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

[Blue]

See, this is what I'm worried about.

I might avoid this by forcing the players to choose this first-level "bonus feat" from a short list of options. Feats that I have carefully selected for build options and storytelling potential. I'm thinking stuff like Light Armor Master, Ritual Magic, Skilled...the feats that are nobody's first choice, and probably aren't worth a +2 ASI, but would still pretty good to have for certain builds, or to fill in gaps. It's free, after all, so there'd be nothing to complain about.

If I let them pick any feat at 1st level, it would be the only feat they would ever get...and I don't think that would be very popular with my players.

For a while I was planning "Free half feat at 1st level" or the variant on it "Free half feat at 1st level, but it can't bring your (point buy ability) up to an 18 after racial".

It kept the big combat feats from being on the list, and especially the second one encouraged some character diversity instead of just the top tier feats getting chosen every time.

Another thought, either by itself or with other limitations would be "no two characters take the same feat".

 

[Blue]

I feel like @EzekielRaiden does have a point though about not revealing the bonus feat exists until after character creation is finished and set in place having a bit of a backhanded sting to it.
If you’re going to be excluding the ‘first-choice’ major optimisation focused feats from their selection anyway I don’t see why your players shouldn’t know what they’re going to get to choose from during the character creation process, they might see a ‘third-choice feat’ that they wouldn’t usually pick but they’re getting a choice for it now without better feats competing to be picked and it inspires them to make an entirely new character concept they hadn’t even been considering before, ‘hey i saw the linguist feat and it inspired me to make a diplomat character who travels between all the big cities translating for them’ ‘oh cool i picked chef and built their backstory around being the cook of a noble they’re trying to return to power’ instead of ‘now i wish that I’d taken the acolyte background i was considering instead of the merchant one i picked it would’ve really gone better thematically with this healer feat’

To add a third voice to this - a starting feat can add interesting color to a character. I helped out test an ability score draft here on ENworld a few months back (it was a lot of fun) and there were also some other goodies. I drafted a random starting feat that turned out to be Telepathic, and I had that flavor the entire backstory and RP for the character under the assumption they had it since being a child. (It can not just talk, but also do Detect Thoughts.)

 

[CleverNickName]

@EzekielRaiden , @CreamCloud0 : I'm really not seeing the issue, or at least I don't see it as being as severe of an issue. (Maybe I'm blind?) I am not preventing the player from doing anything that they weren't already planning on doing, even optimizing their character to the fullest extent of the rules if they want to. I am not forcing them to take something they might not want, either. They can still play the same character they had intended to play, in exactly the same way that they were intending to play it. The only difference is they also get to start with their choice of a free feat, which is to be chosen from a short list.

I can't figure out why this would ever be a bad thing from the player's perspective. I'm not saying it couldn't happen; people are fickle and it wouldn't be the first time I was oblivious to a social interaction and accidentally hurt peoples' feelings. If it is truly a sticking-point, if the player is truly displeased about being offered a free feat as a surprise, I would take the player aside to work out an amiable solution.

 

[CreamCloud0]

@EzekielRaiden , @CreamCloud0 : I'm really not seeing the issue, or at least I don't see it as being as severe of an issue. (Maybe I'm blind?) I am not preventing the player from doing anything that they weren't already planning on doing, even optimizing their character to the fullest extent of the rules if they want to. I am not forcing them to take something they might not want, either. They can still play the same character they had intended to play, in exactly the same way that they were intending to play it. The only difference is they also get to start with their choice of a free feat, which is to be chosen from a short list.

I can't figure out why this would ever be a bad thing from the player's perspective. I'm not saying it couldn't happen; people are fickle and it wouldn't be the first time I was oblivious to a social interaction and accidentally hurt peoples' feelings. If it is truly a sticking-point, if the player is truly displeased about being offered a free feat as a surprise, I would take the player aside to work out an amiable solution.

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 immediately 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.

 

[CleverNickName]

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 built into it’

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?

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why would I give characters an extra thing at level one? I thought people wanted level one to be basically commoners, not adventure ready heroes.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why would I give characters an extra thing at level one? I thought people wanted level one to be basically commoners, not adventure ready heroes.

This is probably the only viable reason I've heard that would convince me to not give a feat at level 1...

And something I've thought about, but unfortunately since the can of worms has already been opened, it is hard to put them back.

 

[CleverNickName]

Why would I give characters an extra thing at level one? I thought people wanted level one to be basically commoners, not adventure ready heroes.

I mean, you're not wrong...

It depends on the campaign, I guess. For me, I'm getting ready to kick off a high-powered, gritty, swashbuckling adventure campaign. This seems like a nice fit for that.

 

[ScuroNotte]

We allow all to pick a feat but allow the Human to select 2 feats since the other races get other superior benefits.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why would I give characters an extra thing at level one? I thought people wanted level one to be basically commoners, not adventure ready heroes.

When PCs have things they need & regularly cycle out old gear for new it can be to entice player buyin & generate was I recently saw as plot hooks the gm can expect the player will bite every time. But that requires churn & need or it tends to become a one sided gift.


On top of that when the system includes a very low powered start where the PCs are "basically commoners" it provides the GM more room to dial them up on a case by case based on participation & such.