D&D 5E Reduced standard array in exchange for a bonus feat at 1st.

[Paul Farquhar]

Thoughts? Would you change any of the numbers?

What are you trying to balance it against? Unless you want to make it an optional player choice I see no reason not to give all your PCs a free feat at 1st level. It won't break anything.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

What are you trying to balance it against? Unless you want to make it an optional player choice I see no reason not to give all your PCs a free feat at 1st level. It won't break anything.

Well, it won't break anything moderately more powerful enemies or scarce magic items can't fix in any case.

 

[Coroc]

I'm thinking about reducing the Standard array to 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 8 and granting all races a bonus feat at 1st level.

That leaves room for a 16 in your main stat and a 14 in your secondary stat for all races (accounting for a half feat for Humans) and a 12 in a tertiary stat (two tertiary stats for Humans on account of the +1 to all scores).

Thoughts? Would you change any of the numbers?

Does work well imo, but you also can give a bonus feat at level one to everybody so human var gets 2, You just have to ramp up encounter difficulty a bit to compensate depending on what feats people take.
I did it like the latter method, because I wanted to study the impact of feats, (did dm a featless game before), also it gives the PC some building opportunities.
Depending o nthe experience of your players I recommend 27 point buy instead of standard array though, it allows for better fiddling and finetuning according to the campaign style (min max aka combat heavy vs. every player should at least have a tiny little boon in social skills aka some points in wis cha or maybe int, bec. roleplay / investigation heavy)

 

[ccooke]

Good point. I think I’m going to try this for my next campaign.

So the 14,13,13,12,10,8 array is still 23 point buy.

Why not just go with: "27 point buy. You can buy a maximum of a 15. You may spend four points on a single feat, but if you do the maximum you can buy is a 14. If you don't want to choose, use the non-feat standard array of 15,14,13,12,10,8 or the with-feat array, 14,13,13,12,10,8."

I like the standard array as a default (and this one looks like a good standard-array-when-you-have-a-feat), but the freedom to point buy is a good thing.

 

[ccooke]

... I'm definitely going to try this.

A thing I like about limiting the maximum stat to 14 is that assuming a +2 racial bonus, if you take a full-size feat at level 1, your primary stat is going to be 16... which is going to increase the appeal of taking an ASI to bump that to 18 down the line. That's a good bit of balance - you still can take more feats, but taking one early will make not taking them later tempting.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah that's what Im thinking now.

14, 13, 13, 12, 10, 8.

It makes it impossible for a Stat higher than 17 to start, places value on the Humans +1's to all by bumping 2 stats other than the main stat, and makes Half feats tempting for everyone (for Humans to push their main stat to 16, and for most Demihumans to push one of their 13's to a 14.

Demihumans can go 'all out' and push an Ability score to 17 at the start as well.

It only leaves Half-elves in the position of 'every class that cares about Charisma goes a Half-elf' (they get the 16 or 14 in Charisma, and also get to round out both Odd ability scores with the floating +1's.

That could be fixed by forcing Half elves to place one of the floating +1's into (say) Dexterity, and leaving the other one free.

Then you would see more Half elf Swashbucklers, Sorcerers, Warlocks and Dex based Paladins. With Strength/Con builds (Strength Paladins, Strength Warlocks) Human is the better choice (you dont get a wasted +1 in Dex, and start with a higher Strength and Con).

Good variant for half elves for me is:

+1 dex, +1 to 3 scores. one of those 3 can also be dex.

 

[BluejayJunior]

I also have been playing with the idea of giving the players a list of feats that they can pick at 1st level. The list would exclude most of the combat feats and other more powerful feats. It would give the characters options that wouldn't make them more powerful in combat, but still let them get a new ability that would make the character more unique.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

Your suggestion isn't going to break the game in either direction. The game is more or less balanced difficulty-wise on a primary ability score of 14 assuming you follow the rules of the DMG encounters. They do that mostly so non-optimal characters or players who are less system savvy can still be viable and have fun.

What you'll likely see as a result of using a lower stat array is either 1) a further desire for rolling from players as both the 27 point buy and the array are already below the average dice rolls as is, and 2) even MORE pidgeonholing the more number conscious players into "stereotypical" characters (i.e. dwarven cleric, elven wizard, tiefling sorcerer, halfling rogue, etc.) as while the game is balanced around a 14, most players I've seen usually get finicky about having less than a 16 on their primary stat. If this is what you are wanting to achieve or at least are fine with that result go for it.

