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

[EzekielRaiden]

I still haven't decided if I'm going to allow everyone to start with a feat at 1st level, but if I do, I don't think I'd want any of the players to know ahead of time that they are getting one. I'd wait until after they had finished rolling up their characters and outfitting them with all their gear...heck, I might even wait until they finish their first long rest on their first adventure...and then I'd hand them an envelope. Inside would be a slip of paper that reads, "Your character can start with one of the following feats, if you want. Enjoy!" A list of about a half-dozen feats would then follow.

I figure this is a good way to help round out the characters, while avoiding over-optimized 1st level characters.

Not gonna lie, that would mildly annoy me. I'd be wondering what other "gotcha" type stuff is waiting in the wings, even if it's meant to be a positive.

 

[ECMO3]

If I understand it correctly, assuming you choose a race that gives ASIs in the stats that your class cares, you's already get a +2 on your main stat and a +1 on your second.... the human gets +1 in all so the difference between a race that"combos" with your class is: -1 on your first stat, neutral on the second and +1 on the much less important 3-6 stats... This all makes sense if you care about optmizing Ability Scores, if you don't then this is all irrelevant.

This is not universally true and it is heavily dependant on what you roll odd versus even. Remember it is the bonus that matters, not the raw roll so having a point better can be irrelevant statistically.

For example:

1. If you roll all even numbers Human is statistically poor. If you do this, your primary ability bonus will be one point less and every other stat will be the same as if you took a different race. Exception for Mountain Dwarf where 2 ability bonuses will be a point better.

2. If you roll all odd numbers V Human is hands down the best race. If you do this your primary and secondary stat bonus will be the exact same as if you picked a different race and every other stat will be one point better.

If you are optimizing you would decide what race after you look at your rolls. Assuming you put your highest rolls in your most important stat, 25% of the time there is no difference in your primary and secondary stat bonus using human vs another race.

 

[Bolares]

The better decision to me is to.... talk to the table. I'd open to any feat, but say up front that if I feel that the feats chosen are twisting something in the table I'd talk to the player to make a change. I'd treat this houserule as any playtest material...

 

[Bolares]

This is not universally true and it is heavily dependant on what you roll odd versus even. Remember it is the bonus that matters, not the raw roll so having a point better can be irrelevant statistically.

For example:

1. If you roll all even numbers Human is statistically poor. If you do this, your primary ability bonus will be one point less and every other stat will be the same as if you took a different race. Exception for Mountain Dwarf where 2 ability bonuses will be a point better.

2. If you roll all odd numbers V Human is hands down the best race. If you do this your primary and secondary stat bonus will be the exact same as if you picked a different race and every other stat will be one point better.

If you are optimizing you would decide what race after you look at your rolls.

I was just explaning another posters comment

Also, you are assuming rolling stats, that's not the standard anymore.

 

[Arial Black]

I give a free feat at 1st level, but no Variant Humans. Sure, I see the same feats picked fairly often, but that gets to the more unique feats faster.

Again, the issue is that when players are deciding which race to choose, since variant human (and presumably custom lineage) is unavailable and every race begins with a feat, then getting a feat is not part of your race choice.

So why would anyone choose six +1s and ZERO racial features over a +2 and a +1 AND a full complement of racial features? Why would getting +1 in the abilities you DON'T care about be better or more interesting than an extra +1 (that's the +2 instead of the +1 for el-remmen) AND a load of cool racial abilities?

 

[CleverNickName]

Not gonna lie, that would mildly annoy me. I'd be wondering what other "gotcha" type stuff is waiting in the wings, even if it's meant to be a positive.

Is it still a "gotcha" if it's optional? I mean, the player is under no obligation to take the free feat that's being offered, and there's no penalty for refusing it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We have talked about trying to tie them to backgrounds like the Dragonlance playtest. We have not tried it yet

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not gonna lie, that would mildly annoy me. I'd be wondering what other "gotcha" type stuff is waiting in the wings, even if it's meant to be a positive.

I mean if all the 'gotcha's' are as cool as an extra feat... that would be cool

 

[Seramus]

So why would anyone choose six +1s and ZERO racial features over a +2 and a +1 AND a full complement of racial features? Why would getting +1 in the abilities you DON'T care about be better or more interesting than an extra +1 (that's the +2 instead of the +1 for el-remmen) AND a load of cool racial abilities?

I asked a player who picked default human, and he said "Because I'm human."

But yes, races are not especially balanced. I'm interested to see what they do to the core races in 5.5E

Even with that imbalance, I see quite a lot of racial diversity in my games. It's not mountain dwarves, aven, and tortles as far as the eye can see.

 

[CleverNickName]

But yes, races are not especially balanced. I'm interested to see what they do to the core races in 5.5E

I think that we got a bit of a preview in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything.