plays without Feats at all?
Do you find characters all feel the same without the added customization option feats offer? Do you allow characters to do feat-like things through roleplay and ability checks (like "swinging for the fences" and sacrificing to-hit for bonus damage... like GWM does if you could take a feat)? Or do you not find such to be an issue, and class options are enough to keep things feeling unique on their own?

[stoutstien]

I've ran games in all the big different formats: no feats/multiclass, feats but no multiclass, multiclass no feats, and both feats and multi-classing.

I don't really have an opinion on one or the other but multi-classing is easily the biggest impact on the game.

For the big feats for martials like SS/GWM, shield master, and sentinel I just rolled them into the armor/weapon as special features. They are little less powerful but don't take any real cost past picking a weapon over another one.

[Eldariel]

No-feat game got really samey really fast. Feats are one of the principal axes of customisation in the game so it's basically just one-two possible mechanical combinations for each subclass without them. No-multiclassing didn't matter as much since my players are pretty savvy and prefer playing builds in the upper echelons of power so multiclassing is rarely interesting to them. But once I did allow it, some new combinations did come up so I'd say it had overall a marginal, but positive impact.

In short, I probably wouldn't run or play another game without feats except for some extraordinarily good reasons, but while I mostly consider multiclassing a positive, I find it less useful for character creation mostly because the single classed characters are generally so much more powerful than their multiclass brethern.

[Rihno]

I ran one short (10 sessions) story with no feats. Level 1-8.

It's fine, but it makes characters kind of boring from mechanical point of view. For example if you have two Fighters and one is Sharpshooter + Eleven Accuracy Samurai and one is PAM + Sentinel Battlemaster then suddenly you have two ABSOLUTELY different playstyles and that makes both characters more unique for players and more exciting to use.

While without feats they are at level 8 both 20 STR, 18 DEX or 20 DEX, 18 STR Fighters than both can use some melee weapon + some range weapon. Sure, they have different subclasses but it's not like Fighter gives really that much variety in gameplay, though Battle Master still stands out as most utility subclass of Fighter imo.

A Wood Elf Battle Master level 8 with EA + Magic Initiate + Wood Elf Magic is suddenly a really complex character who can do tons and tons of stuff, making it all exciting for a player.

It's fine, but it's also boring for most players in my opinion. Feats are "this is my character" staple for players and that's why people like them so much.

[MrStabby]

I played one game without feats; almost didn't join for that reason. I am really glad I did, it was a great game. It wasn't truely without feats as the DM made a housrule that if you would get an extra ASI where another class wouldn't you could use if for a feat (so fighter and rogue)

I wouldn't run a game without them myself... probably. But it was really fun and a change of pace. Character naturally took a step forwards over mechanical optimisation and the slightly higher stats accross the board meant that there were fewer dumped stats so characters were sitting out fights due to a failed charisma save less often.

I can see how at higher levels it could get a bit dull and the options opened up are pretty cool as well.

[Imbalance]

Not as a rule. My players are still new, and for all the more we get to play they barely read their own sheets let alone the phb to find out what other options there are. I've presented the options numerous times, but I'm no longer going to build their characters for them. So, out of player laziness, I end up running mostly featless games, and honestly it has been fine.

[Willie the Duck]

I have. It certainly works.
Mind you, I 1) started with BX/BECMI, where class/level was a pretty good summation of your character, mechanically (minus the spells known and magic items possessed, which was how characters really were distinguished) so this playstyle is not new to me, and 2) have groups whose playstyle has moved to a place where the actual game rules get out of the way 90% of the time. That means that a lot of things others might find important (such as, varied methods of depleting an enemies hit points) simply don't trigger for me/us.

I do notice a lot of people referencing fighters here, and I think it's fair to say that a lot of people won't want to play fighters in a featless game. A fighter, mechanically, is about combat mechanisms, so limiting the options there is limiting the avenues of engagement one has with that particular subsystem. Mind you, there are still plenty of things you can do to make a fighter distinct. Subclass absolutely has a huge effect. Fighting style can. Heck, a Str16/Dex16 fighter plays out differently than a Str20/Dex10 or Str10/Dex20 fighter (also, there are a number of tactical options inherent to the ruleset, not build, which exist as well, from flanking to grappling to disarms and trips). That said, forgoing the fighting feats is selectively limiting the number of options to choose from.

Overall, I don't find that forgoing feats really massively changes much of the game -- lots of individual characters don't pick feats anyways. Some options, concepts, strategies, etc. are cut off (item in each hand caster, magic initiate for shillelagh-based melee combatant) or move from advisable to inadvisable (you can concentrate on a spell while also being a frontline combatant, but without resilient:con or warcaster it's pretty hard to do), and group dynamics might change somewhat (for example, I've noticed that if you can't take Ritual Caster: Wizard, then someone in group is more likely to choose to play a wizard or tomelock). For the most part, however, I think rather than having a huge impact on the game, positively or negatively, I think it's just something they added to appeal to the people that left D&D during the TSR era that doesn't have an obvious 'reason why you'd want to do this' to anyone else.

[Eric Diaz]

I like feats, but I don't use them, because for my players (who play several other RPGs), there are too many options to keep track of as it is.

The campaigns I've played went fine without them.

[javianhalt]

I believe it would force players to build things differently but it feels lacking for some cases

[Naanomi]

Gets rough at higher levels, especially for fighters who get extra feats but nothing mechanically valuable to do with them once STR and CON are maxed out

[Demon 997]

So I've been unintentionally running a game without feats. I told my players they could take them instead of ASIs, but my players are fairly new and haven't yet.

Should I let them all take a free feat when they wrap up their current adventure? They're level 9 at the moment, so should it be two feats?

Should I just pick a feat relevant to their build/playstyle, in consultation with them? My players vary hugely in how mechanically minded they are, so saying "here's feat X, it's going to work great for your build/playstyle" would likely work better for most of them then telling them to pick whatever feat they're eligible for. Both it'd be overwhelming, and high odds at least one or two would pick something fairly useless.

[Frogreaver]

Feats, despite being an optional rule, are pretty much just assumed to be part of 5e gameplay from all I can tell. They're an option that, in theory, should widely open up customization for characters, but because of how wildly imbalanced they are, we kinda end up with character homogeneity anyway (Sentinel, GWM, PAM, Resilient: Con, Warcaster... we all know the culprits).

So who plays without Feats at all?
Do you find characters all feel the same without the added customization option feats offer? Do you allow characters to do feat-like things through roleplay and ability checks (like "swinging for the fences" and sacrificing to-hit for bonus damage... like GWM does if you could take a feat)? Or do you not find such to be an issue, and class options are enough to keep things feeling unique on their own?

I've played without feats many times and I highly recommend the experience. I find that the feats feel really samey once you've hammered out which ones are good and which ones are bad. I find I focus more on characterization to differentiate characters when I'm not worrying about feats and needing the same 1-3 feats for all my martial/caster builds to come online. I find the martial class and subclass balance is much tighter without feats involved. I'm a big fan of no feats or at least limited feats.

[Tanarii]

It works great, at least in Tier 2.

If you're going to run a game with feats for the umpteenth time, I'd recommend cutting out the overturned outliers that really distort the classes. GWM, PAM, CBE, SS, Observant, Resilient (Con), and Warcaster. (Also don't allow the SCAG cantrips or Hexblades.) It'll give you a lot of the feeling of the base game "as intended" without actually going featless.

[Kane0]

My game includes feats.

I don’t think it would be the same if the fighter couldnt take alert + observant or the monk magic initiate or the bard defensive duelist

Sure the game would still go on and most likely be enjoyable but it would be missing that little something that helps characterise and differentiate beyond subclass.
Well without being a warlock anyways.

[Waazraath]

I've played games with and without, both are fine. I can imagine it depents a bit on how often you play, and if you play classes that allow other kinds of customization. If you're playing a lot and running your third champion fighter or berserker barbarian, I can imagine you really want those feats to have it be mechanically a bit different from what you've run before. At the rate I'm playing, I could run quite some featless games and be fine with it.

[x3n0n]

It works great, at least in Tier 2.

If you're going to run a game with feats for the umpteenth time, I'd recommend cutting out the overturned outliers that really distort the classes. GWM, PAM, CBE, SS, Observant, Resilient (Con), and Warcaster. (Also don't allow the SCAG cantrips or Hexblades.) It'll give you a lot of the feeling of the base game "as intended" without actually going featless.

The only surprise for me on that list is Observant (and maybe the lack of Alert and Lucky, which seem to be the fallback points for "avoid disaster after you're already strong", with Lucky also giving casters a near-War-Caster chance of making Con saves).

I know you don't run with Tasha's yet; would Skill Expert (half-ASI anywhere, one skill proficiency, one skill expertise) carry the same issues as Observant in your estimation?

