D&D 5E Does Your DM Let Everyone Start With A Feat?

Does your DM let everyone start with a feat?

  • Yes, any feat we want.

    Votes: 22 18.8%
  • Yes, but only from a DM-curated short list of starting feats.

    Votes: 21 17.9%
  • No, only certain races (like the variant human) get to start with a feat.

    Votes: 66 56.4%
  • No, nobody gets to start with a feat/we don't use feats.

    Votes: 8 6.8%


log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
But it's not just a gift, is it?

It would be like giving someone a Steam gift card, but timing it so that card only arrives after the seasonal sale ends, because you don't actually want the person to buy any of the games currently on sale, and the gift card won't cover those games when at full price. Sure, it's still a gift. It's also manipulative.

Edit: And to look at your specific example, no, that's not at all my thought process here. Instead it's, "Oh, you waited until after I took Great Weapon Fighting style to give me my pick of magic weapons where none of them are two-handed. And you did so specifically so that I wouldn't be thinking too much about optimization. Alright."
It is just a gift. If a grateful Genie offered each PC the ability to do one of 4 things(feats) as a reward, I don't think we'd be hearing this complaint. It's just a gift/reward/extra.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I think it’s best summed up not as ‘i don’t get to play the character i was going to play’ but rather ‘if i had known i was going to get this my entire character might have been developed in a different direction than what it was and incorporated it better’

EDIT: going back to the magic weapon comparison it’s like If i had known i was going to get this +1 dagger after I made my character i probably would’ve made a rogue who could’ve benefited from it more rather than my wizard who doesn’t want to touch melee range with a 10-foot pole.
Cool. So then you don't want any treasure after character creation, because if you'd known you'd have gotten those items, you'd have made a different character?
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I guess I want to avoid the former, but I don't think the latter is a problem? Seems like it would be a similar situation to the GWF barbarian finding a really cool flaming longsword in a treasure hoard. Not every piece of treasure is going to be 100% optimal for every character in the group, right?
And for me, I find such things...well, pretty frustrating. Because there's the clear implication "you should use this, I gave it to you, it's for you to have fun with, why aren't you using it?" But if you have a Barbarian with GWF...that flaming longsword may not even outpace the mundane greatsword!* Like, it's seriously in a spot where sticking with the sword you already have may be simply better. And since it's very unlikely that no one else in the party cares about flaming longswords...it's gonna go to someone else, even if it's been six months since I last got anything neat.

*Greatsword with GWF (presumably acquired via feat, since Barbarians don't get fighting styles normally) is 8.33 damage, vs. 5.5 average damage for a longsword wielded two-handed. Static bonuses are the same, so only the weapon + amount and fire damage will matter. Should Great Weapon Master apply, however...it's no contest, the greatsword is better. Even a flame tongue longsword--which, oddly, has no hit bonus!--can't match a baseline of 18.33 damage per hit before Rage/Str bonus; the best it can do is 1d10+2d6 = 5.5+7 = 12.5. Sure, it hits more often, but with Rage giving advantage on attacks....
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Cool. So then you don't want any treasure after character creation, because if you'd known you'd have gotten those items, you'd have made a different character?
Firstly: Your snide tone isn't helpful. At all. It is, in fact, very likely to result in cross words exchanged. Being respectful of others is in the rules. Maybe give it a shot, instead of doing what you did here.

Secondly: That's quite different, though (as noted above) yeah, sometimes getting whatever random (or, often, """random,""" because the DM feels like putting it in there) treasure...doesn't really do anything for me and I won't really hold onto it. Because it's simply not as good as sticking with what I've got. Even though the thing in question, like a flame tongue longsword, is a "major tier" "rare" item worth (apparently) 4000 gp, it literally can be inferior to a perfectly mundane greatsword. I don't see this as being ungrateful, I see it as being pragmatic; let someone else have the cool sword, even though it'll probably be super obvious that it was intended for my Barbarian (or whatever), because it just doesn't do anything for me.

