D&D 5E How many feats is a 5e level worth?

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Assuming milestone levelling where they'd always be that one level behind the others, and assuming early-ish levels, I'd put a level around 2 feats.

But yeah, it's not straight-forward, because casters would never take this trade (because levels = next spell level = more class features), while warriors really badly terribly need to hit that lv5 but levels after that don't really matter.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Did not vote, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between levels and feats.
I am not sure that any feat is worth an extra hit dice, in particularly in conjunction with proficiency progression.
I also do not believe that feats would compensate for the loss of access to higher level spells.
A game designed around feat accumulation would have a very different feel to current D&D.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

From a martial perspective (because as said, no caster should accept this trade)...

While the others were lv2 or lv3, you'd be a glass cannon. Your hitpoints would be a noticeable amount behind them, but you'd presumably pick something like Polearm Master that boosts your offensive effectiveness.

At their lv4, the others would pick up their own must-have feat and that offensive difference would balance out.

When they hit lv5 and you were just lv4, you'd soothe your lack of extra attack with your main stat being 2 ahead of theirs. Then you hit lv5, which boosts you a lot, while they get nothing, really. The difference in hitpoints isn't meaningful any more.

When they hit lv8, they agonize between whether to buff up with ASI or pick up another feat. You, meanwhile, one level after, can push your main stat to 20 while being just as effective at everything else as them.

I don't really like this sort of an option where someone always feels worse off, depending on the level ranges. Unless everyone takes the option and remains at the same level, so you could just give everyone free feats to start with..

 

[Stormonu]

I'd put the existing levels being about equal to 2-3 feats, at levels 1-5. At higher levels, I'm not even sure I'd bother with feats.

And I think that's a bit of an issue overall. There ought to be some level-locked feats that only become available at 6th level and higher, with more oomph to them. The martials could really use some feats in this range to give them parity to the abilities the casters are getting.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Far, far, far, far too little information allowed in the answers to correctly answer it, so I gave the one I think best reflects the complexity of the problem (3 feats) even though that's going to be wrong a lot of the time.

If you play a martial character, many levels are only worth one feat--sometimes even less than that.

If you play a partial-caster, almost all levels are worth one feat, sometimes two, in rare extremes three (especially for capstones.)

If you play a full-caster, almost all levels are worth at least two feats, sometimes three.

We can get real simple with this: the equivalent of a single, dedicated 1st-level spell slot is the majority of the value of a single feat. Spellcasters gain at least one general spell slot, and at least one additional spell with which that slot might be used, at every single level up through level 11 (inclusive.) Some levels give them multiple spell slots, and all of these slots are better and more versatile than a single locked 1st-level spell.

Hence, every single full-spellcaster level for the first 11 levels is worth at least 2 feats, likely more. Some of those levels also give class or subclass features. There's no way the first 11 levels aren't equivalent to at least 2 feats every time, usually 3. Call it 30, plus 2 more for the actual feats you get from class levels. I'd say, on average, Wizard levels are worth somewhere between 2.5 and 3 feats on average.

By comparison, consider Fighter 9: you get one daily use of Indomitable. Indomitable is clearly worse than the Lucky feat, by a wide margin, and indeed worse than most other "re-roll the bad thing" effects. It's not that Indomitable is a bad thing to have, it's just clearly not worthy of being a feat all by itself--but that's all you get at Fighter 9, unless your subclass gets special stuff (e.g. Eldritch Knight.) Hence, some Fighter levels are genuinely worth less than a full feat. Fighters at absolute best are worth maybe 2 feats average per level, and that's if we're being incredibly generous.

Edit:
Just actually read the OP. A choice between starting at level 1 with a free feat, or starting at level 2? Take the feat, hands down, unless the cost is that you'll always be locked 1 level lower than your allies, then stay as far away as possible. If the game is using ordinary XP-based levelling, you will eclipse the tiny XP gap in just a few levels, and be 1 feat ahead of your peers. If the levels are locked to being "you are one level behind but have a bonus feat," it's emphatically not worth the cost--you're kneecapping yourself for the rest of your character's existence for a measly feat.

