Listen, all of the other D&D RU-vidrs will tell you that you don't need to try to be like any of the actual play/livestream DMs, your game is your game, and that you can just focus on the parts of the game you enjoy.
They're all correct, of course.
... but what if you DO want your games to be more like the ones you watch or listen to on popular streams or podcasts? What if you want to teach yourself some of the specific skills that your favorite actual-play DMs use?
Well, I'm here to tell you that you can learn all of their little tricks, and it's actually not that hard.
Together, we're going to work on little things you can do to enhance your D&D games. We'll look at famous streaming shows/podcasts, official materials, third party products, and even movies and TV shows, and when we're done you'll be able to craft a distinct tone and identity for your games.
I like feats. I think they add flavor and depth to characters. I tend to give everyone a free feat at char-gen but they have to justify it. Having to understand why the character would have such abilities makes them think about something other than the pure mechanics of it and can help define the character a bit more. For example, a paranoid, self taught, abjuration wizard with the Metamagic Adept feat because they've spent so much time and effort learning how to hide or disguise their magic that it justifies having limited access to the subtle spell metamagic.
I've tried several methods and I've found the most fun thus far is making "free feats" be from a limited list. In my Avernus game I've so far given the players such feats twice: once at character creation from a very small list, and another at around level 7 with more options to choose from - some piggybacking from the starting feat. They represented their origins and eventually their progression/breakthrough with teachers or through training. It does make them feel more heroic but not unbearably so. I more or less copied this list from an existing 5e D&D module which I'll refer to a few lines further below to prevent... SPOILERS Dragonlance: Shadow of the Dragon Queen.
I enjoy feats because it is a tertiary line of customization. but we also play with a good "stable" group who all almost have to min-max due to the nature of the campaign (gestalt demigods, with minimum lethal encounters). but I also feel like OneDND is alleviating some of the "best" nature of certain feats (removing the damage bonus from sharpshooter, nerfing the damage bonus from GWM)
the most interesting part of feats, to me, is the way they can be used to customize your character to more closely match your vision for who they are and what they can do. so i kind of bristle a bit at the idea of them being exclusively handed out by the DM, because it feels like the DM is making a decision about who your character is, and taking that decision out of your hands. that said, i think the idea has legs, perhaps if you limit its scope somewhat. like, if there are *specific* feats an individual DM is worried about for balance reasons, why not turn *those* feats into rewards the players can find/earn, and leave the rest for us plebs who just want some flavor? for instance, the critical role sourcebooks' approach of turning the "lucky" effect into a boon that can be granted by the gods is one kind of neat implementation of this idea that seems workable to me.
I have players take a feat at level 1, as well as giving them a free feat & ASI at level 4 & every 4 levels after. Of course, I also ban/rework various feats (such as GWM & SS) as well as incorporate a hell of a lot of extra changes (such as letting backgrounds give special non-feat abilities, like extra dice on certain skill or tool checks).
"Or board games" If someone's backseating in a TTRPG I do not want to play a co-op board game with them. I mean, hell, the worst backseaters will backseat _competitive_ board games. I like feats... In games that are balanced with the assumption they exist. They're a neat way of offering character customization in a class based system, particularly if you restrict them by level, by class, or bake feat trees into the feat design. Some help your character go brrr and play out how you want them to at the table, others are just fun little options that make me smile. My issue with them being optional in 5e is that I don't really trust the game is properly balanced assuming players have access to them or not. No feats? Cool. I can happily play a mouse or whatever the game is about with only my items and my wits to rely on (...I'm in a Mausritter game atm, that example isn't hypothetical), Feats? Awesome. I'll happily add this feat that helps my character do what I want them to at this level from the class feat option and this one that's just a fun little thing that I hope comes up but if it never does, that's fine, I just don't get to roll down a hill at 4x my speed (My current PF2e character is a Ratfolk. That's literally one of my ancestry feats). 5e's optional feat thing is... Not a decision I really trust... Particularly in a system with a CR system - is that designed assuming we're using feats or assuming we're not? I'm distrustful of CR systems even at the best of times, with 5e's approach to magic items and feats... It feels like it's even more making things up than CR systems often feel like.
I don't ban any feat in particular, but I do repeatedly inform people that I'd prefer if they didn't take Lucky, and so far nobody has ever taken it after I told them this. They have however, chosen to take the piss out of me about it, which is fine.
Our game is running levelup a5e, which adds a lot of options at all levels, but especially some juicy capstone abilities at 20. It makes multi-classing more of a sacrifice, but their solution is synergy feats trees that require at least 3 levels in two classes and melds their abilities in new ways. Another cool feat feature are ones to transform into various other monsterous forms, like were-wolves/bears/tigers/rats, vampires, revenants, and liches. So I think feats are pretty cool.
I think it really all comes down to. If they don’t care we shouldn’t care. I didn’t like Marisha a lot in campaign 1 because she would get really tipsy and just run wild from time to time and as a fellow GM I wouldn’t allow that at my table. But it’s not my table. It’s theirs, and if they don’t care why should we?
I don't ban any content in my games. If it's in a different setting I work out a backstory with the player for them to be the special one with it and trying to get home/escape/explore as per their goals. More importantly once people pick feats I try to lean into them as much as possible. Great Weapon Master? I'll throw low AC, high HP monsters at that character so they can have some fun cutting things down! Random magic feats? I'll give them opportunities to use those too but their might be consequences as well. In the end it's all about having fun and exploring a story to my way of thinking :)
I just want my players to only take feats that makes sense for that characters story. So no fey touched unless you have been touched by the fey. The more powerful feats require more justification
I do enjoy feats. It’s a balancing act though between how the game and combat is run vs what you might want the feat for, usually flavor. You got to know what your dm rules and how difficult their combat is and what genre of game/story you are playing. Flavor is nice and all, but if you are making a major sacrifice to your ability to carry your weight in the team, that’s an issue. Also, if you are a new player, I highly recommend not using feats. This is because all of them introduce new mechanics that just add more for you to learn and it’s hard enough to get the hang of your mechanics starting out, so keeping it simple is best. That isn’t to say I dislike feats. I love feats. I use them to great effect and make sure I have in-game reasons behind the ones I take so that the mechanics are reflecting the story I’m telling and not the other way around. Feats can be great for spicing up a character design when you create and play. But they are merely that, a spice, a flavor. Not the meat of things. Anyway, also you can’t forget that you’re playing a team game. If you take too many feats, you can also run into the issue of being too weak to keep your role up within the party because you aren’t bolstering your stats and that makes a bigger and bigger difference as you gain levels and get more difficult encounters and fights. And yes, some feats are inherently bad. I get that. Truthfully I tend to prefer that everyone be allowed at least one feat at start, not just the variant human, because this can make a build feel refreshed to some degree. Anyway, just my thoughts Oh! And I can see that for new players. I’m often the one helping at some of the tables I play at when we get new players. I’m a player too though so this can sometimes mean I feel like I’m skirting a line between backseat playing for another person and helping them. My usual approach is to ask what type of role they want in combat, do they want to hide more? Do they want to be up front? Do they want magic? Where do they feel like that magic should come from? What type of tactics do they prefer? Do they like talking? Do they like buffing and debuffing or healing? So I start with these types of questions first and then provide them a narrowed down list of classes and subclass that might interest them and ask them if that helps and to tell me if they have something else in mind that interests them more. I do the same with all features actually. Once I have them select a class I explain what stats feed into what mechanics for that class and give examples of which I’ve seen it used and have them do that back and forth with me so we can narrow down if they like it or not. Same with helping them select backgrounds and then skills and weapons. Basically I help them trace what feeds into what and make sure to check in with them on their understanding and if they might have a different idea and then we can work on how to make that work how they want it to work. Usually I don’t recommend feats, and I tell them this but I do make it clear that they should look into them and see if one of them catches their interest and maybe consider it down the road once they feel more comfortable with the mechanics. Of course, sometimes we start with feats so this means helping them narrow down what they want and what works with their characters and how they want to play in both combat and outside of combat. My main