I welcome some amount of surprise. Again, your snide, snippy attitude doesn't reflect well on your point here, which is (I presume) that you think people should be more open to spontaneity and unexpected results. But there's a pretty high likelihood I'm going to pass on items that aren't actually worthwhile for the kind of training my character has gone through. Like I said, I don't see that as being ungrateful or petulant, I see it as a matter of pragmatism: if the item is, in fact, a reduction in utility for me, it not only can but should go to someone else for whom it will have positive utility, even if that utility is marginal.

Now, if you'd like to actually have a conversation instead of being mocking and insincere, that could actually be interesting.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Firstly: Your snide tone isn't helpful. At all. It is, in fact, very likely to result in cross words exchanged. Being respectful of others is in the rules. Maybe give it a shot, instead of doing what you did here.

Secondly: That's quite different, though (as noted above) yeah, sometimes getting whatever random (or, often, """random,""" because the DM feels like putting it in there) treasure...doesn't really do anything for me and I won't really hold onto it. Because it's simply not as good as sticking with what I've got. Even though the thing in question, like a flame tongue longsword, is a "major tier" "rare" item worth (apparently) 4000 gp, it literally can be inferior to a perfectly mundane greatsword. I don't see this as being ungrateful, I see it as being pragmatic; let someone else have the cool sword, even though it'll probably be super obvious that it was intended for my Barbarian (or whatever), because it just doesn't do anything for me.

I welcome some amount of surprise. Again, your snide, snippy attitude doesn't reflect well on your point here, which is (I presume) that you think people should be more open to spontaneity and unexpected results. But there's a pretty high likelihood I'm going to pass on items that aren't actually worthwhile for the kind of training my character has gone through. Like I said, I don't see that as being ungrateful or petulant, I see it as a matter of pragmatism: if the item is, in fact, a reduction in utility for me, it not only can but should go to someone else for whom it will have positive utility, even if that utility is marginal.

Now, if you'd like to actually have a conversation instead of being mocking and insincere, that could actually be interesting.
I apologize for the tone.

I am curious, though, about the genie example. Suppose the first thing the characters did at 1st level involved freeing a genie. As a reward, the genie granted the rogue his choice of A, B, C or D feats, the fighter his choice of E, F, G or H feats, the cleric his choice of I, J, K or L feats, and the wizard his choice of M, N, O or P feats. Would you have the same outlook under those circumstances?
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
And for me, I find such things...well, pretty frustrating. Because there's the clear implication "you should use this, I gave it to you, it's for you to have fun with, why aren't you using it?" But if you have a Barbarian with GWF...that flaming longsword may not even outpace the mundane greatsword!* Like, it's seriously in a spot where sticking with the sword you already have may be simply better. And since it's very unlikely that no one else in the party cares about flaming longswords...it's gonna go to someone else, even if it's been six months since I last got anything neat.
...but a barbarian can use a flaming longsword, right? They're just choosing not to because it's not optimal.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I apologize for the tone.

I am curious, though, about the genie example. Suppose the first thing the characters did at 1st level involved freeing a genie. As a reward, the genie granted his choice of A, B, C or D feats, the fighter his choice of E, F, G or H feats, the cleric his choice of I, J, K or L feats, and the wizard his choice of M, N, O or P feats. Would you have the same outlook under those circumstances?
Hard to say, a lot would depend on context, but probably not? That sounds, to me, like a reward after a significant adventure, even if it's the party's first, and there's no impetus (as noted above) to prevent making certain kinds of disapproved choices. It instead feels (because much of this is an emotional response, not a logical one) like a genie doing what he or she can within the scope of her or his abilities.

Might be worth considering as an alternate approach for @CleverNickName. Present it as a reward with a finite list of feats, perhaps ones you've chosen to be cool/flavorful/relevant for each character without being strictly powerful. I still personally don't care for the "and now I have prevented them from optimizing" undertone, but that would at least feel more like an earned reward rather than the rather more negative feeling I get from only being given a feat after Session 1 specifically to circumvent certain kinds of player choices.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
It's not just not optimal. It's literally less good. That's my point. Why would you choose to use something that is (at least for some example situations) actually worse?
Because for other example situations it's very much better. If your greatsword is normal, that flaming sword is going to be doing more damage to creatures that need to be hit by magic weapons to take full damage.
 


CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
It's not just not optimal. It's literally less good. That's my point. Why would you choose to use something that is (at least for some example situations) actually worse?
My point is that "less good" is not the same thing as useless or unwanted. I can think of situations where the barbarian might reach for that flaming longsword instead of her greataxe.
 
Last edited:

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
Some feats are pretty strong to the point of really reducing threat at low level. So more flavoursome feats 'maybe'.
Yeah, I agree. This is why I'm leaning toward allowing short list of about 6-12 specific feats, instead of allowing 1st level characters to choose any feat they wish. The feats I'm talking about are the ones that nobody ever takes because they aren't worth the +2 ASI cost. (That's why I'm giving them away for free!)
 
Last edited:



CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
I guess I want to avoid the former, but I don't think the latter is a problem? Seems like it would be a similar situation to the GWF barbarian finding a really cool flaming longsword in a treasure hoard. Not every piece of treasure is going to be 100% optimal for every character in the group, right?
True, not every bit of loot is going to perfectly align with what the player wants for their character and that’s fine, but feats to my understanding are viewed as much more of a character customisation feature, they’re inherent, so when the GM starts interfering with that it provokes a more emotional response as it’s generally agreed that a GM doesn’t interfere with CC except in a few situations like having a few ground rules ‘I don’t allow dwarves and halflings in my world’ or ‘X subclass/ability/ect is banned at my table’ or perhaps later in the game approaching the player to discuss ‘hey i was thinking that it would be interesting and thematic if X happened to your character given what happened last session’ or ‘your character is really powerful and throwing off all my encounters/puzzles, could we discuss making some adjustments to them?’

The earlier mentioned genie gifting feats as rewards is a much more agreeable situation because it’s explicitly happening in universe as a reward for completing a quest rather than the situation you’re intending to give them to them where the feat is an out of universe thing where you’re withholding information until other choices have been finalised in a situation where that doesn’t really need to happen.

I say this not to accuse you of malicious intent but merely to explain how it could be interpreted, and you’re right in saying some players might just go ‘nice, a free feat’ but as it has already been proven in this thread the response of ‘why wasn’t i told about this earlier? You’re manipulating my decisions’ is also possible to occur.

EDIT: It might be taken much better if you’re upfront about that there’s going to be feats after CC, something like ‘I’ve got a curated list of flavour feats that you get to pick one of after you’ve made your character, I’ve chosen this because I don’t want you to optimise with them, how do you feel about that?’ Just to test the waters of their reactions, if they’re fine with it, great! But if not then maybe let them know what they’re getting featwise sooner for CC and trust in them not to powergame (not always possible with some players unfortunately but people are people)
 
Last edited:

DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
On the point of powerful feats:

FWIW, we revised all the feats (we had at the time) into half-feats. I should have it somewhere, so if people want to see what we did, I'll try to dig it up sometime today.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
5e is a robust, sturdy, system. It can handle a free feat at 1, 11, and 15. Or, even 1, 5, and 11.

So, in my games you get a free feat at level 1, no restrictions (though i do ask that it relate to the character's story somehow, rather than just being blandly powerful, unless the character is built in a way that only really works at low level with a specific feat), and when you would normally get an ASI, choosing a feat gets you a free +1 to any stat.

I've considered changing the second part to giving a free +1 at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18.
 

Bolares

Hero
Today I was making encounters for my party and remembered this discussion. Why is it a bad thing for the players to chose the strongest and combat focused feats? If they want to feel porwelful...sure? that just lets me make tougher encounters to throw against them....
 

CreamCloud0

One day, I hope to actually play DnD.
Today I was making encounters for my party and remembered this discussion. Why is it a bad thing for the players to chose the strongest and combat focused feats? If they want to feel porwelful...sure? that just lets me make tougher encounters to throw against them....
I think it’s more that the character gen feat, at least in this situation, is intended to be more of a thing to enhance character flavour rather than mechanical effectiveness, but because feats are so thin on the ground and compete with ASI’s players will 90% of the time go for optimisation over the more narratively apt choices for their characters
 

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top