Personally I shy away from making changes that discourage non-traditional builds as some of the more creative characters I've seen break the molds a bit. It's why I love that negative ability score penalties have largely gone the way of the dodo, it encourages players to try things like a half-orc wizard, or dwarven sorcerer without being overly penalized for their choice.

Honestly? If you want your players to have a starting feat I'd just give them one and use the standard array, the power difference is not that much stronger. I run all my games with a starting feat AND give them 30 point buy and they still aren't too much more difficult to handle. I give them the 3 extra points over the standard 27 because I've found even just that little bit encourages them to try out a few alternatives with some of their secondary and tertiary scores, and while it may just be my players I've seen pretty much the full gambit of character concepts and different score combinations. At worst I just run slightly more difficult encounters each time until I find what challenges them how they like.

 

[GlassJaw]

Feats in 5e are highly overrated. In previous editions, they mattered more because they made a difference in how you played and portrayed your character. Now, there's only a handful of choices that seem far and away superior to others, thus making the actual choice less of a real decision than a foregone conclusion. In fact, I daresay many characters become more about the one or two feat selections that boost their other effectiveness significantly, as opposed to any other decisions, such a class and ability scores.

Agree 100%. The vast majority of feats are highly overrated. But the ones that aren't are really good to borderline game-breaking.

It's one of the main reasons the feat system in 5E is pretty awful.

This edition seems to work better when it's not making players consider too many options. Including feats seems like a holdover from previous editions that overloaded the game with too many of them. Better to leave them off the table and focus on class, race, and background stuff.

This I disagree with. 5E needs more choices.

The 5E feat system has three major problems:

1. The feats aren't equal. Not even close. There is a massive disparity not only in just "power", but also how much they will impact the game.
2. They are tied to ASIs. Choosing between a feat or ASI is very difficult.
3. They are rare. Since they only come every 4 levels, it's an extremely important decision.

Because of these reasons, the system itself literally forces the player to make the most optimal choice. You don't want to waste it and leave a massive amount of power for your character on the table. I hate it.

All feats need to be divided in "half" (decoupling stat bonuses in the process, 1 feat = +1 ASI), rebalanced completely, and then granted at every other level. The rebalance is obvious. GWM and Sharpshooter need to be fixed, among others, as do useless like Grappler.

It would also give players opportunity to actually choose feats that fit their character and not feel pressured into taking the optimal choice.

But it's why, for the purposes of this discussion, adjusting stat increases for the sake of a feat is unnecessary, as long as you remove the problematic feats as an option. If characters start with feats like Actor or Keen Mind, your game will be better for it.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I disagree. A feat is almost an entire levels worth of advancement (barring Hit Dice, 1/4 of proficiency bonus progression, and spell progression).

You do realize when I say that feats are overrated, I mean that people put too much value in them, right? Because that's exactly what you're doing here, and it's illustrating my point. Some feats can be too good to pass up, but only certain ones. And herein lies the problem for me.

I'd say a Fighter with GWM plays and is portrayed very different to one with (say) Sentinel or Heavy Armor master or Shield master at 1st level.

Adding a feat at 1st level (or at least the option of a feat at 1st level) avoids a lot of cookie cutter classes at 1st and gives more options to realize more character concepts straight out the gate.

I'd say every Fighter with GWM plays and is portrayed the same as every other Fighter with GWM. Does that make sense?

The illusion of making of choice isn't really a choice. If you're playing a front-line warrior-type with a two-handed weapon, GWM becomes the obvious choice for every player. It is too good to pass up. And because there are so few opportunities to select a feat, few people are going to pick otherwise.

This applies to every other specialized feat, as well. A character focused on ranged attacks will almost always take Sharpshooter, a character focused on defense will take Heavy Armor Master, etc. These feats are not encouraging anyone to be original; they're just smoke and mirrors. If you want more creativity, try encouraging players to come up with ideas without special boons, or mechanics, or options gained at levels.

I like feats, and so do my players. I just want to reign that power in a bit at 1st level, while also providing options for those that want them.

Understandable, and there's nothing bad or wrong with that. I just think that the current expectation for feats seems... I dunno, distracting? Keep in mind, I'm used to them from previous editions, which had their own shortcomings. I wish they had been differently, but I understand why they are done this way for 5e. It is a minimalist approach (as much as any D&D game that includes feats, at least). I'll explain this a little more responding to another reply I saw.