Now, maybe if the trade-off was "you start with 1 bonus feat, you're locked 1 level behind, and every time you would choose either an ASI or a feat, you get an ASI and a feat," then it would be worth considering--you'll always be locked a level behind everyone who didn't make that choice, but you'll gain advantages that help bridge some of that gap, so even though the gap gets wider over time, you're growing in ways other characters can't afford to.

 

[Horwath]

If we take fighter:

2/3 of Skilled, for 2 skills, but let's give it only 1/2 as Skilled is horrible feat.
2×1/2 resilient, for two saves
3×1/2 for heavy armor
1/2 for martial weapons
1 for though as it gets 2 HP more per level from baseline of d6.

that is without any special class features
fighting style is 1 feat, but I would rate it as 1/2
second wind is about 1 feat worth, maybe. Edit: probably only 1/2 feat

So fighter gets 6 feats at 1st level from baseline of nothing. Edit: 5,5 feats.

Edit: if we take multiclass 1st level fighter, we remove skills -1/2, saves -1, heavy armor -1/2, total of -2.
As multiclass, fighter gets 4 feats, maybe 3,5 as second wind is not worth more than half a feat.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Two obvious questions:

• A level in which class?
• Does first level count? Or third? Because those are pretty big.

In general you get let's say somewhere between half a feat and a full feat out of the hit point increase (compare to Tough) and other stuff like the fractions of a proficiency bonus increase.

But for what else you get? The fighter's Indomitable (L9) for example really isn't worth a feat. By contrast the Wizard getting an entire new spell level and opening up a new spell slot at each odd numbered level? That's worth way more than a feat and probably worth more than two. The casters out-scale the martials.

 

[greg kaye]

• A level in which class?

Yeah, I guess that's one of the things that makes the question difficult to answer and from responses, priorities may vary from class to class.

... The fighter's Indomitable (L9) for example really isn't worth a feat.

Well, a fighter's immediate advancement to level 9 would give indomitable, a hit dice AND level progress one step closer to getting to levels 10 (which gives a martial archetype feature) and 11 (which gives a second extra attack). Even if a fighter at level 8 were given a belated offer to trade a level for a feat/or feats, they'd still be left one level behind on their general progression. I guess a question might be the future length of the campaign or whether the player is working to a beyond-campaign vision of how they'd want their brave warrior to progress. Level 8, for fighters, may also be an appropriate point to consider a multiclass, but they'd still be faced with the same situation if they returned to fighter.

 

[greg kaye]

If we take fighter:

2/3 of Skilled, for 2 skills, but let's give it only 1/2 as Skilled is horrible feat.
2×1/2 resilient, for two saves
3×1/2 for heavy armor
1/2 for martial weapons
1 for though as it gets 2 HP more per level from baseline of d6.

that is without any special class features
fighting style is 1 feat, but I would rate it as 1/2
second wind is about 1 feat worth, maybe. Edit: probably only 1/2 feat

So fighter gets 6 feats at 1st level from baseline of nothing. Edit: 5,5 feats.

Edit: if we take multiclass 1st level fighter, we remove skills -1/2, saves -1, heavy armor -1/2, total of -2.
As multiclass, fighter gets 4 feats, maybe 3,5 as second wind is not worth more than half a feat.

I agree that levels are valuable but, in terms of their value in advancement, if a character with a base in any other class chose to take a multiclass dip into fighter they'd get:

... a hit die, medium armor, shields, simple weapons, martial weapons, a Fighting Style and Second Wind.

It's pretty good for a dip, but it's an option that many would still take for its progression to fighter 2 and Action Surge. Level progression is certainly valuable. I'm asking how it might be (imperially) measured by the feat.

... but, I guess a player could have taken the level in fighter first for the heavy armour and con saves.

After which they could then optionally take the (less than the benefits of having taken them at an initial class stage) benefits of alternate multiclass dips.

 

[LordEntrails]

Assuming milestone levelling where they'd always be that one level behind the others, and assuming early-ish levels, I'd put a level around 2 feats.

This is absolutely key to making these evaluations. If the "cost" is one level at start and is only equal to 300 or 1000 XP, then the cost is much less over the length of the campaign. Trailing behind others in the party by 300 XP at level 11 is pretty insignificant. But always being 1 level behind the "cost" is much higher.