D&D 5E Feats at first level (i.e. generalising Theros' idea)

[Casimir Liber]

@Casimir Liber

For your setting, it seems more helpful if the setting feat relates to a specific "cosmic force" rather than a specific deity.

Each Cleric domain is a "cosmic force", that the Cleric strives to attune.

In the Forgotten Realms setting, a deity is an astral creature that can have one or more cosmic forces in their "portfolio".

The astral plane is immaterial made out of thoughts. An astral creature is literally a thought construct, a paradigm, a symbolic archetype. The astral creatures tend to cluster ethically by alignment. But an individual astral creature might form ones own astral domain.



A cosmic force can be almost anything that seems fundamental: light, love, order, freedom, fire, energy, sun, water, earth, air, rain, storm, war, magic, etcetera. Different cultures will favor different cosmic forces. It is probably ok to refer to a cosmic force as a "domain", as long as it is understood to include domains that are not yet mentioned officially.



If the setting feat refers directly to a domain, then its context is a more personal and more cultural relationship with force itself. It is more vivid.

The relationship with one or more "portfolios" that might correspond to the domain, becomes more indirect.

This gives the players freedom to decide how their character feels about the deities who have a corresponding portfolio. The player character might view these astral creatures as misundertood, or objects of worship, charlatans, allies in a common cause, rivals, or irrelevant.

A player character that has a certain domain as a setting feat might be interesting to one or more astral creatures, but the player can decide what the relationship is, if any. Compare the player freedom to decide the relationship between a Warlock and patron. But in the case of a setting feat, the character may not even want a relationship.

I've been bemused they haven't got more domains to date. The generations of gods in my world are numerous (a la Greek and Irish mythology) - some of the feats cut across "forces" as such but interesting idea

 

[MoonSong]

3. Ban vhuman (you already have the feat above) and similar.

I don't know. Standard human is boring bag of +1s. A sad remant of the time before publication when skills were going to be optional.

 

[Scott Christian]

I liked this idea of customizing characters by getting a feat related to a deity at first level. How do folks feel about them and has anyone introduced them to their (non-theros) campaign setting? Spitballing as am about to start DMing again.....

I have played in two campaigns where we received feats at first level along with everything else. It was great. Nothing broke in the game. It just felt very natural, and a better way to A) tell the character's backstory than background and B) make the character feel unique.

Go for it. Nothing will break. Hell, it's near impossible to break the game anyway. So adding a feat certainly will do no harm.

 

[ScuroNotte]

My group just allows a bonus feat at level 1, and has for years. It adds a little more room for customization, and it’s fun.

If a player chose a Variant Human, would they get 2 feats?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If a player chose a Variant Human, would they get 2 feats?

Yep, though I’d need to have more input than I normally ask for to avoid a boringly powerful hack build.

 

[Kurotowa]

Yep, though I’d need to have more input than I normally ask for to avoid a boringly powerful hack build.

But what if I have deep and meaningful backstory reasons for starting with GWM and PAM?

Seriously though, I'd love to play a campaign with this. A free feat suddenly puts all those "interesting but not as good as an ASI" feats on the table for character ideas. Some of which are cool looking, some of which enable uncommon builds, and most of which never see much play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But what if I have deep and meaningful backstory reasons for starting with GWM and PAM?

Seriously though, I'd love to play a campaign with this. A free feat suddenly puts all those "interesting but not as good as an ASI" feats on the table for character ideas. Some of which are cool looking, some of which enable uncommon builds, and most of which never see much play.

Yep people take linguist and stuff in my games. Most PCs end up with at least one “fluff” feat.

 

[NotAYakk]

I don't know. Standard human is boring bag of +1s. A sad remant of the time before publication when skills were going to be optional.

Sure, so we need to give the Standard Human something fun to play with.

How about stealing "You get proficiency in one Skill of your choice" from the vhuman?

Or, more fun, "Pick an attribute. When making an attack, saving throw or attribute check with that attribute and are not adding your proficiency modifier, instead add 1/2 of your proficiency modifier (rounded up)".

 

[Casimir Liber]

Makes me think...do we need to make humans more interesting or are folks playing them pretty often anyway?

 

[Quartz]

I liked this idea of customizing characters by getting a feat related to a deity at first level. How do folks feel about them and has anyone introduced them to their (non-theros) campaign setting? Spitballing as am about to start DMing again.....

Not religion but race. Drop the racial stat bumps and let them choose a racially related feat instead. For example an elf might choose between Alert, Observant, and Skulker; a dwarf might choose between Durable and Tough. Humans get the variant human package without the stat bumps and with an extra feat (so two in total).