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

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Your example wasn't really appropriate because feats have a great value and a large impact in the game.

Feats do have a great value and a large impact in the game. That does not mean the value of feats is universal.

You are also trying to claim there is some widespread dislike of feats. I haven't seen that on these boards. A few people agreeing with you does not mean it's a shared dislike across the boards or even the gaming community.

What you see on this board, or any board, is in no way a guaranteed to be accurate indication of what D&D players or people in general think at large. That's just a truth of the matter, since less than 1 in 6 D&D players visit any online conversation hubs regarding D&D, and not even 100% of the people that do visit a conversation hub regarding D&D visit all of them, and not even 100% of the people that do visit a particular conversation hub actually participate in any given conversation.

As for people that dislike feats: If you were to give me and my group of players a feat at 1st level for any character we play, there would be times where a feat is chosen because it happens to fit the character concept in mind, and times where having to select a feat would be seen as irritation because there aren't any feats that fit the concept in mind so the concept has to be changed to include at least one feat or a feat must be selected despite not actually fitting the concept... and my wife, in particular, would likely end up saying what she has been saying since being introduced to D&D 10 years ago, "I hate feats."

In fact, she hates feats so much that she prefers AD&D 2nd edition over every other version of D&D she has played, despite it being the third version of D&D she was exposed to, because then she never has to deal with feats. Her hate of feats is mitigated in 5th edition only by the fact that she can raise ability scores instead whenever there isn't a feat that she actually feels like taking - so not giving her that choice and mandating a feat be chosen would just start her back on the now ended, every-session reminder that she'd rather be playing AD&D.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Feats do have a great value and a large impact in the game. That does not mean the value of feats is universal.

What you see on this board, or any board, is in no way a guaranteed to be accurate indication of what D&D players or people in general think at large. That's just a truth of the matter, since less than 1 in 6 D&D players visit any online conversation hubs regarding D&D, and not even 100% of the people that do visit a conversation hub regarding D&D visit all of them, and not even 100% of the people that do visit a particular conversation hub actually participate in any given conversation.

As for people that dislike feats: If you were to give me and my group of players a feat at 1st level for any character we play, there would be times where a feat is chosen because it happens to fit the character concept in mind, and times where having to select a feat would be seen as irritation because there aren't any feats that fit the concept in mind so the concept has to be changed to include at least one feat or a feat must be selected despite not actually fitting the concept... and my wife, in particular, would likely end up saying what she has been saying since being introduced to D&D 10 years ago, "I hate feats."

In fact, she hates feats so much that she prefers AD&D 2nd edition over every other version of D&D she has played, despite it being the third version of D&D she was exposed to, because then she never has to deal with feats. Her hate of feats is mitigated in 5th edition only by the fact that she can raise ability scores instead whenever there isn't a feat that she actually feels like taking - so not giving her that choice and mandating a feat be chosen would just start her back on the now ended, every-session reminder that she'd rather be playing AD&D.

Agreed. Feats are not universal but they are of a high value according to the game. Using an example such as handing out squash isn't a good example.

Not liking feats is fine but remember there are others at your table who may like feats so instead just take a stat increase.

The reason feats are optional because the designers were giving a nod to the first and second edition crowds, not because they weren't liked.

 

[Gabriel Pendragon]

For those that don't like feats just take the toughness or improved initiative feats and call it a day. Giving an extra feat at first level can be pretty crazy with the right combinations. For example, assuming point buy and using human variant, cleric can make enemies need to roll a 25 or better to hit them. Medium armor master in scale mail with a shield, 16 dex, defensive duelist and a finesse weapon, AC = 21, toss in the bane spell to incur a 1d4 penalty to their attack rolls for as long as it takes them to save and they will need 22-25 to hit depending on the roll. They also can't ignore you as inflict wounds hurts far too much, and sacred flame makes every one better at hitting them.
Picking up a couple magic feats at first level to let you do silly things with magic. Polearm master plus sentinel at first level is a crazy combo. I'm sure there are plenty more, oh tavern brawler and grappler at first level makes for fun.

 

[hbarsquared]

I'm a fan of optional feats and, in general, see no problem with not having feats at first level.

With that said,a "First Level Feats" game would be fun, and the XM simply factors in the slightly increased power level.

In fact, I hope this happens with Eberron. Feats seem like the perfect silo for dragonmarks, and they need to be avaipable from Level One.

So, either everyone is overpowered and is reauired to take a feat (or ability bonus), or wr figure out a way to balance it. If point buy, start with four fewer points. If standard array, start with 13,13,12,12,10,8. Why not throw a 6 in there as a base? No change when rolling stats.

