Why I Don't Ban Feats (Even Though I Probably Should) | Worldbreaking 

How do you handle feats in your 5e games? Thanks so much to WorldAnvil for sponsoring this video! Visit www.worldanvil.com/supergeekmike and use the promo code SUPERGEEK to get 51% off any annual membership! www.worldanvil.com/supergeekmike

The issue with the "correct" choice was explained in a game design video as "if I have 10 choices, but one is clearly best... Then I don't have a choice.". Adding OP options to the option pool can actually reduce choice.

My thoughts as a dm have always been, "Only pick feats that make sense for your character to have." So like, someone who's character has been played as oblivious and unobservant taking the observant feat wouldn't make sense unless there was a character growth moment for them

Feats are, in my opinion, an important part of character building and development. Picking feats based off of who your character is, what they have learned or are good at, how they've developed... is incredibly satisfying. The best approach I've been privy to is to hand out feats based on character achievements.

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

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.

The magic item discussion could be it's own video. "Should Magic Items Be A Part Of Character Progression ?" is one of those design questions that keep me up at night.

I was pleasantly surprised to see feats in Baldurs Gate 3 and it really helped me enjoy Lea'zel as a pure battlemaster rather than a multiclass.

One of the things I've done in my game to make feats less attractive options on levelup is to make it possible for the players to get feats without leveling up. Aka, to *earn* a feat through in-world roleplaying and interactions. The Shadar-kai Fighter in my Wednesday game got Elven Accuracy after training with wood elf rangers that they allied with for a few weeks. I was inspired to make that ruling by Matt Colville's video "No" which you brought up, too. TLDR; I reward feats like they are magic items.

At my table I allow players to grab feats at level one if their chosen background doesn't already offer one, as I love feats and the flavor they can provide and that includes the "infamous" ones. I even give players access to 3rd party and homebrew material so long as I reviewed and approved it. Feats are as much about player expression as they are about mechanical power. I personally believe that GM's who are against feats or against certain feats really need to step back and really consider WHY they are against them. Is it because of power? Well, stronger characters means you get to bust out stronger and frankly cooler monsters than you probably originally intended. Is it because you want a narrative focused game? Have you considered ASKING your players what feats they are taking or plan to take? Depending on the feat, you can work with that player to create scenes that show when they acquired it. And before people start complaining about GWM or Sharpshooter, yes, they are indeed powerful at lower levels, but at higher tiers of play or against enemies with high AC it's really not an issue. +10 to weapon damage is nowhere near as concerning as a mage with any control spell.

I'm not accusing the video of doing this, though actually it does kind of skirted a few times which is interesting, but I've noticed that as much as min Max's used to be a problem over my 30 odd years of dungeon mastering, the opposite has kind of started to be a problem now as well... Which is to say, I both seen online, and within my tables, the problem of an optimized player a lot of times isn't that player that's optimizing, it's some of the players that aren't as deliberate with their optimization then kind of having an undertone of jealousy about what that optimized player is able to do in combat, or exploration, or whatever specifically they optimized for.... Like the person who built their variant human fighter to have a very specific 3 ft selection build within first tier really isn't being a jerk about it. They had a specific fantasy in mind of wanting to be able to literally cut through two people at the same time with one swing, and now they can do that. They think it's awesome, I think it's awesome, I don't understand how people don't think it's awesome. But then you get some guy who self-proclaims to care more about the roleplay and not optimizing his build, but he starts to get really touchy about the fact that this other person can do this awesome thing. Nobody's talking down to that player or commenting disparagingly that he only does about half the damage as the optimized build. He's putting that on himself. Which I'd be willing to talk through with them, but he's then by extensions blaming other people for ruining his game and his time. It's kind of like you said in this video, you proclaim to not be an optimizer, then other players took starting backgrounds that gave them feats, and because you're an adult who really doesn't care about optimizing, it didn't bother you. If it did, it shouldn't have. You were getting the play experience you wanted: a non-optimized build that fit the specific customization you wanted. Like I said, this video isn't endorsing that position, but it I just think it's interesting that over my time playing and running games, this is the first time that I've really seen that, the non-optimizer feeling jealous of an optimizer, be such a problem that I actually have to deal with it.

I’ve never in my life heard a player disparage another player’s feat choices

13:17 “If a character takes a background from elsewhere and doesn’t get a feat from that background, the character gains one of the following feats of the player’s choice: Magic Initiate, Skilled, or Tough.” - Spelljammer, backgrounds section. The game isn’t inherently unbalanced because of backgrounds with feats, the books themselves adress this.

banning feats because there are better and worse options is honestly an awful idea. There are better and worse races, spells and classes that will all inevitably be weighed against each other so all removal does is give players less options If a feat is too strong are too weak just buff it nerf it and the problem is solved Alternatively if you don’t like have those options there are great systems like fate core where it isn’t a problem

I love giving feats at the first level. Gives a chance to take options that are never used. In terms of balance, the dice rolls can still really throw things out of whack. I do a lot of tests for my encounters running them about 3 or four times, ones that are meant to be easy cause my players to struggle, some hard ones aren't issues at all. And for anyone who has run some of the low-level modules, those encounters can be game enders. At the end of the day, just talk to your players, and if something is too strong, you can balance it. Or create encounters that aren't just combat focused that gives other builds a chance to shine.

Personally, I think that feats are especially important for closing the Martial/Caster divide. I've even considered letting only the martial classes have a feat at level 1 due to this, but decided against it for the sake of fairness. Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert and Polearm Master being the most notable feats. Fighters also get the most Ability Score improvements so they can get more feats, since especially at Level 5 Casters get Fireball/Spirit Guardians whilst martials get extra attack. It's the sad reality that an non optimized fighter (I should add that optimizing/meta gaming aka 'picking the right feats' is just one part of being optimal. At the end of the day the best way to be optimal is having fun, and making a fun character to play with, and being highly communicative. At some tables you shouldn't or don't need to optimize) simply can't keep up with Fireball or any of the other really powerful 3rd level spells in the game, except by using feats. This isn't to say that casters don't get really good feats, Resilient: Constitution and War Caster for Concentration protection are fantastic for casters. I think that as a martial you need to let your DM know that magic items and feats are important to keep up with your caster friends, and as a DM be more charitable to your martial because they need it. Thanks for making this video Mike :3 it was very good :D

I love feats, they feel downright essential to 5e for me. They can add so much interesting flavor/ability to a character in the options they give you. My only real problem with them in 5e is a lack of more choices/customization, though new books have added a lot more fun options. (I adore eldritch adept to take fun eldritch invocations at level one. Yes I would like to speak with animals at will as a character quirk, that's amazing) I give feats at level 1, and often play at tables that do. I also like to give them as roleplay rewards! Nothing is banned even the “broken” combos (they’re really not). Lots of people hear this and go “oh a min-maxer group” but actually we’re very roleplay focused! It’s just that we’re a more “mechanics and roleplay go hand in hand” kind of group, with fantasies we wanna play out. I’ve always found it so frustrating that “having a build” and “having a character” are seen as two separate things! There's a difference between min maxing/”this is the Right/Wrong way to build this” and understanding that if you wanna do x in character, you're gonna need a base level of y. Feats allow a freedom of otherwise hard to come by skills that create more interesting character choices, not less (in my experience). You can say your character loves studying history till the cows come home but if you don’t take proficiency in it that’s not really gonna play out at the table no matter how many allowances the DM gives you. And the player that does pick profs based on what they wanna be good at isn’t min maxing, actually. That’s just basic character creation. And if you want a character to do fun things your class wouldn't otherwise allow, feats are an awesome option for mechanical backing to that! Will people pick the big number go brrrr feats? Sure, but why is that a problem? They want to be great at fighting, why not just… let them? I also find when you have this level of freedom in choices they honestly don’t get picked that often. People are more interested in the more flavorful and character accent feats. It's definitely like that for me/my table at the very least, my characters are like 90% feats by volume- almost none the big “bad” ones (though you have no idea how often I’ve seen a friends burn through 3 lucky's and not get the outcome they wanted, its so funny every time). When I make a character it’s usually ‘cause I have a fantasy in mind, as is the same for most of my friends, and often single class and/or no feats dnd can’t realize those ideas. (Tangential to this but people who are hard asses about the book flavor of a feat/class/subclass/etc are people I can NOT play with. If you can’t play with the flavor of mechanics dnd gets so boring SO fast) Some prefer to build as they go, some have a plan ahead of time and edit as needed, or work with the DM to realize it. For example: one of my characters is in a magic cult, and I’ve already discussed and agreed on a re-leveling plan with the DM for them to lose warlock levels and gain more sorcery levels (they’re multiclassed rn) to reflect them pulling away from the cult and re-discovering themself later in the campaign. Cause that's a story I wanna tell and a beat I wanna hit. I’m not planning every little minutiae but it's a general arc I keep in mind when making character choices (Made friends with an npc in a faction who hates evil magic users/cults for later drama :3 ) and my build plays into that roleplay! To your point on tone we generally enjoy a more heroic fantasy feel, and most of our games are at higher levels. Hell one even has extra “talents” to add on every few levels for a more customized feels! One has character quirks that modify existing abilities every level for the same reason. But we’re still regularly challenged and in treacherous situations, and I’ve never had issue being motivated to go on adventures or seek magic items??? And frankly if you don't want characters to feel likes gods just from leveling up any 5e game, feats or no, is gonna feel that way past a certain level. But putting that customization in (via feats or other means) is HOW no two paladins feel the same. It's just that power is in the hands of the player and the choices they make, and not the whims of random magic items. Which I greatly prefer. For me having feats really just comes down to managing table and game expectations, rather than banning them. As you said, if people are using/abusing feats in a way you don’t like or pulling the whole “right and wrong” builds thing, then that's more a fault of mismatch in play styles than it is a fault of feats.

I feel like a lot of people seem to forget that not ALL players optimize their characters. Hell, I always tell my players to do what feels right, my job is to adjust the difficulty accordingly... Like, I'm not running an adventurers league game, y'know? I just want to have fun let stupid shit happen. The Bugbear Barbarian is a Gourmand who uses their kills to feed the party and turns everything they kill into a fancy meal, despite the fact that we don't use the upkeep rules? Great! I'll be sure to add in a situation where cooking IS the answer!

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

I like how you’re theming several videos in a row off of each other, it really helps with making cohesive conversations across multiple videos!

I have a DM that creates custom feats for everyone at lvl 5,10,15, and 20. They ask a bunch of questions during character creation for the lvl 5 and then as the game progresses the next milestone feat will represent the characters growth.

i do not ban feats, heck i do asi and feat at the same time BUT i have limits on the feats, like i play them as extensions of how they have played their character, so a character who has never shown any interest in cooking cant get the chef feat, oh you have never been to the feywilds or even met a fey well no fey touched for you. then i talk with the players what feats we both agree would make sense for them, where they can say i feel i should be able to get this feat that you didnt mention on the list, and then if we both agree on a list then the player picks what they want from the list

Ah yes, removing feats. The one thing that gives you *any* options in building a character. Nothanks, 5e's static enough as it is.

I love DMing high power games, the kind where any given adventuring day has 3 or 4 deadly encounters, and boss fights go thrice over a deadly budget. In order to do that, ample supplies of magic items and as many feats as possible are a must. But I do agree with the idea that each bit of power the player characters get has to be earned, not auto-generated at first level. Usually the first mission I give my level 1 characters to start a game is precisely to have each of them seek out a magic item, an expert trainer, a new font of power to aid them become the heroes they are meant to be. The only complaint I've ever gotten from my players is that at higher levels (around the 12th to 15th level mark) it gets a bit hard to keep track of all the treasures and powers they've amassed, which I find isn't really a problem at all!

Great video, Mike.

5e gets boring and repetitive real quick without feats. If you’re at a point of banning all feats from being used I’d suggest reading some other systems to run that fit your idea best.

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.

Looking forward to the Monday vid. It's one of the processes I use to start in building a character. That's what I did for my sorcerer, catapult was the spell I wanted to be his thing. So spell sniper, and spell driver are the 2 main ones I want to use for feats. And ofcourse there's where he will end up with all the things he will probably get, but he's focused on targeted burst spells.

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 :)

As a player it felt less like feats gave "right" choices and more like the feats were the only way to have *any* choice in character advancement/creation. This is subjective, but a lot of the streamlining in 5e felt like it homogenized characters playing the same class. Two characters playing the same subclass ended up being essentially the same character mechanically. Feats allowed for you to nudge your character slightly off the course set by those subclasses and build a play pattern that felt more unique. That said, some feats (Such as Lucky) are ludicrously powerful to an degree that is impossible to reign in. Some feats just need to be banned when playing with feats, because they fundamentally unravel the underlying mechanics of the game. Lucky was always game-warping, even before the "Super-Advantage" combo got discovered.

I give a bonus feat at 1st level, but not from a Restricted List of the most common and powerful feats. Forces more diverse, character-defining choices and is really fun.

This is a very interesting video because it adds a perspective that I need for my upcoming campaign. For stats I had the party roll to make a party array, which was fun and neat, then I gave everyone a free feat at level 1 because everyone in the party has a habit of playing variant human. I didn’t ban any feats but I did jokingly threaten my players that if I saw anyone take the lucky feat, their first boss is going to be a Halfling Divination Wizard with the lucky feat. The silence in the discord call was hilarious.

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).

