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

[CM]

In my Tiamat campaign I started everyone at level 3 and gave a bonus feat. All the players who created a human actually picked the standard human and not the variant. Heavy Armor Master, Sharpshooter, Inspiring Leader, two Magic Initiates, and one I can't remember.

The only change i've made is to just use more enemies. We're moving into the caravan phase of the adventure as of this week.

 

[n00b f00]

I think that at level 1, few characters are going to want to give up 2 points for a feat. I think there's no attractive trade to make another feat desirable without altering early game balance. I'd just offer them a free feat heads up, and balance the game by adding just a little bit more than you would otherwise.

For players who didn't like feats I'd offer them 2 points, or I'd offer them simple universal improvements like more hp or bonus initiative stats. Or I'd let them make their own. Of course if none of those sound dope I'd just call it off. People who don't like feats don't often don't like choosing, planning, the specifics, combos, min max stuff. Being told they can choose a feat or just get +2 HP per level seems pretty attractive. They don't have to pick a feat, and they're not at a disadvantage. It takes the onus off of those who don't want to pick, and puts on those who do because toughness is now the assumed default for all PCs. "You can have this cool feat, but you're giving up 2 HP every level."

 

[Corpsetaker]

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.



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.

Sorry it's not a good example so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

My evidence is what was said during the playtest. Wizards stated that 5th edition was going to be an edition that was going to give a nod to all the editions in some shape or form. In game design, it is a lot harder to integrate something into the base the rules and then make it optional than to create the framework with that rule not included and then add it later.

In order to give people that 1st and 2nd edition feel, they made feats optional and then those that wanted more of the 3rd and 4th edition feel could add it later.

It had nothing to do with a lot of people disliking feats.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sorry it's not a good example so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

My evidence is what was said during the playtest. Wizards stated that 5th edition was going to be an edition that was going to give a nod to all the editions in some shape or form. In game design, it is a lot harder to integrate something into the base the rules and then make it optional than to create the framework with that rule not included and then add it later.

In order to give people that 1st and 2nd edition feel, they made feats optional and then those that wanted more of the 3rd and 4th edition feel could add it later.

It had nothing to do with a lot of people disliking feats.

I think you need to seriously look at the argument you're making. You're arguing that they made feats optional only because they wanted to emulate 1e and 2e, and not because lots of people preferred not to use them because there aren't lots of people who don't like using them. That makes no sense. If most everyone likes feats, it makes ZERO sense that they would make that optional just because TSR era D&D didn't use them.

It also flies in the face of all the evidence that you've been presented so far.

And extra irony award goes to you taking this position, since just a few days ago you were complaining about Dragon+; free content. So color me confused why one day you would complain about free content, and then the next day disagree with me when I said not all free stuff is desired or adds value to everyone.

 

[Gabriel Pendragon]

One option is instead of letting them pick a feat talk to them about their characters and get a better idea of what that character is trying to do and just give them a feat that fits that type of character.

 

[Skyscraper]

The Skilled feat gives 3 skills or tool proficiencies. So I'd just give everyone either a feat or 3 extra skill/tool proficiencies (the Skilled feat).

If not everyone wants it, I'd just skip changing anything. Losing ability points to fund an early feat is robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Wait, Paul plays the rogue and Peter has high perception. I'd recommend paying Peter his due and attacking Paul while he sleeps.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=22226]Hrothgar Rannulfr[/MENTION] . What a cool name BTW. So, did you settle on a decision? It seems the thread has been derailed into a For Feats VS Bad Feats... Like so many other threads these days... I hope some of the advice was useful and I would like to hear which way you went and why. Cheers.

 

[Horwath]

Bottom line is, if you want to give your players more toys to play with, then give them all extra feat at first level.
More stuff to play with, more fun.

If you think that it will make encounters too easy just throw handfull of mooks more to every challenge.

Hell, give them 32point buy and two bonus feats and say to them; consider yourselves "level adjustment +1".

imagine the terror of first level characters vs a polar(cave) bear that is CR2 and deals 22 damage per round.


you can give players as many toys as you/they like/want. it's up to you to make challenges for them.

 

[LightningArrow]

If I were to change the Variant Human, I'd allow an increase in only one stat, not two. The way it is now, it's the best class for 90% of builds.

 

[Gabriel Pendragon]

I wouldn't say it is the best, most flexible for sure as you get to pick where to put the power. But other classes are very good at doing what they do. Humans have lots of problems when it comes to low light and darkness, worse when it is magical and their torches don't do anything, though torches are hard enough to use when most PC's tend to have their hands full. No light spell means problems for humans.