I think that covers all possibilities and playstyles.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Your example wasn't really appropriate because feats have a great value and a large impact in the game.

Value is entirely subjective. And in a game where people who don't like to use them are given the option to ignore them easily, then obviously they don't have a huge impact. In fact, the game was sort of designed that way on purpose, which has been acknowledged by the design team

You are also trying to claim there is some widespread dislike of feats. I haven't seen that on these boards. A few people agreeing with you does not mean it's a shared dislike across the boards or even the gaming community.

Says the guy who constantly goes on about how much he dislikes things in 5e...the irony.

I said there are a lot of people who don't like feat or don't want to play with them in the game. There has been plenty of evidence to support that. Not only by survey results, but it's also substantiated by the many other TTRPG D&D fan groups out there. Just because you personally haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've even giving you two other forum sites to go look for yourself.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Agreed. Feats are not universal but they are of a high value according to the game. Using an example such as handing out squash isn't a good example.

It's a perfect example, because it was in response to the post that said how could anyone not like them if they were free? Well, lots of things can be free and not wanted. You're missing the context in what I was responding to. Also, even if you put that aside, liking feats is entirely subjective opinion and personal tastes. Not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding this very salient point.

The reason feats are optional because the designers were giving a nod to the first and second edition crowds, not because they weren't liked.

Do you have ANY sort of evidence to support this? I've already pointed to survey results and two other online D&D forums to support what I said. I anxiously await your supporting evidence.

Note: you also seem to be confusing "don't want to play with them" with "not liking". Lots of people just don't care about them. Those, combined with the people who actually don't like them, are not some tiny off shoot like you're implying.

 

[MG.0]

Agreed. Feats are not universal but they are of a high value according to the game. Using an example such as handing out squash isn't a good example. Not liking feats is fine but remember there are others at your table who may like feats so instead just take a stat increase. The reason feats are optional because the designers were giving a nod to the first and second edition crowds, not because they weren't liked.

As a DM I don't like feats. I don't feel they fit well with the rest of the game. I have a few players in one of my groups who feel the same way. I have several players who couldn't care less one way or the other, and two players that are all about feats. As a result we have been allowing feats to make those players happy, but the desire for feats is far from universal.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Using an example such as handing out squash isn't a good example.

Yes it is. Food is of high value according to the reality of life, just as feats are "of high value according to the game", and just as with feats not every living thing wants the same type and amount of food, so different amounts or types are seen as valuable.

Not liking feats is fine but remember there are others at your table who may like feats so instead just take a stat increase.

Yes, of course... but what's that got to do with this topic which was "how about give everyone a free feat?" and you insisting that those of us that realize "free" doesn't mean "universally desired" were incorrect?

The reason feats are optional because the designers were giving a nod to the first and second edition crowds, not because they weren't liked.

Actually, that reason doesn't necessitate feats being optional since the "nod" could have been the game presenting feats as the default and the option "or can skip them."

The reason behind feats being the option, not the default, is the designers wanting the default of the game to be fast and simple.

 

[Jester David]

Reducing the points from point buy and capping scores bought at 14 but then giving characters a free ability score boost at level 1 might work. So players could opt for a feat or a 16 ability score.

 

[Gabriel Pendragon]

Feats denote a specialized skill and come at the price of increasing stats. Which is something that takes a lot of time and practice. So instead of increasing general ability in a certain field, the character is specializing their skills in a very specific field.
Feats are another way to make two characters different from each other. Without them many subclasses have no difference to them at all. Every champion can do the exact same thing as any other champion.
Not liking feats seems to speak to a couple real reasons as to why: Not liking people doing something you can't do, not liking complexity, or not understanding the purpose for feats to be included.
On the bright side only one race (varient) has to choose a feat. Everyone else can just take their 10 stat points, more for fighters, and go about their day. But I have to wonder, how many characters have 10 stat points that have a meaningful impact on their character given the 20 point maximum for stats? Of the characters i've built the only one that has any reason to increase more than 4 points from starting stats is an arcane trickster, and it tops out at 8.
As many builds don't have any use for more than 4 stat points, grabbing feats gives meaningful choices for the other 3 stat increases.
Feeling a certain way doesn't mean that is reality. Feats fit in very well with the rest of the game, as the game is all about customizing and personalizing your character and doing cool things with it in a fantasy world, doing amazing feats of awesome with a party of said characters. 5e isn't just about a block of stats, its about rewarding creative use of the living breathing person's we are playing with. Feats are just another means to further separating yourself from the pack. I like how everything has some purpose in 5e and any little quirk not only has a chance of coming up, but can come up more often than some one might think.