Banning feats is a surefire way to make sure no one ever play a martial character ever again as feats are sadly required for martials to even pretend to keep up with casters. :/

The games I play in all have feats, most with feats at level 1 and a fair few that have it that you take both feat and ASI at the relevant points during level up. The DMs in these games go in for high high fantasy with really challenging combat... It can be crazy

"I'm banning feats this game to make balancing the game easier and to focus more on--" "Why is my party 4 spellcasters with warlock dips?"

The DMs in our group (myself and a few others) all agree that when you get an ASI you get a feat as well. It helps makes everyone powerful. I also tend to homebrew custom feats for each PC that I hand out at narratively appropriate times.

I stopped running D&D before Feats were a thing (or, more accurately, when 3rd ed came out so Feats *became* a thing, but they had nothing to do with why I didn't want to run D&D any more) But I have run other games that have feat-like abilities, since I primarily run point buy systems so in a way each "class" is custom built as the player develops their character. And yes, these tend to be High Fantasy, High Heroics sort of games (Or Urban Fantasy high heroic, at leas the way I run them) One thing that many of these systems do fairly well is power-trees, where you start from one ability, and then having that ability is required (usually along with sufficient power level, however that's measured in the game) to buy certain other abilities, which are required before you can buy others, and so on. the add on effects can get pretty scary in some games (Exalted comes to mind) but that, unfortunately, doesn't stop some people from working out the "best" or "right" builds... there's just a few more definitions of "best" or "right" depending on what your goal is for the character.

Wasn't expect the Tulok mention! I'm also enjoying those Elden Ring videos :D

I adore feats when building characters specifically because they allow me to put stank on a character that would otherwise be very generic. They also allow me to properly lean into a specific play style. E.g. I'm a notetaker so I adore giving my characters keen mind and observant because that way I can narratively justify why everyone in the party turns to me to refresh lore dumps (including the DM but thats because they barely plan before running a session). Like that narrative justification doesn't matter to anyone else but me but i love it so much. (I'm also very partial to half feats because cool thing and number go up)

Hi there from New Zealand. Love your channel man. They really help me understand the mechanics of the game, I've only run a few one shots at this stage... planning a Theros campaign so my Forever GM gets a break hahaha I haven't allowed 1st level feats for everyone but they get 2 uncommon magic items or 1 rare magic item, I am considering allowing 1st level feats for everyone campaign wise because its Theros and so heroic is the theme. I'm willing to see what my players do before I freak out lol Enjoy the content :) Congrats on becoming parents

I remember back in 3rd Edition there were plenty of restrictions around feats which could help balance "powerful" feats away from low level play or having to really pigeonhole your character to use them. Must have 13 Int, 5 ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), and be 3rd level for example, or something that required Base Attack Bonus +7 or greater, kept some feats out of the hands of low level adventurers. But it also meant in some cases specifically designing a character towards certain feats rather than growing organically with a campaign because you might encounter a chain of feats. Take this to take that so you can eventually get the last one.

I recently saw this in campaign 3 for critical role where a comment was about the battle encounter and how they all should have optimally chosen feats, abilities, races and strategies like combo spells etc to make the fight easier

I've never had much of an issue with feats, but then, my D&D games have rarely gone long enough that they become an issue. And I'm currently running a completely different system for my group, so it's not even an issue. That being said, I recently looked through Kobold Press's Tales of the Valiant / Black Flag rules again, and saw that, while all the backgrounds do come with a trait (their version of a feat), they only offer three options, so it's somewhere between late-5e's "you start with this feat" and house-ruling "you get a free feat," which I think is good. Also, I can't help but think of how 13th Age handled feats - they were basically buffs to a character's abilities or powers, and most of them came with tiers, so there was some amount of level locking.

I've only just started a campaign, so I'm still waiting for results on if this was the best decision, but although i let my player pick a feat at level 1, they could only chose from a selection i had made myself. I've eliminated every feat that was directly related to combat mechanics, and any feat named "master of" or "expert" or anything of the sort, and selected mostly feats that fit nicely with their background. This seemed like a happy middle, but we'll see !

also the UA for Onednd have been operating with both level and other requirements, to avoid the human fighter xbow master lvl 1 shenanigans

This is a good channel. I like Mike.

I’ve been considering lately just altering how leveling works; making it a “Progression via Practice” so you only can learn something that a Mentor teaches you (Feat or Spell) or you Successfully Practice said Feat/Spell over 3 Sessions ; and maybe adding a “Chaos” Table that lists general bad results if you rolled below DC And the Class Level Goes up say every 3 Successfully Learned a Spells/Feats. Max 1 Class levels up at a time. And Mulitclassing would start you at Level 0 in the other class until you had learned 3 Feats/Spells in that class. All of this I feel would: 1. Allow me to control what a player has access to as they progress without having to outright ban anything 2. It makes dungeon delving for gold important again 3. Helps allow those more creative choices from players And maybe restrict some feats/spells to magic items only, so they can loose them.

In one of the campaigns i play in the DM homebrewed that a feet could only be taken once. Not once from one player, once in the whole world, so that they really feel uniquely powerful in their own way. I hab a lot of fun discussing with the other players who wants to take what feat next and theorizing about the few feats our GM revealed to be taken from NPCs. I don't think it would work for every group (especailly if they tend to be compettitive with each other and try to optimize their buids at all costs) but it works for this group. And it helps some underused feats to shine (imo). My little roughe has the dungeon delver and slasher feat (not the tipical first decisions i would guess). With her whip she is a pretty nice Indiana Jones Inspired character.

So, I am working on prep for a new campaign, and I'm going to try something a little different based on something Matt Colville mentioned in one of his Running the Game videos. My plan at the moment is to not allow feats, but to work with the characters and get an idea of what feats they would like to have and work those into the story as magic items found or as blessing at climatic moments. We will see how it goes but I think it could be fun.

I do a couple different things. First, I always ban the heritage options that give feats. The backgrounds that give feats only give minor ones that don't really break the game. In certain campaigns where I have the party get most of their quests from a mercenary academy, I have the players make a choice at character creation. They can start as students of the academy or freelancers the students meet in their graduation dungeon crawl and bring back to the academy to audit classes. Students get all the benefits of variant human on top of their actual heritage choice. Freelancers start with a +1 weapon or equivalent magic item. After 4 levels of adventuring and auditing classes, both groups get the benefit of the other. The other thing I do when not using the Academy setup relies on piety and renown. Everyone gets one feat of their choice at level 1. If players want more feats they have to earn renown with a faction or god. Once they earn 10 points the faction or church sends them to a trainer or smith who sends them on a quest to learn a feat of their choice or gather the materials needed to craft a specific magic item. The boons and blessings in the DMG might also be options to gain through piety or renown. The main benefit of this is that it replaces ASI vs Feat debates and magic item grocery lists with actual progress systems that encourage players to engage with the setting and the npcs.

For me, it should be just when such a way as that usually See, you drop a plan for a race in the way that it's not a major payment test, but allows for a different fantasy

Sharpshooter is the most disruptive. Great Weapon Master is similar, but at least the character using it is in melee. A Sharpshooter with access to flight is a pain to deal with; you can include more ranged and flying opponents, but then those who aren't flying sharpshooters rarely get to do their thing.

I'm running a campaign right now where I gave all my players the option to take a feat at first level. I did this at a player's suggestion, and we're all really enjoying it. Ultimately I decided to do this because the campaign (Waterdeep Dragonheist) is written to be a low level campaign, capping off at level 5. The entire first chapter as written is for the players to be at level 1, leveling up to 2 at the end of the first big dungeon. I took some online advice and leveled them up earlier, for the same reason I decided to let them take a feat to start. It can be tough to feel like a badass adventurer at low levels, and since this campaign is capped at level 5, they wouldn't really have much time to enjoy the feats (if they took them) at level 4, and I wanted them to feel capable and have fun with their characters from the jump. And they love acting out their powers and taking turns surprising each other with what each of their low level characters can do in combat. Now, I'm lucky because all my players are people I know well and enjoy playing with, and I specifically picked them to join this game because we all enjoy roleplay and playing our characters more than any other aspect of the game. So the feats they chose are ones that fit their characters as they see them, not necessarily the ones pro-gamers would call optimal. Example: my Asimar Rogue chose the actor feat, because they grew up on the streets of Waterdeep as an orphan who broke out and made their way thieving and conning people. So they figured the ability to disguise themselves and fit into a more face of the party deceptive role fit the way they wanted to play their character. It's been fun. I doubt I'd make the same choice for games that I expect to go to higher levels, and would just let players take feats (should they choose) at the normal level up times. But for this campaign, letting them take feats early has given them the power to flavor their characters' specialties a bit more, adding to a lot of early game fun.

So for the first campaign I ever ran I told everyone they could pick a feat at first level as long as it wasn't great weapon master, sharpshooter, or lucky. After that first campaign I was going to add another feat to that list: war caster. But then I realized my bigger issue wasn't that PCs took it at first level, but that everyone took it at first level. I had 3 magic users and 2 took war caster and the third was pressured to take it as well. She ultimately took the healer feat, which to encourage her choice I modified it to be a bit better. But I didn't really like how two different magic users took war caster, exactly because it was the "best option". It felt like it should've been more special then that. I also kinda felt this way about the uncommon magic item I let people select at 1st level as well, two people took hat of disguise. My solution for my second campaign was this: if you give me your character's backstory I'll let you pick an uncommon magic item, but no duplicates in the party. First come, first serve. I also told them that *I* would give them a feat at first level based off of their backstory and was very clear that the feat would not be great weapon master, sharpshooter, war caster, or lucky. One player was a bard who got some inspiration from an archfey while he was studying at college. He made it clear he planned on multi-classing into warlock, which I was very okay with, so I gave him the eldritch adept feat at 1st level. Symbolizing this pre-pact deal he made with an archfey and to make his character feel unique and special. It dovetailed nicely into his multiclass too when he finally did it. I think this kind of feat allocation is really great because it respects the power fantasy of the player and rewards them for engaging and providing a backstory. Because I also do milestone leveling up I also like having feats as a reward if I feel like it would be too soon to level up but they accomplished something great or closed a chapter in the story.

I just have my players take ASI and give out feats to celebrate an event happening so that it feels like they earned that feat, and that feat plays into the story of their character. I however don't give out many magic items.

When I converted my two long time PC's from 3.5 to 5e (both being human), their 1st level feats were Prodigy and Mobile. Which I would hope set a good example of taking feats that build character/allows a character to lean into their concept rather than grabbing shiney powerups. (I am slightly surprised Mike lists Warcaster as being a particularly powerful one, then again I simply choose to have most casters have a free hand and forgo a shield or second weapon for asthetic reasons/head canon logical ones, so heh)

I actively encourage feats and stuff to make characters both personalized and heroic and I especially didn't want to make new players at low level d!e at random to something that shouldn't be much of a problem (now they're Level 3, I actually started to have them deal with and fight even more dangerous stuff where PC death is a real possibility). So, of course I let my PCs have an extra feat (and +2 HP as a bit of padding to smoothen the curve of HP growth at level ups). The Paladin picked War Caster, even though he probably shouldn't even be able to - and I agree with it, because it makes spell/weapon juggling a non-issue, reducing the bookkeeping needed. The rest of the group picked spell-adding feats, making the low levels be already quite strong in the options, but not that much in the resources to use them.

In my games I've allowed all characters to get a feat at level 1, and also have brought in some pathfinder rulings so that players can (in addition to when you would normally gain a feat) spend downtime and gold to train new feats (provided there is someone who would reasonably be able to train that feat. e.g you can't train feats like lucky, but you can train feats like great weapon master). some of my players have like 5 feats at level 7, because they took the time and the gold to do it. I don't find that this sways the power level of characters too far in one direction or the other, because the games I run tend to be on the deadlier side anyway, and my players know this. so far, I haven't had any struggles in challenging them.

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 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.

I've been starting games with the entire party getting a feat at level 1, and I'm not generally playing around their power level (though I've definitely been feeling the strength of Lucky and Sentinel in the past year). It's not a question of dealing with them, per se, but it does lower the tension of several encounters when a specific monster gets destroyed. I've worked around it by altering my encounter building philosophy, more groups, and better action economy so that the encounter isn't trivialized while still offering players chances to feel cool and shut a monster or dangerous enemy down. Flee, Mortals! Has been great for this.

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.

You should do one of these for spells next

as a player, i never take ss/gwm. oh wait this is about feats in general uh dang

The only time I ban something in my game is if it makes the game less fun. I don't care if it "ruins the balance" if that's what my players want to do. Feats are fun and most players enjoy them. And if the player doesn't then they can take the ASI. But I would never ban something my players saw as fun because the point of the game is to be fun.

Every level-up change (feats, multiclassing, etc - anything that's substantially different) - has to be justified within the roleplaying. But I DM for kids, so they also do things like establish a character at level 1 who's designed for ranged attacks...and then always run into melee. So I really don't have to worry too much about them min-maxing.

I ban players from taking feats but I retain the option of giving them as rewards selectively as not to unbalance the game. But i also ban players multiclassing because 1-2 class dips can be just as if not more broken

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)

My hot take is: if I wrote the rules, feats would be epic boons or other rewards given out or earned during game. I explained that if you’re character wants the “mobile” feat they have to beat a certain number of monsters in initiative or surprise them. Treating feats like awards for video game achievements seems like a better way to incorporate them. Allowing feats to be chosen for encourages the “build” mentality which for DnD I personally despise

If I were to ban feats, I would take those feats and make them magic items. You get the benefit of the feat while attuned to the item. This does a couple of things. It allows the DM to have full control over what feats the players get -- and if they're a good DM they'll take their players wants into account, their plans for their characters. It also takes the sterile process of selecting feats from a list on level-up and turns it into story. I'm not a Warcaster now because lah-dee-dah, I'm a Warcaster because I defeated the Supreme Duelist in combat in the Manticore's Lair and coveted her arcane gauntlets of magical dueling. As they say, give them what they want in a way they don't expect. Now, I do not ban feats. And I still sometimes craft magic items that are just feats -- usually ones that are possessed by the spirit of a dead adventurer, in-universe. But that's how I'd do it if I did ban feats.