focus is to figure out what they want and then provide a narrowed down list so that things are less overwhelming for the new player. It’s usually easier to decide between stuff on a smaller list than through everything. I always make it clear that everything I provide is a suggestion and not a requirement and I do not give any judgement if they don’t go with my suggestions. I make it clear that I want them to have fun and that is my priority. But again, I’m a fellow player so this can skirt the line. This is why those DM’s will usually just say “if you have any questions just ask mental because they are usually in line with my rulings and if they don’t know, or aren’t sure, they will ask me.” And this is because the dm is usually dealing with a lot, sometimes also other new players. So I’m more or less the intro class you could say. In all fairness I was an instructor in the past and I probably bring a lot of that into helping people make that leap into this hobby. I genuinely want to see new players grow into their own and enjoy their characters and seeing what they can do, see their ideas come to life and others enjoy the back and forth of it. The moment I can sit back and just watch them take off independently is amazing for me. I love that moment! When they can tell me “I got this!” Or “I wanna try this thing!” that is such an awesome and wholesome feeling. I love the moment I can step back. So yeah, pretty rewarding. Like I said, I think this is why I’m allowed this despite how close it skirts to being a “backseat player.” It’s because I make my goal to insure the new player understands and gets what they want, not what I want, and also with the goal of being able to step back sooner than later so they can and do become independent. I’m just there to help them understand the context of the mechanics and how this or that works in the context of the game. Basically help them understand connections. What they do with them? Entirely up to them.
Feats are fun! And at my table the right choice is the feat that's the most fun to use. If someone takes Great Weapon Master and now deals way more damage than anyone else, I will help the other players catch up with cool loot tailored towards their chars to balance the game. And I let my players know this, as it takes away the pressure to optimise, but still keeps the door open to pick strong feats if they also happen to be fun feats.
I've never allowed feats as a gm and have never had an issue. Theyre an optional part of the game that have somehow become expected by everyone. As a player I've used feats and they honestly seem to just...get in the way. Players stop...playing, and just look for ways to activate their shiny feats. To me, they're uninteresting. But i cant fault someone else's fun.
My feat policy consists of a few little tweaks. 1) PHB backgrounds all have a PHB feat, but the mostly underutilized feats such as Charlatan gets Actor, Criminal gets Dungeon Delver, Noble gets Linguist, etc. 2) Any feat is available when you have an ASI, except Lucky. Lucky is the only feat that I have banned thus far. It just is kinda lame to let one person reroll and it undercuts other features such as Indomitable, bardic inspiration, etc. 3) Feats (including half feats but sans ASI) are always available as a downtime training benefit. You've got 8 weeks and you're gonna spend it working out? Athlete feat. You spend time carousing, specifically getting into fights; Tavern brawler.
Martials rely on feats more than casters do and Martials need all the help they can get. Plus, everything you said about feats could be equally applied to spells.
1:07 Are the feats the problem? Or are the players a problem? Everything about the "Right" vs. "Wrong" Feats half of this video can completely be boiled down to. Don't allow toxic players at the table. If you started with feats on the table then remove them I may personally feel like I am being punished for the actions of *that* player by no longer being allowed access to a feature of the game. I can now no longer play/build my character how I may have wanted.
Huh your dm didn't let you have a feat for spelljammer I have those books and if the backgrounds were allowed you should have been able to get at least the skilled feat because the book says to the dm if they allow the sj backgrounds anyone who doesn't take a sjb gets a feat.
So what I like to do. I tell all my players to author their backstories and once those and their other character details become clear I will approach them with often customized feats to match for that specific character. This is then also a tool for me at that stage already to reel in some balance concerns I have based on what the players have opted to pick in combination with the stats that they have rolled.
I'm not anti feat, but I am anti feats from backgrounds. Free feats at first level is not something I can get on board with. Right now, I am experimenting with giving out custom feats as rewards for story things. We'll see how that goes.
Hey Mike, love your videos. I found the bass in this one very distracting; I do have trouble filtering background noise so this may be a problem unique to me. Couldn't find a private way to let you know, so I left it in a comment!
