Quote from: Razor 007;1098327Or perhaps, like I'm building my character using Lego blocks.

Or perhaps, it makes my medieval fantasy roleplay start to feel like superhero fantasy roleplay.  It's a distraction that interferes with my immersion in a medieval game.  ASI's, within reasonable limits; don't interfere with my immersion the same way.

In my mind it could be worse, you could have to play a character whose race is their class.  Now that is immersion breaking video game bonkerness.

Quote from: Razor 007;1098377Because I want all the D & D goodies in my games.

Have you looked at Shadow of the Demon Lord? It has all of the D&D tropes with a slimmed mechanic, a reasonable lethal system, and a light setting. It's one of the games that fights with D&D5e for my fantasy itch when I feel that the latter is "too much game" for what I'm looking to do.

Quote from: Simlasa;1098392I thought Feats were optional in 5e?
Is the complaint, more accurately, that you can't find anyone willing to play without them?

It would be nice if Feats were in a separate book of options, and not in the PHB itself.  Even though it says that Feats are optional, they are right there with the information you use to create and advance your character.

Eh, they existed in old school D&D.  2E had proficiences.  BECMI D&D had weapon mastery which gave people different maneuvers they could do with weapons.  And many of the feats are simply class abilities from 1e or even OD&D, just now people choose instead of them being baked into the class.

Feats in 3e are essentially just special skills and widgets that would normally be skills and lit perks in 2e.

In 5e Feats are not 3e Feats and should not have been called that.

So in the end yes having skills detracts from D&D as it feels like I am playing a video game or lego blocks. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Razor 007;1098327Or perhaps, like I'm building my character using Lego blocks.

Or perhaps, it makes my medieval fantasy roleplay start to feel like superhero fantasy roleplay.  It's a distraction that interferes with my immersion in a medieval game.  ASI's, within reasonable limits; don't interfere with my immersion the same way.

I'm sorry your experience is different from others.

But if you want your D&D goodies, you get to deal with feats.  Or you could try older versions of D&D and not have to pay the feat tax.

Quote from: Razor 007;1098343It seems like outside of the OSR movement; RPGs are going full blown Featpalooza, and I don't like it.  PF2E being an excellent example.

Now, get off of my lawn!!!

Exception-based design, chargen and advancement via deck-building, planning 1-20 character builds with Feat/Trait trees, etc.  It's very CCG/Videogamey, and it's how WotC makes games.  Period.  You're also seeing a lot of other games doing the same thing.

Then again, we're always had GURPS and HERO with Advantages/Disadvantages and Powers that are much more tailorable than Feats.

You're right though, it's definitely a "thing" and is increasingly becoming the norm.

Quote from: pdboddy;1098530Or you could try older versions of D&D and not have to pay the feat tax.

I've run 5e 1-20 without feats, it works fine. Even if GM allows them the player doesn't have to take them.

Quote from: S'mon;1098539I've run 5e 1-20 without feats, it works fine. Even if GM allows them the player doesn't have to take them.

I've let players take feats for their characters.  So far, I'm seeing about one feat taken for every 20 or so opportunities.  It's always been highly on point and helpful to that character's style.  Giving up that ability score adjustment is no small thing.  And by the time characters get up into their teen levels, a feat or three added on is hardly going to over-complicate things compared to what was before.

Agree with others that 5E "feats" should have been named something else, because the baggage on the term is misleading in 5E.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1098535Exception-based design, chargen and advancement via deck-building, planning 1-20 character builds with Feat/Trait trees, etc.  It's very CCG/Videogamey, and it's how WotC makes games.  Period.  You're also seeing a lot of other games doing the same thing.

In the Fantasy Heartbreaker my friends and I created and play, we use Feats (called Talents) that have no prerequisites other than level.  There are Talents that are available beginning at level 5 and Talents available at Level 9 that provide powers that would be game-breaking at lower levels, but otherwise, you don't have to plan ahead.

I'm with you Razor, I prefer creative thinking at the gaming table. Feats widgetize possible action, and in my experience all that does is prevent players from doing what they want to do, rather than enable it. In my game, anyone can attempt any "feat" they can think of at any time, and that results in a lot of situational variety. To me, a hero that performs the same action over and over again gets dull fast, and that repetition just amplifies the feel of repeatedly hitting a button on a game controller.

With well over a dozen skills, and six abilities; I don't see the need for Feats.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1098540Agree with others that 5E "feats" should have been named something else, because the baggage on the term is misleading in 5E.

You could replace "feats" with any of a hundred other terms too, but 5e is the baggage-honoring edition.

Quote from: Zalman;1098592IFeats widgetize possible action, and in my experience all that does is prevent players from doing what they want to do, rather than enable it.

If the game explains some 'sample actions' and how they ought to be adjudicated (or if you make it clear at your table) that might be true, but for most people feats let them do things that they might not be allowed to do otherwise.

Without a feat or a class ability, how do you determine what happens when I try to attack with two weapons?

Without a feat or a class ability, how do you determine what happens when I try to wear full plate that I'm not proficient in and is not sized for me?

Without a feat or class ability, how do you determine what happens when I say I want to leap onto the dragon's back as he flies by, balance on his neck, and plunge my sword directly into his brain pan?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1098640Without a feat or a class ability, how do you determine what happens when I try to attack with two weapons?
Without a feat or a class ability, how do you determine what happens when I try to wear full plate that I'm not proficient in and is not sized for me?
Without a feat or class ability, how do you determine what happens when I say I want to leap onto the dragon's back as he flies by, balance on his neck, and plunge my sword directly into his brain pan?

Personally, I wouldn't conflate class abilities with feats. To me, that's like asking "how do I know if my character can cast spells or not?". That question might make sense in a game without classes, but otherwise the answer is simple: some classes include that training, others do not.

As for the other examples, I prefer rulings over rules. I do use general guidelines that include "doing anything fancy" to achieve an effect in battle other than causing damage, and they work just fine for 99.99% of the cases without modification. I find my players a lot more creative for it, and more heroic.

My experience with feat-based systems has been opposite: players frequently suffer from "I-don't-have-that-feat" paralysis, and are more likely to feel like the game is about what they can't do than what they can do.