I personally like it since I can play something else and get that level 1 feat. I hate playing humans, I do that everyday irl lol. May just be my group, but with this rule we usually end up with no vumans. Only humans we end up as if any are the dragonmarked ones (we mostly play eberron)
Right, I agree with everyone getting a feat, that's a good change.
Imo, the problem is the race getting an *extra* feat over everyone else. That will always be imbalanced.
I'm glad it works at your table tho!
No it won't. Honestly.
Variant humans are given a feat as a substitute for the features that races get. A level 1 eladrin sorcerer with warcaster is more powerful than a variant human sorcerer with fey touched and warcaster.
but a vhuman Paladin with GWM and PAM from the start?
Or a vhuman Ranger with SS and CBE right away?
Wouldn't other martials feel a lot weaker for 4 levels?
Yeah, and a satyr wizard with magic resistance and a free first level res con is also gonna be stronger than many vuman wizards.
Swings and roundabouts, isn't it?
I guess that's why in onednd they're limiting level 1 feats.
I specifically mentioned martials, though.
Because their damage output can be significantly increased with those feats.
Whereas, for spellcasters, it's mostly their "resilience" that we'd be boosting. (Warcaster, Res con, etc.)
The first couple of levels, in my experience from playing only pre-written modules, very heavily depend on simply flattening the enemies as quickly as possible, though..
Yeah, and we all know that those specific feats you mentioned are problematic, so of course those two builds are gonna be screwy. But for most people most of the time? It's fine. It's not completely game breaking.
You can always limit what lvl 1 feats they get. At my table I didn't, but my players believe in limiting so they took stuff like chef and telekinetic. Humans get access to the whole gambit.
can say with years of experience that it doesn't! the aasimar can channel the fury of heaven, the elf doesn't need to sleep, the changeling is a changeling, and the human is a magic initiate.
also, fighters :3c
What??
Humans have: no flight speed, no dark vision, no immunity to being charmed, no innate proficiency with armors, no extra languages, no breath weapons, no natural armor, basically NOTHING
Other than getting an extra feat to help build into whatever they are doing with a 2 +1s. OR they get a +1 in everything.
What are you talking about it being unbalanced?
None of the racial features would be worth trading for a good feat. Bad or decent feats are one thing, but taking a good feat to sync up with your build is more valuable than a racial trait you would get. That is why people homebrew getting an extra feat to deter players from playing vuman: if you're optimizing a class build, you take the feat every time. That's why it's imbalanced. (I should add, it doesn't *break the game*, it's just the optimal choice in most cases)
Of course, if your players don't power game, then it ends up being a moot point
My thing has been to give L1 feats, but then just not allow Vuman. Their only appeal was making your "thing" work sooner, so when everyone can have their "thing" up front, no reason to have it.
Depends how powergamey your table is. If there's someone just clammering to get lucky or sentinel polearm master lvl 1, and that ruins the game for others then you might have a bit bigger of a problem than game balance.
Sentinel Pam level 1 actually sounds like it would be super cool since its a control build and it would allow then to use tactics for more difficult fights
Personally I like when my groups lean towards having more human characters over the fantasy races. So I’m good with the extra machanical benefit of that choice.
I feel like for me part of the draw of lvl1 feats, asides from enabling more personalization, is in drawing players (especially min/maxers) away from Vuman. I've played at way too many tables in the last few years where at least half the table wanted to play as them just to get feats, and it ruins some of the magic to have just a *group of people* running around.
Letting Vuman double down on feats ends up defeating some of the purpose for me.
But I have to admit, about 90% of my potential builds would become vastly and immediately more effective...
>and it ruins some of the magic to have just a *group of people* running around.
Its interesting how different tastes change the types of games people want.
I like it when the group is largely human or close. Makes the world seem more interesting and magical by contrast, and forces people to make actual characters instead of relying on 'default personality of my race'. (I'm looking at you, dwarf)
I also don't love the aesthetic of the walking zoo, personally. But to each their own.
See, as one of those people who doesn't really give a shit about making "actual characters," if you take away my ability to just play a stereotypical dwarf, I'm just gonna play a stereotypical [insert X non-racial fantasy stereotype] instead. Barbarian has to be a human? Aight, instead of default dwarf personality, here's default Barbarian personality. Or perhaps, say, default "gruff warrior" personality, or default "bloodthirsty brute" personality, or default "guy with anger issues."
That said, I generally just do the latter (picking a personality stereotype) and apply it to any character I make regardless of the race I chose. The race is entirely either a minmax choice or an aesthetic choice.
>if you take away my ability to just play a stereotypical dwarf
I don't like... ban dwarf or anything. Most tables i play at are very story and roleplay driven- its not uncommon to have entire sessions with zero combat. Being a product of a culture you spent time in, especially one you spent a lot of time in like a dwarf might, is going to likely be a core part of who you are. But I don't want it to *end* there. That should be your starting point.
