D&D 5E Feat at 1st Level: How To Go About It?

[Horwath]

if they dont like it, they can take +2 to ability.

Having a score of 18/19 at first level is a feat of its own.

 

[MindxKiller]

And yes, there are a lot of players out there who don't like feats. A lot.

I mean that's anecdotal, but alright

 

[dmnqwk]

To be honest why are you offering them free feats? If you feel strongly, start the players at level 4 when they get the option of a feat anyway!

But no, seriously, feats are not something to give out at low level without damaging the balance of play. The only thing I'd recommend doing is having a player give up their Background benefits to pay for the feat - that is 2 skills and languages/tool proficiencies which would balance things out. Just deny them the skilled feat in case a smart alec tries to make that trade.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would make it -1 to 4 different stats, and you gain a feat, a skill and free language.

 

[thalmin]

No, I would make it -1 to their 2 highest stats, or -2 to their highest stat, to get that feat.

 

[Psikerlord#]

If you're worried about stat's getting too high, and only want them to have a free feat and not an ASI, I would just say that to them.

If none of the book feats suit, ask reluctant players to work with you to make a custom feat. Even if they dont normally like feats, there will be something they'll like if they have a hand in making it. It could of course be a "half feat", with a +1 stat and moderate other bonus. If the player dislikes complexity, the moderate bonus could have a static quality, like bonus HP, adv on a skill or a more nebulous benefit left to the DM to determine, such as knowledge of local safe houses or streetwise contacts who feed him interesting/useful info from time to time.

 

[jodyjohnson]

But no, seriously, feats are not something to give out at low level without damaging the balance of play.

We don't just damage "the balance of play" at our table. We take it to 0 hp, and give it 2 failed death saves.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

No, I would make it -1 to their 2 highest stats, or -2 to their highest stat, to get that feat.

Yes, that may be better. Or just -4 point buy points down.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I mean that's anecdotal, but alright

No it's not. It's even been confirmed by the survey results. One of the big reasons why 5e placed so much emphasis on feats being optional in the first place.

 

[MindxKiller]

No it's not. It's even been confirmed by the survey results. One of the big reasons why 5e placed so much emphasis on feats being optional in the first place.

Link to the survey? I have a feeling you might be using what people feel about 3.x feats to fuel your argument against 5e feats, which are much different and more focused. I haven't seen any players dislike feats in general, only overpowered or underpowered feats, though that is also anecdotal. But most people I see talk in these forums, or comment on guides, don't express a dislike of feats in general. In fact I don't think I've ever played in a campaign that didn't use feats, and can't recall seeing a campaign recruiting that didn't use feats. Those two points are however also anecdotal.