[Joe the Rat]

So I've been unintentionally running a game without feats. I told my players they could take them instead of ASIs, but my players are fairly new and haven't yet.

Should I let them all take a free feat when they wrap up their current adventure? They're level 9 at the moment, so should it be two feats?

Should I just pick a feat relevant to their build/playstyle, in consultation with them? My players vary hugely in how mechanically minded they are, so saying "here's feat X, it's going to work great for your build/playstyle" would likely work better for most of them then telling them to pick whatever feat they're eligible for. Both it'd be overwhelming, and high odds at least one or two would pick something fairly useless.

It's still considered fairly common to ASI before Feats where it isn't core to your build, so one feat should be fine. I'd suggest making it something of a boon to completing their current adventure - special training or whatnot. I'd also suggest encouraging your players to discuss as a team. It gives your gearhead an opportunity to shine a bit (provided they can 'suggest' and not 'do it for them'), and lets them coordinate options.

If it's too much to work from, I'd try to come up with a set of three for each player, based on their strengths and needs.



Sure the game would still go on and most likely be enjoyable but it would be missing that little something that helps characterise and differentiate beyond subclass.
Well without being a warlock anyways.
In a land without feats, the man with two subclasses and a secondary power platter is king.

[Demon 997]

It's still considered fairly common to ASI before Feats where it isn't core to your build, so one feat should be fine. I'd suggest making it something of a boon to completing their current adventure - special training or whatnot. I'd also suggest encouraging your players to discuss as a team. It gives your gearhead an opportunity to shine a bit (provided they can 'suggest' and not 'do it for them'), and lets them coordinate options.

If it's too much to work from, I'd try to come up with a set of three for each player, based on their strengths and needs.

We're about to wrap up Storm Lord's Wrath so an end of adventure boon is perfect timing.

I'll recommend they work on it as a team, and maybe throw out suggestions. And toss RPGBot's class guide at them again. Good point on giving the gearhead a chance to shine. We're all adults, so I'm not worried about him overstepping.

On the other hand, they all nearly died last week because 3/4 didn't get that they needed to focus fire the BBEG who kept casting AoEs that were hitting for half their health each round, instead shooting at mooks. Also a real tendency to aim at uninjured targets, when they know they're not oneshotting them.

If the gearhead hadn't gotten off a round 1 Blindness, I probably could have downed them all, or come much closer. Mostly I just wish they had more tactical sense so I could throw more interesting fights at them.

On an unrelated note, any suggestions for not having Blindness shut down your spellcasters hard? Casters tend to have ****ty Con, the save DC is high at this point, and most spells rely on sight, and even the ones that don't it feels a little iffy. I don't want to shut down one of their staple tactics, but messing with it occasionally would be fun.

[Frogreaver]

Gets rough at higher levels, especially for fighters who get extra feats but nothing mechanically valuable to do with them once STR and CON are maxed out

IMO, In a featless game a fighter would most likely max str/dex and have a high con. He can the use any melee or ranged weapons and any armor effectively.

It’s not that the ASI’s aren’t useful in a featless game, it’s that they add to versatility instead of directly making you stronger at one thing.

[Naanomi]

In featless games, what do players do at higher levels once their primary stat and CON are at 20?

Say I am a mountain-dwarven fighter, classic slow heavy armor archetype... I pointbuy up STR and CON... Stats like 17/8/17/8/14/10

At level 4 I bump STR and CON, at level 6 I get 20 STR. At level 8 I polish off 20 CON and at levels 10, 12, 16, and 19 I... Choose if +1 Initiative, +1 Perception, or a marginally used save is worth a class level on?

It seems a lackluster reward for a class intended to be flexible and specialized with those ASI class features

[Silly Name]

In featless games, what do players do at higher levels once their primary stat and CON are at 20?

Say I am a mountain-dwarven fighter, classic slow heavy armor archetype... I pointbuy up STR and CON... Stats like 17/8/17/8/14/10

At level 4 I bump STR and CON, at level 6 I get 20 STR. At level 8 I polish off 20 CON and at levels 10, 12, 16, and 19 I... Choose if +1 Initiative, +1 Perception, or a marginally used save is worth a class level on?

It seems a lackluster reward for a class intended to be flexible and specialized with those ASI class features

Technically your options are "+1 to a save, plus all the skills keyed off that ability, plus more if picking Dexterity". I agree it's not really exciting or fun, but it does give you the possibility of getting better at stuff outside of your core focus - going wider rather than deeper.

[Naanomi]

Technically your options are "+1 to a save, plus all the skills keyed off that ability, plus more if picking Dexterity". I agree it's not really exciting or fun, but it does give you the possibility of getting better at stuff outside of your core focus - going wider rather than deeper.
So your answer is 'spend them on DEX because it gives you more junk you don't care much about than the other options'?

'marginally better at things you are still bad at and probably won't be the party member called on to do those things' is not my idea of an exciting 10th level class features. Heck I didn't feel super great about level 8s CON boost, but at least it was thematically fitting l.

Some other classes will run out of interesting things to do with their ASI at high levels (some, like artificers, valor bards, hexblades, rogues, and some clerics) will have skills they care about enough to not feel as bad about it... But some won't... And none of them except fighters had two core class defining abilities dedicated to getting bonus ones

[Frogreaver]

So your answer is 'spend them on DEX because it gives you more junk you don't care much about than the other options'?

'marginally better at things you are still bad at and probably won't be the party member called on to do those things' is not my idea of an exciting 10th level class features. Heck I didn't feel super great about level 8s CON boost, but at least it was thematically fitting l.

Some other classes will run out of interesting things to do with their ASI at high levels (some, like artificers, valor bards, hexblades, rogues, and some clerics) will have skills they care about enough to not feel as bad about it... But some won't... And none of them except fighters had two core class defining abilities dedicated to getting bonus ones

Alternatively one could dump charisma, start with 14 dex and then proceed to max dex. Being good with both a bow and a great sword and all armors makes a nice well rounded character.

[x3n0n]

So your answer is 'spend them on DEX because it gives you more junk you don't care much about than the other options'?

'marginally better at things you are still bad at and probably won't be the party member called on to do those things' is not my idea of an exciting 10th level class features. Heck I didn't feel super great about level 8s CON boost, but at least it was thematically fitting l.

Some other classes will run out of interesting things to do with their ASI at high levels (some, like artificers, valor bards, hexblades, rogues, and some clerics) will have skills they care about enough to not feel as bad about it... But some won't... And none of them except fighters had two core class defining abilities dedicated to getting bonus ones

I'm sympathetic overall. However, it may be worth noting that most of the Fighter subclasses offer some encouragement toward a third ability.

Eldritch Knight, Arcane Archer, and Psi Warrior all tend toward Int, Samurai toward Wis, arguably Champion toward the other of Dex/Str. I don't see such direct encouragement for Battle Matter, Cavalier (Cha/Wis for skill?), or Rune Knight (subtly toward your rune-related skills, maybe).

All that said, without feats, multiclassing, or an interesting racial ability, it does feel like progression would be "on rails", and ASI #6 and #7 decidedly underwhelming.

Maybe it doesn't matter because nobody plays/runs a featless game to tier 4?

[MoiMagnus]

Gets rough at higher levels, especially for fighters who get extra feats but nothing mechanically valuable to do with them once STR and CON are maxed out
Fighter skills are "Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Perception, and Survival". You will have some skills that depends on something other than STR.

In a featless game, you probably want to have high Wisdom to be able to have significant contributions outside of combat, though high Charisma or high Intelligence are possible too if you take the adequate background.

The best is probably to take the mental stat that overlap the least with the remaining of the team.

[hitchhike79]

I love feats! Having so many new ones out there are now with countless options with your character.

But...

We all know the data says that many(most?) games dont go past levels 10-12ish?
So with that point you max your primary stat and hopefully a nice kick to your secondary stat or Con.
This makes a great character in nearly any class and you can do tons with nearly any subclass.... all without feats

When I did it my first campaign of 5E, it was fun being a Gloom Stalker Ranger with Crossbow Expert and Sharp Shooter and blah blah... but i ended up i just shooting bolts and when i wasnt doing that i felt sort of meh. So yea now im enjoying my more well rounded builds and having fun with or without feats.

As someone currently playing a Rune Knight Fighter in an ongoing campaign without Feats i can tell you i wont miss them at all as we wont get past lvl 10.
Even to level 20 i doubt i would ever care about a single feat if all my physical stats and some mental ones are maxed.

Ive also played a level 20 Abjuration Wizard with tons of feats, maxed out INT and it was amazing. The entire party min/maxed and we were Gods once we got to around 14+. Making my DM very frustrated and ended up making insane monsters to challenge us.




Honestly what feats do is open the door to min/max and optimized characters, that's really what the question is here.

The perceived problem with Feats and sometimes multi-classing is you are often no longer your class, but now your just this feat/class-combo machine that does this one or two things in combat.
These combo's are often game breaking and the monsters/game isn't designed around those, its left to the DM. So now the DM has to work out how to deal with one person while at the same time deal with the next combo-tastic players and still run a game that's fun for everyone. The min/max players end up taking the major damage output or CC efforts while the rest are just left to do things like, hit one time, heal for middling health or any other normal things a straight X-Class would do.

So now the DM is working more to deal with players than to make your campaign immersive, detailed and fun for everyone.

DnD is way different than when i first started way back in 2ED, but i can see the challenge of being a DM today trying to solve a ton of issues due to feats and losing the big picture.
I see feats as a great way to add to your character, but when left to just go wild and make a perfect machine... eh not my cup of tea.


Feats dont break the game, but they open the door.

[Tanarii]

In featless games, what do players do at higher levels once their primary stat and CON are at 20?

Say I am a mountain-dwarven fighter, classic slow heavy armor archetype... I pointbuy up STR and CON... Stats like 17/8/17/8/14/10
Not play pointbuy and not feel locked into lining up say Str and Con from race with Fighter quite as much. Also lots of interesting secondary backgrounds instead of Soldier.

[Naanomi]

Not play pointbuy and not feel locked into lining up say Str and Con from race with Fighter quite as much. Also lots of interesting secondary backgrounds instead of Soldier.
'Be worse earlier so you don't feel like you wasted later stuff; 'plan for your wasted features later'; 'don't play that concept then'... and Dwarf Heavy Armor fighter is pretty iconic; one could easily choose that even without any eye for optimization. Even removing point buy changes what... one more ASI not wasted in all likelihood? So Only flush 3 class levels away in trivial bonuses instead of 4?

[Dark.Revenant]

Some character archetypes simply require feats. Crossbow/gun slinger? Needs a feat. Blink monk/ninja? Needs a feat. Lip-reading? Needs a feat. Casting magic through your sword and shield? (Usually) needs a feat.

[Tanarii]

'Be worse earlier so you don't feel like you wasted later stuff; 'plan for your wasted features later'; 'don't play that concept then'... and Dwarf Heavy Armor fighter is pretty iconic; one could easily choose that even without any eye for optimization. Even removing point buy changes what... one more ASI not wasted in all likelihood? So Only flush 3 class levels away in trivial bonuses instead of 4?
My point was it removes some of the incentive to always be quite so optimal in terms of lining up class and race and background.

I agree Dwarven fighters in heavy armor are still thematic.

But also, the standard is most games won't see beyond level 14 anyway. That's 3 ASIs for most classes, 4 for Rogues and 5 for Fighters.

But opening up feats to Fighters at 6/14 and Rogues at 10 isn't a terrible way to go either. Or for all classes for level 10+.

[diplomancer]

My point was it removes some of the incentive to always be quite so optimal in terms of lining up class and race and background.

I agree Dwarven fighters in heavy armor are still thematic.

But also, the standard is most games won't see beyond level 14 anyway. That's 3 ASIs for most classes, 4 for Rogues and 5 for Fighters.

But opening up feats to Fighters at 6/14 and Rogues at 10 isn't a terrible way to go either. Or for all classes for level 10+.

I'd be ok with putting a few feats (pretty much the ones you've said before are problematic-SS,XBE,PAM,GWM,WC, Res-Con) at level 8+. Putting them any later is basically a soft ban, since few campaigns actually reach 12th level; and then you might just as well ban them outright. Putting them at 8th means a Fighter gets them after maxing their main stat before anyone else, which is a plus in my book.

[MoiMagnus]

Some character archetypes simply require feats. Crossbow/gun slinger? Needs a feat. Blink monk/ninja? Needs a feat. Lip-reading? Needs a feat. Casting magic through your sword and shield? (Usually) needs a feat.

If you remove feats from the games, there are a ton of abilities that are "no longer in the rules". However, abilities that are "not in the rule" are not "impossible to get". It just mean that you are now reliant on GM fiat to have them.

Lip-reading? If you build a background in which you learn to read lip, in a game with feats, the GM will say to you "well, you need to take the feat". In a featless game, maybe you will get this feature for free (with a skill check instead of automatic success) just because it's part of the RP of your character.