Should you use feats in your 5e D&D game?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июл 2024
- Many people consider feats to be an integral part of the game, and the WotC designers are obviously moving in that direction with the latest playtest. However, as they currently stand there are issues you should consider if you want to use them.
One D&D Character Origins Playtest - www.dndbeyond.com/sources/one...
Art and Video Credits - homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/s...
Patreon - / rulesandrulings
Other Work - t.co/crSJgpEI47 
Игры
![Veeze - F.A.F (ft. Rylo Rodriguez) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7hlz2S2GmIY/mqdefault.jpg)
Id like to see a bit of conclusion after the viewpoints. "Generally we recommend playing with feats because x, however if you are a y, you might consider dropping them in your games."
In 5e we play with feats. For us they are a way for martials to close the gap a bit with casters. Unfortunately there is the major issue of most feats not getting more powerful when you level up, which means you're getting the most dramatic effects of feat choice in the first one or two ASIs.
Some of that can be corrected by using level or prof bonus for the feat number (chef temp hp for instance).
DND one has so far taken the level locked approach, and at the time of writing only the character creation feats are available. Generally, this is just a solid nerf to martials early, since now they presumably have to wait till lvl 4 to pick up the ASI. We shall see, but it looks like its going to continue to dungeons and casters for the foreseeable future.
The martial-caster disparity is a thing it would be great if they found a way to tackle. I believe at least some of the classes are probably the next UA we'll see in the next month or two. If they do tackle it, I'd be interested to see if they try to lift martials or tame spellcasters, or some of both.
Balancing is the ONE thing I wanted for feats to be accepted at my table.
The versatility they add to builds is very appealing. Hopefully the playtest eventually gives us a full list of balanced feats without getting too complicated.
"One DnD wants to balance feats"
>looks at the new magic initiate feat, which can stack up to 3 times, and now allows you to csst the first level spell it gives with spellslots you may have, on top of maybe allowing spells it didn't had before (not clear yet if paladin and ranger spells will be included)
Yes, very balanced indeed.
For me feats are a given yes. Not very balanced but can make the characters much more unique.
Personally, I think it comes down to the environment that the DM wants to create, and more aptly, whether or not the DM in question wants to cater to new/newer players or not.
When it comes to new/newer players, especially for players with a year or less experience, things like feats and multiclassing should, in my opinion, be taken off the table for them. At least until some measure of competency is attained. The last thing a DM should want to cause is analysis paralysis in their new/newer players, and as it stands, there's already roughly 500 or so pages worth of rules material between the PHB and the DMG alone that new/newer players will want to digest in order to get the most out of their game.
Additionally, depending on the environment (i.e., digitally via Discord/VTT or in person), the application of feats, in real time, may be somewhat problematic for the DM to administer/adjudicate (and thereby disruptive to the flow of gameplay), since some of those feats have grid space requirements that require a certain degree of monitoring (and in some cases, constant monitoring). This is moreso notable in games that happen digitally, rather than in person, since not everyone has access to, or can afford, a VTT subscription. (Yes, Owlbear is a thing, but not everyone knows about it.)
In any event, that's my 2 cents on the matter. As for One D&D document, as a whole, I'm not a fan of much of what's in it and I have some pretty big concerns about it going forward.
5E screwed up making feats "optional" its like they new there were some issues with the feat system but released it anyways as an option. Feats are more important to martial characters than casters... its the only thing that makes them competitive when an 11th level fighter hits you 6 times with a greatsword the GWF feat makes you a monster. 12d6 plus an average of 90 damage. Means the fighter can out perform a wizards disintegrate spell (10d6+40) And they need to be able to do things like this since they cannot fireball 20 goblins at once or perform any one the crazy effects a caster can. If it is just 12d6+30 the fighters big move is sorta on par with a caster and then thats all they got.
What is BAD about feats is that they replace a +2 ability score meaning that any feat that is better than a +2 ability score is a must have and all the other feats dont get taken because you still need to up your ability scores.
I hate One DND concept of lv 1 feats or any level requirements on feats in general. This will mean you will only take the feats that are free at level 1 and any other level requirement feats will only be taken if they are essential to builds, it may force players to take ability score ups at lower levels to take better essential feats at higher levels. just more of that illusion of choice BS you get in DND. For there to be real choice all feats need to be balanced against each other and the +2 ability score mod.... but Good luck with that.
I think level requirements are a great balance to keep the aspiring adventurer feeling for lvl 1. While still getting the cool customization of feats to make your character more unique.
@@wicky7591 Have you ever experienced 3E play with its feat trees? If feats are to be level required they should ditch ability score boost being connected with feats, then that could work. The fact they are means it wont work. Feats should be appealing at any level as an option, once you place the level requirement on them players will abandon ability score boosts in favor of feats because those high level feats will be so much better than any +2 stat boost.
Feats nowadays are so much different then back in 3.5e. I never play without them just because Im used to feats in 3.5 but they are a lot more optional than back in the old days
The more editions you play in, the more likely you are to have those little things you like from one that affect the other. I guess we'll see where on the spectrum the new feats land between mostly optional and completely integral.
You should do a video about the gritty realism optional rule from the DMG
To be honest, that rule is really not about realism or difficulty at all and more just a way to pace your game around a different time system when you have 1-2 encounter days instead of the recommended 6-8.
@@dumbwaki5877 Yes, and if you are running a 1-2 encounter per day game this rule narrows the gap between martials and casters by encouraging casters to conserve their spell slots rather than going nova every combat.
@@studentofsmith well yeah, more like puts it at the normal gap of martials and casters. still a big recommendation since it lets the world move at a pace that's plausible considering the party's power. If only it was the default.
Yes, you should! Feats allow way more customizable characters and 'builds', and even if you're not a min-max maniac like I am, it provides a lot of roleplay options outside of your class' characteristics. Yeah, sometimes they're not balanced, but cmon, DnD is not a competitive game!
Feats are what broke Pathfinder for me. I don't mind the idea, but after there were thousands of them with some being way better than others it got to be too much. Pathfinder 2nd and 5e fixed the main problem though by removing them form monsters. I think complexity on the PC side is good and gives the Players more things to interact with, but DM complexity is bad. A pathfinder encounter with 2-3 different monsters each with a separate feat list just got to unwieldy.
I like feats being optional and never use them at 1st level since it just doesn’t make sense for a 1st level to already be capable of pulling off something that would require lots and lots of training and honing. But that’s just my opinion.
With all due respect, level 1 is lots and lots of training 😋
Not all feats are training. Can you read? Lots of them have to do with backstory and where your character came from or what happened to them, or explains an innate talent or trait they have.
Elves live long enough to learn a lot of feats before becoming an adult
That might make sense if your table always makes sure to build in periods of training in between level ups. It's definitely not how most tables and most published content run, but if you're that meticulous about realism then more power to you.
I like the new feats a lot better
however I think we need a new system for gaining them on level ups, instead of just replacing your asi outright idk
Sounds like the good old 3.x days.
Between people playing with feats as a given and backgrounds not being as impactful, I don't mind this change. Balancing feats against each other and categorizing them by level seems like a good call. Nobody is going to get Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert at level 1. Almost universally, background feats will effectively be constrained to Tough, Skilled, Magic Initiate (or some variation), or Martial Adept. Tough is arguably the best choice.
This begs the question: how powerful will higher leveled feats be? Will we still need to trade Ability Score Improvements for these feats or are classes getting bonus feats? Or maybe both. Either way, they don't seem optional, so I'd like to see what the workaround will be.
Time will tell. I definitely think feats are worth putting the effort into, whether by DMs or by WotC.
Without feats casters are the only classes that are actually viable. Balancing in DND is not something that has a space to be the center of any discussions, it's a game to be played with friends to tell stories.
many of the first generation of D&D players would severely disagree with some of this. This game is much older and wider than Critical Role.
@@plasmarob741 If you like playing with numbers you can play that. There are sistems for it, but the game is a story teller first and nothing else. I never watched Critical Role that's just something I learned with 3.5e.
I like feats but I do not like tiered leveled feats because well most will never be used due to campaigns ending after lvl 10 usually or have no impact unless you minmaxed a build which is fine i like feats but id rather have all available or at least limit the lvl feats to lvl 4 and not higher
It may well be that those level requirements will only be level 4 or thereabouts. We don't know if there's going to be any adjustment in when feats are gained. I've heard lots of people hoping for a change to every third level.
I think feats make the game way more fun. I love having more character customization options and I've never seen a feat have a greater impact on balance than class/subclass. Balance is important, but feats aren't the issue and all options should be balanced regardless.
Alert was nerfed so hard and now has nothing to do with actually being Alert. You now just politely ask your party if anyone wants to swap places in the turn order which, up to your DM, you could just do anyways. The initiative part also is nerfed until past 10th level where most campaigns tend to end anyways.
I have a short up about my thoughts on Alert. Overall I think you're right that it's been nerfed, but I still think it conveys the theme of being alert. Since it's being positioned as a free first level feat, I think the power level is fine. Never been a fan of Alert's "you don't interact with the hidden attacker or surprise rules", personally.
@@RulesandRulings I'd agree if it weren't for Lucky being basically the same as it is currently. Alert is more like "hey I want a fair fight with no advantage" Lucky is "the fates are in my hands"
It's a nice idea, but I don't trust WotC to make levelled feats balanced. The adults have left the building, and the company is run by posers.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. I like what I see so far.