D&D 5E Reduced standard array in exchange for a bonus feat at 1st.

[ccooke]

You are both correct, but in my experience I have only had a couple players start with an 18 out of this. Many of the +1 feats are limited in their additional scopes, and it never really affected anything. The risk of having a truly bad dump stat in either CON/DEX/WIS or limit their other roles helped balance it out.

YMMV, but it hasn't been an issue for me

Yeah, I think I'd be happy with this house rule. I will definitely consider it in play and see how it works.

 

[Shiroiken]

I think a better balance would be 14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8. Feats are worth +2 to your prime ability score, so lowering the 15 to a 13 would be about right.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I think a better balance would be 14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8. Feats are worth +2 to your prime ability score, so lowering the 15 to a 13 would be about right.

Yeah this makes more sense to me.

And it's still possible to get a 16 or 17, depending on both Feat and Race, but if you do your next score isn't likely to be above 14.

 

[Flamestrike]

I think a better balance would be 14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8. Feats are worth +2 to your prime ability score, so lowering the 15 to a 13 would be about right.

Yeah that's what Im thinking now.

14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8.

It makes it impossible for a Stat higher than 17 to start, places value on the Humans +1's to all by bumping 2 stats other than the main stat, and makes Half feats tempting for everyone (for Humans to push their main stat to 16, and for most Demihumans to push one of their 13's to a 14.

Demihumans can go 'all out' and push an Ability score to 17 at the start as well.

It only leaves Half-elves in the position of 'every class that cares about Charisma goes a Half-elf' (they get the 16 or 14 in Charisma, and also get to round out both Odd ability scores with the floating +1's.

That could be fixed by forcing Half elves to place one of the floating +1's into (say) Dexterity, and leaving the other one free.

Then you would see more Half elf Swashbucklers, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Dex based Paladins. With Strength/Con builds (Strength Paladins, Strength Warlocks) Human is the better choice (you dont get a wasted +1 in Dex, and start with a higher Strength and Con).

 

[Flamestrike]

High Elf Wizard

S: 8
D: 12 (14) - Racial
C 13
I 14 (15) - Racial
W 13
Ch 10

For Feats, either Resilient [Con] or a +1 Int half feat look good.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

Feats in 5e are highly overrated. In previous editions, they mattered more because they made a difference in how you played and portrayed your character. Now, there's only a handful of choices that seem far and away superior to others, thus making the actual choice less of a real decision than a foregone conclusion. In fact, I daresay many characters become more about the one or two feat selections that boost their other effectiveness significantly, as opposed to any other decisions, such a class and ability scores.

The best part to me, however, is that the use of feats is optional. The variant human isn't an actual race, but a variant rule for the system if you choose to use feats, and IF you choose to allow the variant option for human characters. You can still use feats and make all characters unable to gain a feat at 1st level by sticking with the normal human option.

This edition seems to work better when it's not making players consider too many options. Including feats seems like a holdover from previous editions that overloaded the game with too many of them. Better to leave them off the table and focus on class, race, and background stuff. But that's just one GMs opinion.

 

[Flamestrike]

Feats in 5e are highly overrated.

I disagree. A feat is almost an entire levels worth of advancement (barring Hit Dice, 1/4 of proficiency bonus progression, and spell progression).

In previous editions, they mattered more because they made a difference in how you played and portrayed your character.

I'd say a Fighter with GWM plays and is portrayed very different to one with (say) Sentinel or Heavy Armor master or Shield master at 1st level.

Adding a feat at 1st level (or at least the option of a feat at 1st level) avoids a lot of cookie cutter classes at 1st and gives more options to realise more character concepts straight out the gate.

This edition seems to work better when it's not making players consider too many options. Including feats seems like a holdover from previous editions that overloaded the game with too many of them. Better to leave them off the table and focus on class, race, and background stuff. But that's just one GMs opinion.

I like feats, and so do my players. I just want to reign that power in a bit at 1st level, while also providing options for those that want them.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Sounds like an interesting option. The power gamer in me would almost never take it because other than getting extra attacks with a polearm or handcrossbow generally I don't see anything in the feats that is worth not getting my primary stat up to something respectable first (gush all you want about -5 to hit for +10 damage, when you only have a +5 or 6 to hit it's crap). But RP-wise coming to the table with a feat at level one makes it something that can be incorporated into your background, and I don't like that being the sole provenance of humans.

Of course my opinion should be taken with an extra dollop of salt, because other than the one day I tried adventurer's league I have never once used the standard array.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Feats in 5e are highly overrated. In previous editions, they mattered more because they made a difference in how you played and portrayed your character. Now, there's only a handful of choices that seem far and away superior to others, thus making the actual choice less of a real decision than a foregone conclusion. In fact, I daresay many characters become more about the one or two feat selections that boost their other effectiveness significantly, as opposed to any other decisions, such a class and ability scores.

The best part to me, however, is that the use of feats is optional. The variant human isn't an actual race, but a variant rule for the system if you choose to use feats, and IF you choose to allow the variant option for human characters. You can still use feats and make all characters unable to gain a feat at 1st level by sticking with the normal human option.

This edition seems to work better when it's not making players consider too many options. Including feats seems like a holdover from previous editions that overloaded the game with too many of them. Better to leave them off the table and focus on class, race, and background stuff. But that's just one GMs opinion.

I get what you're saying, and I agree that there are some amazing feats and a bunch of...less-amazing ones.

But I still love Feats, especially the ones that change your playstyle/tactics.

I almost always play vhuman if starting at 1st level because I want a Feat. If I do play a demihuman I'll shoot for a 17 then take a +1 feat at 4th. I really hate taking ASIs. They're just....boring.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think a better balance would be 14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8. Feats are worth +2 to your prime ability score, so lowering the 15 to a 13 would be about right.

Good point. I think I’m going to try this for my next campaign.