It has been my impression on these boards that most groups are using feats. My personal opinion on feats is they are buidling blocks for power gamers and munchkins but if the DM allows them I will use them myself as a player but if they are not allowed it doesn't bother me that much.
I'm leaning towards a few feats are borderline broken and some are in effect stealth feat taxes. We did play early 5E with no feats (without the PHB) and some things I noticed.
1. I was the only one who took a human as I wanted a skill monkey and good saves. Half Elf kind of obsolete that though.
2. Most people went dex based. The ebnefits of high dexterity tend to moderate the damage bonus from high strength and even then the difference is not that much if you use a rapier and duelist style vs a great weapon.
If feats were not allowed it wouldimpact me in what classes I wanted to play as I would probably play a Paladin over a fighter and I probably would not play a spell caster that used concentration that much. Healing would also be harder (no healer feat) so smaller amounts of weaker critters would be more annoying.
Yes. Though thus far, no one has taken any.
4/5 of use Dex though. (ranger, rogue, bard, paladin), with the last being a warcleric.
My group(s) use Feats and have no issues with or without them. (only 1 has mentioned looking forward to any particular feat and that was the Toughness feat because he wanted to wade into combat more. He said either that or a CON boost, as they seem close.)
Feats: Zard. Zard. Not everything that is effective is "broken." It just means it's Pretty Good. People like them, they are effective but rarely better than the ABI, which is working as intended. Not everything is broken.
Dex: My groups have been equally divided amongst Dexterity and Strength. It works for some character concepts but not others. They chose these options before Feats were an "option" in my campaign (when we ran with just Basic). My new group I'm getting together seems to also be equally divided, because they are close enough no one feels "hampered" choosing Strength over Dexterity regardless of Feat selection. Even if you do all the math and one stat comes out 10% better.... no one really cares. It's within the margin of error as far as my players and I are concerned. (NOTE: Dexterity is not objectively superior to Strength)
Loss of Warcaster: My players have zero desire to pick this up. They just intend to play "safely" and use Concentration spells when they are optimal (less chance of being disrupted) than spamming them, though I doubt they'd spam them anyway.
Yes, all the games I'm involved in use feats. I have no issue with them at all. I've found that some people are happy to take the ability boosts. As a player, I prefer taking feats. So many cool things.
Yes, I like feats. We give a free feat at the beginning of every new campaign (or have so far at least), and remove the variant human option (although we did give humans another skill or tool proficiency).
We haven't played much 5E (yet), but we see no reason to make things any more complicated than they already are.
Zardnaar wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
My group all started with 3rd Edition or later, so it was pretty natural to include feats since we've always played them.
Zardnaar wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
abs1nth wrote:
I have no issue with my players taking feats for their characters. My current group has like 2 or 3 feats among the 5 characters with plans to take another few among the group... but for the most part, my players realize there really isn't a need to take a feat and a +2 to an ability score can very often provide a much more useful benefit, especially if put into Dexterity, Constitution, or Wisdom.
Zardnaar wrote:
mellored wrote:
I play in a game where the group prefers that feats not be used. The game is going great, though we're too low a level yet (level 3) to really see an impact.
I allow the feats myself as DM.
Zard's stance on feats, while gross generallizing and a bit unfair, is not without precedent. In the 3e/Pathfinder systems, feats are often at the core of broken rules, builds, and exploits. This is exceptionally true in Pathfinder where feats make the build. Picking a good combo of feats is not abuse or being a munchkin, but feats and the loopholes in feat syntax is a tool of choice used by munchkins. Many players and DMs have been "burned" by such exploits.
Because of this, feats often get a bad rap and many DMs and players are gun shy about them. Obviously, WotC is too, otherwise Feats wouldn't have been made optional.
If your DM, or group, opts out of using feats, the reasons are either to avoid extra complexity, or to avoid being burned by some exploit and repeating a trouble past. Add in the fact that feats never were really balanced well, and the deal is sealed for some.
As for me, I have no issues with feats. I don't ban the feat; I ban the abuse-- which, in all honesty, has been pretty rare.
I'd be completely bored with my characters without feats, and suspect my fellows would say the same if I asked.
The 5E PHB presents, in my opinion, a pretty impressive array of options. Still, not every option (maybe I should say class and/or archetype) appeals to every player. Feats add a vital customization option for me. I'd not be able to effectively represent my current PC without at least one feat.
I can understand why some choose not to use them, but we have never run into the game-ruining issues some seem to fear. Maybe playing with the same, close-knit group exclusively has saved us those issues. Whatever he case, I doubt I'd play long-term without them. 5E characters are too cookie-cutter for my tastes without them.
Lawolf wrote:
I would not choose to play 5e without feats. They're a big part of the fun for me.
Mistwell wrote:
Kishri wrote:
In my 5E games, feats have always been allowed. As a DM, I allow feats (maybe even a free feat for everyone at level 1, without using the variant human).
As a player, I've been in a game with feats allowed and anyone playing a human chose the variant (but those who didn't want to play a human never felt "weak" for not having a feat). And those who choose the variant did it because they were fascinated by the flavorful nature of feats. Maybe our players are particularly "enlightened" and "inspired"... actually no, they've always been kind of power players.
So, to summarize my opinion: feats don't break a game, unless PCs/DM relations do. Being D&D a number-crunchy game, almost all elements can be abused by munchkins. I guess.
Zardnaar wrote:
Feats are fun for a lot of people! I dunno, maybe some people want to use them to be munchkins or crawlers or even crossoints, but when I DM I trust my players not to ruin the game with their game choices. I've never met anyone who was any sort of pastry, so I don't wanna take measures to prevent an issue I've never had come up before at the expense of fun-loving players' character concepts.
Zardnaar wrote:
We did both, but after a couple games,. removed them entirely.
abs1nth wrote:
pukunui wrote:
pukunui wrote:
I would totally be into that. Plus, one of the playtest adventure modules included stats for a boggle, which was pretty similar in design to D3's treasure goblins (insofar as they liked to steal things and could make little portals to jump through). I was thinking of incorporating one into a game of mine at some point.
Zardnaar wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Kishri wrote:
Definitely.
In the game I DM we have 4 variant humans now at 5th level all took feats at 1st level, but not at 4th.
In the HoTDQ campaign I play in, my PC is a human variant tempest cleric and I took Defensive Duelist since my PC has high Dex and was raised by Elves. We've played 5 sessions so far and the feat has not blocked a single attack yet. Lol. I'm going to have a party the first time it actually deflects a blow.
Zardnaar wrote:
Am I using feats for our 5e. game? Yes. If not I'd just play AD&D over 5e Zard. Currently we play both games; and as you know I'm a grognard and proud. 
Rastapopoulos wrote:
In the beginning no, but we have warmed up to them and find them an acceptable trade-off over all. The only problem is I have every spellcaster take resilient (constitution) and warcaster. So Feats did not create the diversity we had hoped for. It's pretty much warcaster, resilient, pump main stat to 20 then whatever is next most convceniet like constitution. Constitution is probaly (in my groups) the favorite number two stat. My noncasters are much more diverse on their feat selection.
I really wish they would have just made concentration a class ability, proficiency bonus plus spellcasting modifier. I probaly would have received casters with cooler feat selection.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Kishri wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
If you invest in CON, get Warcaster and/or get Resilient (Consitution), choose monsters to Polymorph into by their CON saves, using damage mitigation buffs and otherwise do your damndest to keep Concentration...then you should be rewarded for that by having Concentration be hard to break. You are expending limited resources (spell slots & Feats) in order to get a specific effect. There is no problem here. Things are working as intended.
spelley wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote: