Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9023659" data-attributes="member: 6790260">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.</blockquote>

Verification