D&D (2024) 1st vs. 4th Level Feats

[DEFCON 1]

I like the fact that your standard combat feats are not available at 1st level. There has always been arguments in the past about whether feats really should be divided in half between "combat" and "non-combat" options and that the game would give you places during leveling to take both. That way players can take what they think of as the more "flavorful" feats for characterization that are not just boosting your standard combat method.

Seems to me the 1st level feats are their way of slightly incorporating that idea. Only have those feats that are to widen your character concept to do things you don't already do, rather than heighten your concept by making how you normally choose to attack even better. If you are going to be a polearm combatant... why do you need to be a polearm Master at 1st level? Why can't you just use a polearm for three levels as-is, and therefore have something to strive for to reach 4th? That's the way I look at it.

 

[Li Shenron]

What are your thoughts on the feat level system so far? Would it make sense to merge the level 1 and level 4 feats, or is there some benefit to having them as separate categories?

My thought is that this is worse than the 2014 version of feats.

I love using feats, but I don't want them being mandatory in the game, which is what WotC has already decided they should be. At least in the last playtest article they actually introduced a way out, because ASI is now a feat... so technically you can say feats aren't really mandatory because you can always choose the ASI feat. Still, many (if not all) backgrounds will come with a feat that probably won't be swappable with the ASI feat, but this is still unknown at the time.

Having levelled feat is bad because it significantly reduces the options. In 5e, a human (variant) can choose any feat. This is the primary (mechanical) reason to choose to play a variant human character. In 5.5e, assuming there'll be still a race with a bonus feat at 1st level, they will gravitate more commonly around the same 2-3 feats, because the majority of feats will require a higher level. Less character diversity makes the game worse on the long term.

Adding new requirements (minimum level or other) to feats also further restricts what feats each character can take.

Adding +1 ability bonus to every single feat is also another think that disgusts me... if it were me I would have actually removed all ability bonuses to all feats and added new small additional benefits in their place. Because just like there are players or playing group who don't like feats, there are also players or playing groups who don't like ability increases.

All these changes really give me the feeling that while 5e was the most "freedom edition" of all, WotC has already decided that next edition needs to take a step back and be more restricted, according to the way WotC has decided everybody should play the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

All these changes really give me the feeling that while 5e was the most "freedom edition" of all, WotC has already decided that next edition needs to take a step back and be more restricted, according to the way WotC has decided everybody should play the game.

I don't think wotc has decided everything. Right now we see a playtest of a possible direction. During the DnDnext playtest they tied out a lot of things and proved they were willing to take a step backwards if something is not liked.
They also added things which they expected to be rejected and which sticked... so please give feedback and make your voice count. The final outlook of 1D&D is not decided yet.

 

[Li Shenron]

I don't think wotc has decided everything.

On feats being mandatory, yes. They've already playtested them for the last 3-4 settings books and published them.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I like what I'm seeing so far with feats.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

On feats being mandatory, yes. They've already playtested them for the last 3-4 settings books and published them.

Yes. But not necessarily with stat bonuses attached.

 

[Charlaquin]

In the UAs so far, there are essentially 3 categories of feats, 1st level, 4th level and epic boons. Putting aside the epic boons, it seems like the key distinction between 1st and 4th level feats is that the latter have built in ability score increases. Without those ASIs, I feel like these feats would be more or less balanced with each other (with a few exceptions that don't seem balanced within the categories either), and I don't see a thematic reason the 4th level feats couldn't be associated with backgrounds: Actor, for instance, seems like the perfect example of a feat that would make sense as part of a background. Given all this, I really don't see the point in breaking these feats into two categories. It would be far more elegant and far more customization-friendly to simply remove the ASIs from the level 4 feats and then say that any feat chosen at level 4+ also grants an increase to one ability score.

What are your thoughts on the feat level system so far? Would it make sense to merge the level 1 and level 4 feats, or is there some benefit to having them as separate categories?

That’s a great idea! I think I’ll suggest it when the survey goes out.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I suggest they go the opposite: Add +1 ASI to each L1 feat, and take away one of the +1's granted by background. (So that you only get that +1 from your feat). THEN make it so that background (or class, which would be my preference) gives you another +1, and finally, you finish off your abilities with a single +1 floater.

 

[Horwath]

Feats should be split into combat and non-combat and ASI should have it's own slot in character advancement.

1: non-combat feat
2: combat feat
3: +1 ASI
4: non-combat feat
5: combat feat
6: +1 ASI
7: non-combat feat
8: combat feat
9: +1 ASI
10: non-combat feat
11: combat feat
12: +1 ASI
13: non-combat feat
14: combat feat
15: +1 ASI
16: non-combat feat
17: combat feat
18: +1 ASI
19: non-combat feat
20: combat feat

feats should be at current power levels in UA without attached ASI's

non-combat feats should orient on extra skills, better skills(expertise), new abilities for exploration, roleplay with marginal combat utility, expanding racial traits, etc.

Combat feats are more obvious: GWM, PAM, Sent, SS, CE, Lucky(might also be noncombat), Shield master, etc...

OFC, you can always take non combat feat instead of combat.
And you can take single time +1 ASI instead of combat feat at levels 8+.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Feats should be split into combat and non-combat and ASI should have it's own slot in character advancement.

1: non-combat feat
2: combat feat
3: +1 ASI
4: non-combat feat
5: combat feat
6: +1 ASI
7: non-combat feat
8: combat feat
9: +1 ASI
10: non-combat feat
11: combat feat
12: +1 ASI
13: non-combat feat
14: combat feat
15: +1 ASI
16: non-combat feat
17: combat feat
18: +1 ASI
19: non-combat feat
20: combat feat

feats should be at current power levels in UA without attached ASI's

non-combat feats should orient on extra skills, better skills(expertise), new abilities for exploration, roleplay with marginal combat utility, expanding racial traits, etc.

Combat feats are more obvious: GWM, PAM, Sent, SS, CE, Lucky(might also be noncombat), Shield master, etc...

OFC, you can always take non combat feat instead of combat.
And you can take single time +1 ASI instead of combat feat at levels 8+.

No. Please not. This seems to be the PF2 way. I don't think it is a good idea. I could see divorcing feats from ASI if you get +1 to a stat with feats anyway.
An interesting thing however could be attaching the +1 ability score increase strictly to non-combat feats only.