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.

I ban feats, but plunder them heavily for inspiration for quest rewards and magic items. Gaining a sharpshooter bow from a quest, or your connection to the rangers guild allows you to learn sharpshooter is 1000x more satisfying than “I hit the next level and chose this feat”. 5e magic weapons needs some help anyway.

I've had the suspicion for a while, and I'm not sure it's true or significant, but I do believe it, that a lot of tables play wtih Feats and Multiclassing and don't even realize they are optional rules. Since they are extremely common place to see in Actual plays (the only notable actual play I can think of that doesn't use them is the Chain of Acheron, which is literally an exception to prove the rule) I think a lot of players assume it's just a normal part of the rules instead of a variant. And with it included in the PHB I imagine it confirms their assumptions, even though it's called a variant rule there. On the actual topic of this video though, I've used feats for every single campaign I've ever run, and all the major balance issues I've had to deal with have pretty exclusively stemmed from somewhere else. (Usually spells) I do agree there are some outlier feats I would like to get changed (GWM, SHS, WC, R, etc.) But most feats are pretty minor buffs all things considered. Like some will define the character, but a lot of then generally won't.

"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.

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.

Speaking of other TTRPGs, have you checked out DC20 by the dungeon coach? It’s like pathfinder for babies and it looks very promising. It will be out of alpha soon! I have banned lucky when i GMed in the past, but i dont any more. Banning things is a n00b GM move, every GM that bans seems to ban random things half the time, things that aren’t even strong. Which really puts into perspective that you and i are not game designers, let alone a team of them. I do give out lvl 1 feats, so that the PCs feel customizable without having to pick custom lineage.

On feat power disparity - “if everyone’s super…no one is”

Based on the playtesting for the 2024 rules updates, the general design for feats seems like there will be 1st level first, and feats you need to be at least 4th level to take. All of the 1st level feats in the play test will not change ability scores, but will likely have something that scales off of your Proficiency Bonus (like adding your Proficiency Bonus to initiative rolls via the Alert feat), or the Artisan which offers a 20% discount when buying non-magical items, which should have some natural scaling as you start getting more money at higher levels. In contrast, the 4th feats so far all offer to increase at least one ability score by 1 to a maximum of 20, except for the "Ability Score Increase" feat that lets you increase one ability by 2, or increase two abilities by 1 each (and the feat also says if you take it while you are at least 19th level you can increase an ability score to a maximum of 22, instead of the maximum of 20 used everywhere else).

Many monsters, especially at higher levels, have abilities that are quite similar to feats, so it's good to give PCs a chance to get some cool abilities too. I do wish there were no "must have" options, and the 2024 PHB playtests have mitigated this to some degree (just how much we'll see later this year).

I think one of 5e's most friction filled areas is actually in the space of Feats and Multiclassing. Both are seen as integral to character builds in any discussion (as beyond that, 5e character don't really make progression choices aside from subclass, and spells for casters) yet they are an optional rule and not always guaranteed to be available at the table you're playing it. Them being both optional and not full baked result in a lot of friction when they would have been much better served working these features into the core game as standard things (and expanding them) or forgoing them entirely. Magic Items are in a similar boat, but they are so nebulous and lack ANY kind of good structure in 5e, which I think in that regard they can take a page from PF2e with its expected magic weapon/armor at each level range.

For my current game I doubled down and let players take both a feat and an ASI or two feats. The only restriction was the Lucky feat which wasnt outright banned but couldn't be combined with an ASI. It's been a fun experiment and I have good players, but definitely not recommended for every game. Our next campaign will be more traditional, possibly even feat-free.

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.

Hope you, your baby, and SuperGeekWife are happy and healthy even as you adjust to your new, bigger family! Gonna try to be more consistent in commenting to appease the almighty algorithm in your favor! Keep up the fantastic work but also don't work yourself to the bone! I'm always excited when I see a new SuperGeekMike video!

Wizards of the Coast have FIXED D&D with this ONE TRICK! (give everyone Eldritch Invocations) I don't have many feat opinions but giving them a power curve by implementing level restrictions could be great, especially as a pool of things to use that are class-agnostic

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.

3.5e has prerequisites for most feats. When it says BAB+8, you would need to be a fighting class (fighter/barbarian/ranger/etc) with max BAB progression to get it at the earliest level 8.

I pitched a highly tactical combat heavy game to my players and one rocked up with a polearm master + sentinel build. It fits what I advertised! I can't complain, due to that. But those two feats totally change how I see the battlefield. Player's having a blast! In a game less focused on battle mechanics, I think I'd get annoyed of these feats and suggest taking something else. But I doubt I'd ban them. I just gotta think creatively to make engaging combat!

I think giving feats out as a roleplaying reward that fits the scene and some event works nicely - not a fan of just randomly selecting them on level up though. Should be a reward for doing certain things. Or for getting into an absurd situation and getting out of it even more absurdly.

I never really thought about how different my view on magic items and adventurers are from Matt's. I don't particularly like giving my players magic items as loot, but rather upgrading their current gear to magical status. As if their heroism and renown is warping reality, their feats and legends being imbued into what they held. So that by the end of a very long adventure, the hero's weapons and armaments are the powerful relics the next generation of adventurers seek out.

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'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 think I lean more towards the Matt Colville perspective. Feats are very fun, I would just prefer them to be obtained diegetically. I'm thinking about trying out feats as treasure, instead of level up options, in my next campaign.

I love feats, but i tend to use them more as flavour. I have a bard who is a Tasha fangirl, so as a variant human i said she developed the fey touched feat during her bard studies. Later the dm allowed us to choose another feat after a big story moment and i did struggle with the whole optimizing thing, i wanted eldritch adept and i knew devils sight was the best choice. Instead, because she's a bit power hungry and wants to gather esoteric power, i gave her eyes of the runekeeper. My favourite feat is skill expert, and i think every character should have have it automatically. It's impact is noticeable without being gamebreaking, and it can really help with characterization and making sure everyone feels unique. Was your character raised by wolves? Survival expert. Did they spend their youth in study dedicated to their god? Religion expert. Have they spent most of their lives on the run from some insidious force, constantly looking over their shoulder? Perception expertise.

I think something that DnD *sorely* lacks is more vertical character customization. That is, you have a bazillion choices of different backgrounds, races, classes, subclasses at creation--horizontal customization--but ultimately those choices boil down to a single character, and you may be playing that character for weeks, months, years? So you get very little opportunity to explore that space more. By contrast, there are very few options available to players as you level up, in that one character you're playing. Outside of picking a spell or two maybe, most classes have almost no meaningful choices to customize them. Your choices at level 1, or level 3 at the latest, basically set your entire trajectory for the rest of the game. For people playing a lot of one shots or something like Adventure League this isn't a bad design choice since you are likely to mess around with a bunch of different characters, but for someone intending on playing a campaign for a year or more with the same character, frontloading all of the decision-making at the start of character creation with very limited opportunities for customization going forward is not ideal. Feats and multiclassing are in a lot of ways the only real decisions that you get to make for your character after level 3. Personally, I'd probably prefer something closer to what 3.5e has as far as feats are concerned: Lots and lots of feats, including feats that build on other feats, and many opportunities to take them. Give players a lot more options to customize your character as you progress. I'd be totally fine with reducing the number of subclasses and incorporating many subclass abilities into optional features you could pick up as you go along. (Unrelated, but for the record, I really love that "opportunity attack" is a feat in 3.5e, such that not all characters, or enemies, have access to op-attacks, meaning that battlefield movement and retreat are much more of a thing). That said, I think feats in 5e are on the whole, poorly designed. Like many other rules in the "optional" sections, my suspicion is that there probably wasn't a lot of design time put in to making sure they make sense, and potential knock-on effects that they might have to other systems. A few are terrible, a few don't really seem to actually make sense in terms of what they're supposed to do, a few are kinda annoying or immersion breaking, a few are obscenely powerful, a few really probably should have been given as a class power. Some are very powerful and also give an half-ASI; others are pretty weak and don't. I don't think there was really any logic or design philosophy behind how they were made. So I totally get the desire to outright ban or nerf some more problematic ones.

I allow feats because I played third edition. Some of the feats in 3.5 make even Great Wespon Master look like Dungeon Delver in comparison.

Hell yeah

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

Straight up I don’t think I could stand 5e’s extremely limited character customization if you ALSO removed feats from the equation.

The only thing i comment is people using Crown of Madness, bc imho that spell is broken, not in the "too strong" way, but in the "made it through bug testing"