An important thing to remember if you ban feats is that it disproportionately nerfs martial classes, who were already the weakest in the game to begin with. Without GWM/SS and CBE/PAM, martial classes deal pitiful amounts of damage, which is supposed to be their claim to fame. Literally the only mechanical reason to play a martial is to deal big single target damage (ignoring the fact that spellcasters can also do that, even better in some cases). You strip that away from them, and you’ve got an incredibly boring and weak character. Wizards do just fine without feats. Fighters without feats aren’t even playing the same game as fighters who do have feats
Nothing against Mike personally, just my perspective, but I watch/listen to a fair share of RU-vid while I work for background noise and I honestly feel like most “issues” with DnD are truly non-issues… it’s just that everybody needs content to put out a couple times a week so content creators are nitpicking 5E for content and clicks. *side note: I’ve also seen A TON of “5e is broken, and THATS why you should try the NEW system by created so and so NOW so jump on kickstarter…” videos. Look, new stuff can be created without claiming other things are broken, it’s OK! Great Grandpa DnD has a lot of life left in him 😂
there's still a chance that the edits and balancing done in making the final book change this, but the feats in the One D&D Playtest were like 90% available at first level. very few feats required 4th level and then there were basically none needing anything higher. so while there was a level lock (which I love the idea of), the design didn't actually use it all that much. that means that stupid powerful stuff was still available at level 1, although some of the truly egregious things were nerfed for the good of the game
Level 1 feats will be part of character backgrounds and higher level feats will come with a +1 ASI. It appears they have been writing the newer books with this in mind by giving setting backgrounds a feat.
Here is the problem with pedantic use of RAW. Virtually every feat of strength can be improved by applying skill. Breaking doors requires the application of power, sure. But if you know where the lock is and how to apply leverage correctly, you will improve your chances. Breaking out of handcuffs, same thing. You can be Conan, or be Houdini. Lifting a weight is much easier if you apply technique. For example grappling. A judo master will out grapple a meathead gym jockey every day. This is why Athletics is used for grapple checks. My point is that there really are virtually no situations where raw strength cannot be improved by skill and technique. So there are very few instances where Athletics ( skilled use of power) would not apply
Feats are a part of character building, so if a DM decides they don't want them or limit them or whatever other hpuse rule toward them, that needs to be decided before session zero to be fair to the players. I don't think you should wait til level 4 to make that decision.
@@robofeeney Correct. I'm saying that the DM should let the players know if that option will be available to them or not before character creation starts
@@travisbuschette8609 100% agreed, same with any other optional rules being added to the game. It honestly seems silly to me that this is something that would need to be laid out for players and gms (onboarding is important!) but with dnd as big as it is now, I can see some folks just not understanding that to be a crucial part of the game.
I think feats are a core part of some classes... But... some of them are incredibly good, much better than others. The neatest solution I found was to split them up like they used to be in previous editions, such as: Great Weapon Master becomes: Cleave and Power Attack. Sharpshooter becomes: Power Shot, Sharpshooter (Ignore Cover), and Sniper (No Long Range Penalty). Usually tacking on a half stat boost on most. It tends to keep them in line with the racial feats and more "fun" options... but I also allow a free feat at level 1 in most games.
Adding to that, I changed Power Attack to: - Remove your Proficiency Bonus to Hit, and Add 2x Proficienty Bonus to Damage. Instead of -5/+10. Same with Sharpshooter. Makes them more bearable at early levels. And at higher levels... technically better with -6/+12. And, not to mention... I added Stat Requirements to some. Like they used to be. I haven't had any problems with it by being up front with the changes at session 0 / character creation.
The only right feat is the one you and DM agree too. And you both have fun. Did you say banned the player or beat? Rewinds. Banned. Rats I been doing wrong. Adventure League does allow most feats. Limited by which books are allowed in which campaign you are running in. Chef is a good roleplaying feat. I have used it twice. But currently AL has 88 feats of the 106. You can take Skilled, Tough, or Magic Initiate for free. When I was homebrewing, I preferred players who discovered their character powers and abilities during play against people who had a build from 1 to 20 planned out. What I hated is the reason they gave during one their UA podcasts. Because people were ignoring their backgrounds after they took the skills from them.
I give out flavoured feats for story progression, and let them choose what they take at the normal levels. They also start with one. The more skills and resources they have, the harder and cooler stuff I can throw at them. It also leaves room for players to pick things like chef and dungeon delver for flavour without feeling completely shot in the foot
The bit about Spelljammer is odd to me. I haven't played it yet, but I was a player in the Dragonlance campaign, and that gave out a free Feat to everyone. The PCs who chose one of the Drag backgrounds each got the Feat associated with that background, and PCs who chose a different background could choose from a limited list of more general bonus feats. It worked pretty well for what that campaign was doing (ie wanting PCs to be more powerful from the get-go). Odd that a contemporary campaign wouldn't do something similar.
Not odd. Depends on the viewpoint. Dragonlance was supposed to be a more powerful campaign compared to earlier out the box campaigns. But this shows straight power creep. Feats optional but podcasts and vocal gamers use and promote them. So new campaigns start with them. Which leaves some pc builds behind who don't use the new books. So every now gets a free feats. Too many pcs have feats at first level, so redesign or level lock the feats.
Spelljammer did do this as well. It says in the spelljammer book if the player takes a background without a feat they get a choice between tough magic initiate or skilled
Have you ever heard a word so many times it looses all meaning. I didn't, but Feat started sounding a lot like feet. Changed the tone of the video quite a bit.
Banning feats is an absolutely batty idea to me. Like people are already complaining about how casters are so much more powerful than martials, and removing feats would make that problem so much worse.
As a player, I resent that (at level ~1-3) I can't take Druidcraft as a Druid. Aka, I have to sacrifice flavor (and potential other RP opportunities) for damage...THIS is why I take Magic Initiate - Druid, AS a Druid! I find it rather silly that I can't cast a spell that (in my opinion) should be baseline. Just as other flavor cantrips for other classes. Just my 2 cents tho <3
There are feats that, to me, are a problem. Polearm Master in combination with Sentinel, Great Weapon Fighting, Sharpshooter, Warcaster, Fey-Touched, Telekinetic, Elven Accuracy, Resilient. If I were to run 5e again, I'd limit access to these feats severely. Either put high level requirements (8+) on them in the case of Warcaster, Great Weapon Fighting, and Sharpshooter, or Resilient; restrict them to Variant Human/Custom Lineage (Telekinetic/Telepathic and Fey Touched/Shadow Touched) to the moment of character creation and then remove the granted ASI; or ban them for certain classes (Resilient - Constitution for casters) or in certain combinations (Elven Accuracy for warlocks and sorcerers and gloom stalker rangers; Polearm Master in combination with Sentinel) But I do in principle really like the level of customization feats can provide. It's just that certain feats are oppressive and require a degree of adaptation from the GM that is very unhealthy to deal with. Or in the case of the Touched and Tele pairs, they are also very weird in a worldbuilding way and that's why I'd restrict those to Variant Human and Custom Lineage because then they represent backstory elements for that character. I would probably allow Shadow Touched and Telepathic on certain characters later on, but I'd require strong convincing that they make narrative sense. I'd definitely give gith players Telepathic if they asked.
As far as I remember the feat level distinction stayed in all the 5.5e playtests, although the only delineation was that some feats were level 1+ and others were level 4+, it could be neat to have more split points but that could lead to awkward balancing "tiers" of feats so players feel like they can only take so many feats of a given tier because they're passing up on the high level exclusive feats. I really like feats because they add a form of control for the player on how their character's gameplay abilities develop over time, especially for martials who dont get a big list of spells to choose from, without feats the onyl real character building choice you make is subclass then for the next 17+ levels its just reading out from the book what you can do, spreading mroe choices across the levelling process makes things feel much better imo.
Very used to free feats at lvl 1. Love the buff and I haven’t noticed anyone abusing it or huge noticeable imbalance between party members. I do like the suggestion of rewarding feats for in game actions, though. Although my concern with that is that is COULD get unbalanced if only certain players earn feats while others don’t.