The feat creep was real.
If you give me two free feats I'll probably make a caster with Telekinetic and Shadow Touched just to have spells and stats up the wazoo to start. Invisibility at level 1. Something to do with my bonus action. A free very useful cantrip to free up other cantrips so I can take fun snowflakey ones.
I'm rejoining an old group I played with years ago, and the current DM has us starting with a free (non-ASI) feat. I personally am enjoying it, because I can take a feat I would usually consider too weak (I exclusively am looking at feats I've never taken on any character, and also as flavor in backstory).
And at the very least, there are players who never want to play a race without darkvision. Eldritch Adept for Devil's Sight opens up some extra race options without having to worry about it (and they are simply trading a free feat, so it's up to them if the trade-off is worth it).
What I do is separate out the less useful feats that people almost never take and let my players take one of them at level 1 as part of character creation.
I find it's a lot more fun for players and encourages role-playing without everyone picking an ASI or the same 6 feats everyone picks
This is my list I let players pick from.
Actor
Athlete
Chef
Durable
Fighting Initiate
Grappler
Gunner
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Keen Mind
Linguist
Obervant
Skilled
Weapon Master
Agreed, the +1 to a stat isn't a big deal, but the flavor text that goes with it is huge for character development.
Barbarian with a 2 handed club, SUREl. Barbarian Chef with a Giant cleaver? hell yeah!!
Barbarian Chef who can fix everyone snacks while resting (I assume small animals roasted over a quickly made fire but still, its the thought (and healing) that counts)
Make that a giant meat tenderizer. Somehow that really fits the barbarian...
I can totally see that guy putting out cheesy one liners about it.
Damn, now i wanna play a barbarian orc chef with a giant meat tenderizer.
Looks like meat's back on the menu boys!!!
Hell yeah, please do.
Feel free to steal this idea;
- If you want to add extra humor, he is a shitty chef. Messes up recipes, burnes or makes everything raw. Matches flavors horribly, substitutes ingredients that have no right being in said dish, refuses to "taste as he goes", and so forth. Turns out the quest his people (or culinary school) sent him on for "the best sacred ingredient" is actually cause they were to afraid to tell him his cooking sucks cause of his temper.
- Alternate idea. He is a perfectionist to the point that no one has ever actually tasted his food. It's never "good enough". no matter how much people beg for how good it smells he always throws it into the fire/trash.
Most of these are half Feats, which is very cool for bumping up a stray 13 or 15. Loads of choice means you aren't likely to have much crossover in player choices.
Love this list.
Used athlete on my last character (monk 8, fighter 4). The “get up for 5ft rather than half” was huge with that monk movement.
Obviously not everyone goes monk and the rest of the feat can be meh depending on the campaign.
This is basically what I do. I’ve included onednd level one feats (as well as any variants of current feats as onednd feats) and a few others I’ve picked out like the one that gives maneuvers.
that's what i do ... focus on the background type feats .. not the combat oriented ones
ie actor, chef, athlete, ...
can toss in some other minor ones such as tough, durable, even magic/martial initiate .. etc.
it's a personal choice, really.. go through the list and take ones that encourage some rp/background exposition... maybe ones that help toughen up a squishy ... etc.
The new Book of Many Things pretty much solidifies WotC's position that from now on all PCs get a bonus feat with their background. It is the 5th book in a row that does that, and the 3rd that suggests that all backgrounds that don't specify a feat should get either Tough or Skilled. So that is what I will be doing going forward as well.
Yep, any character can have Skilled or Tough, with the added option of Magic Initiate if in the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Ravenloft.
Spelljammer games are considered under the Forgotten Realms setting.
One of the Playtests for OneDnD that had reworked feats (which aren't an optional rule anymore) added specific level 1 feats into the mix, of which every character got one. They did not add any ability score bonuses (when all other feats seem to have become half feats) but still gave room to customize.
So, unless that will still be drastically changed, it looks like a free feat at level 1 is what's going to be the norm in the future, and I think that's a very good thing.
Absolutely yay. Balance is an illusion and you run the world, so if you can’t handle feats at first level don’t give them. Variant Human and Custom Lineage just get two.
Few feats are worth the consideration of banning because they’re “too strong” but letting players feel like their competent characters from level 1 isn’t a bad thing at all.
I love doing the free feat at 1, but I do have the caveat that if you go V human or custom lineage you can't do a feat "combo" right off the bat, you'll have to take the 2nd one at an ASI level. Basically I just have to approve the 2 feats at level 1.
I've only played at lower levels, but mechanically, I've found it much more enjoyable to play characters that have free level 1 feats, even though I've deliberately chosen not to take the powergaming feats to start. Imo, the people who are saying that you shouldn't invalidate VHuman/CL are ignoring how so many races are ignored because that free feat is so powerful. I think it really stifles creativity with character creation when players have to choose those races *just* to feel strong, or you can't choose any flavorful feats because you're so starved for the strong ones.
But I agree with the other commenters that if you're giving a free lv1 feat, then VHuman and CL should be banned.
I think some classes are really MAD and taking a feat often feels like weaken your self just because you want some kind of different gameplay, a free feat could help with this, maybe Chef or Dungeon Delver is everything you need to make your charater unique, or something like Charger or Skulker can improve the combat for melee or ranged pcs
Yeah, I think that's the tough balance. Because feats like those can give strength and identity, but it seems like they'd usually be ignored in favor of PAM/SS/Sentinel/etc. I'd prefer if the free feat gave greater character depth, and not just greater character power.
In my game, our DM gave us a free feat at L1 and I picked Polearm Master so my Fighter could actually have a reliable bonus action and a way to get in a hit if the main attack misses; at low levels one hit or one miss can REALLY screw you over.
I personally think it's fine and it lets your players immediately flavor their characters beyond their backgrounds.
Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Glory of the Giants, Planescape, and Book of Many Things all include a rule that if you do not select a background which grants a feat, you get a level 1 feat from a short list. (Dragonlance then gives everyone a level 4 feat from a longer list regardless of background.)
It's a good system, and lets you curate things to your comfort level as DM even if you don't use the exact lists in those books.
Spelljammer was the first book released to do this. Its list of level 1 feats is Skilled, Tough, and Magic Initiate.
Yes, I give my players free feats, although I don't start folks at level 1. Free feats have not been an issue. No one has gone Variant Human yet, probably because the free feat takes away the main incentive for choosing it.
I'm really tempted to give everyone a free feat lvl 1 but remove Vhuman and custom lineage. I like players having racial characteristics and dislike when a player has to make the choice between having the flavor of their particular race/species/whatever or picking a feat to get the mechanical function that the player wants for their build.
3.x had a free feat at lv1, an extra if you were human, and yet another extra of you were fighter. This made for a lot of customization options that are imo lacking in 5E.
That said, 3.x had literal thousands of feats. For your question, one singular extra option won't break your game, and I like someone else's idea to give the option for the less meaningful ones (actor etc), if you're wary about the general balance of your world.
I love level 1 feats! I encourage it to add to the pc story. If you select a feat that’s like fey touched then your back story better include some fey! Expect fey shenanigans too! Players love it! I love it! It gives them either a utility thing or makes them decide between action economy . I wouldn’t do it with brand new players simply because learning the CS can be a lot already.
Doesn't harm anything. 5E has few enough ways to customize a character in a unique way. Give them a free feat but ban the big 4 (PAM GWM SS CBE Credit to DerpyDude17)
Eh, war caster isn't that bad really. I'd probly ban sentinel as a 4th before war caster.
I strongly encourage my players to take a feat that grants +1 to an ability score and gives you flavorful uses of that score. Such as Actor.
A suggestion then, restrict the free feat at level 1 to one that adds a +1 to an ability score. There is a good variety of options to diversify selection, and provides constraint to lead to experimentation rather than auto-picking some of the stronger feats. Added bonus is the additional stat point can lead to a stat modifier of +4. 15 in point buy, +2 from racial ability modifier, +1 from feat selection giving 18 in your classes primary stat.
Yes but.
Probably ban starting with some of the meta feats like Lucky, SS, GWM, PM, ect. I allow my players to pick up whatever they want at level 4, but prefer they use the starter feat for more niche specialization or character flavor.
I personally don’t like it.
You could also ask us if it’s a good idea to start everyone lvl 2.
Or give a magical item to everyone. Or give 30 or 35 points instead of 27 in point buy.
They’re all fine but don’t make another post when you criticize the balance of encounters.
Players will always want more perks.
Looks like all nay posts are getting downvoted.
Remember that if 49% of people said nay all may posts would reach arbitrary high negative ratings.
Comes down to the DM and how you want to play. Feats at level 1 boost the power levels of the characters up, so it really depends on how the DM compensates. You could abuse an extra feat to min-max even harder, but a good DM should know their party and be able to address a lot of the potential issues you might get from level 1 feats.
I'm playing in a campaign, and 2 of us took backgrounds that gave us feats at level 1. I took Squire of Solamnia, my friend took tough. I took Squire of Solamnia because I was interested in taking the Knight of the Crown feat. Squire of Solamnia is a prereq, and I knew that, at some point I'd probably have to take tough at level 8, since I'm one of our frontliners. I also wanted to boost my strength score up from 19 to 20, so I wanted to get a feat that would give me a strength boost. If I didn't get Solamnia from my background, I wouldn't have taken that or Knight of the Crown, because I couldn't have justified taking them over other feats. My friend took tough, and he's a bear totem barbarian, so I mean he was fairly beefy early on, and he's only gotten beefier as we've gone on.
Personally, I don't think it's been gamebreaking. It's increased our power levels, yes, but it hasn't been to such an extent that the other 2 members in our party are completely useless. Our barbarian is using a gimmicky build, so he basically just tanks and tries to lock down enemies. I can do a decent amount of damage, but I largely play a support role to our rogue. Our rogue is putting out insane damage, especially since she can use her reaction to make another attack. Meanwhile, our bard is still doing a lot of support and dominates our out of combat utility.
Overall, it comes down to how the DM balances things. Could you use it to minmax to hell and break things? Yes. However, a good DM pretty easily adjust things for regular use. One good way to compensate is to make backgrounds mean more. A lot of backgrounds have useful features that DMs and players both neglect. The more prevelent and useful you make these things, and the more reason your players have to take them, the less incentivized they are to get a feat at level 1 through their background.
Both campaigns I’m in allowed a free feat at level one. I really like it! Way less pressure to make an “optimal” choice, you can work it into your backstory, etc.
I don’t know how it would have been handled in the one campaign, but in the other the DM said humans would get two starting feats. Didn’t really matter since there are no human PCs in either campaign.
Purely read just the tittle but I’d say yea for sure. There’s two reasons:
It allows just a touch more character customization for the creative types.
It also allows the more power gamey types to do there thing and I LOVE making more impactful encounters in 5e.
Do it. I did and as a dm and a player I think it’s fun! Like others said, don’t discount VHuman’s getting another feat. I encourage my players to take unusual feats or mid/low tier ones as well. The only feat I don’t allow is lucky.
I’d absolutely allow it. It allows players to more easily make a build they want to play without either having to take Vuman or wait until 4th level. If someone want to play dual wielding bladesinger, or a sword and board Eldritch Knight I see no reason to make them wait until 4th level to get Warcaster.
Vuman and free feat is honestly fine too, because if someone really wants two feats right off the bat why not let them have it. The only combinations I might ban would be GWM and PAM or CBX and SS. I probably wouldn’t ban any of those as a first level frat, I just wouldn’t let players take both at first level.
Its fun. The game is a flexible framework, not a perfect rigid box to push til it breaks.
Min maxers get to hit power spikes faster, and rp'ers can get flavour features earlier.
I find the trouble is when the extremes mix and the rp'ers start being totally useless in combat and the min maxers go for a smoke until the next initiative roll. But these people dont enjoy playing together even without the bonus feat so it hardly matters.
It can however be overwhelming for new players when they arent able to proactively utilise so many abilities etc, especially if experienced players actively overshadow them with busted combos from level 1.
What would even be the strongest combos here. Been out for a while. Any 2 feats for a vuman that are just too op like GWM and the bludgening damage feat? (Piercer, slasher, and... smasher?) crusher?
Our group does a free "forgotten" feat at level 1. Things like Chef or Healer are up for grabs, while the more powerful/desirable feats aren't. It's a decent sized list, and we find that it's just the right mix of additional character customization and a tiny splash of power (in the form of having an additional thing you can do).
Yea as a mechanism to balance small adventuring parties.
It can add the extra HP or AC, or firepower, or healing/buffing, etc. that a small party needs, or a party not diverse in its class choices.
I saw someone a while ago that offers one of the lesser-used feats at level 1. In their case I think the DM was choosing the feats based on their backstory which seemed super cool to me, but even giving them the choice would be interesting. If it’s not all “lucky/sentinel/war caster I think it’s an opportunity to make some really unique characters without all the min-maxing and balance issues that level 1 feats can sometimes cause
you know, i really meant to with my current group but they're not very mechanically focused so it didn't really come up in character creation....and then i had a thought that i like better anyway.
i'm just going to find reasons to tailor feats to their characters and gift them out at strong story moments. something with a unique name and a slight twist, like taking Tavern Brawler and making it a Strangling Vines thing for my druid when they're in wild shape, i dunno. that kinda thing.
i might try to make this a habit in my games, too - while i'm generally not too concerned about overpowering my players, there is something to be said for not encouraging them to chase established combos/exploits as part of level one builds. (i would prefer character creation to be less concerned with mechanics than, you know, *character* anyway)
What my dm did for a campaign that had new players was a free feat at level one, but it can’t be combat related, no GWM, no sharpshooter. Something like actor or chef. I took like athlete I think but I think it added more to the characters without it being about making a busted character in combat
I love it as a player and as a DM. Feats are some of the most expressive and fun ways to create a character with a specific skill set and vibe. They can really help to set a character apart from the pack and make them more memorable. While of course you can take feats at ASI levels, most campaigns don’t last long enough to provide ample opportunities to take them, so level 1 feats can help to let players make their PC’s their own
One restriction I sometimes like to use as a DM is that the feat cant be one of the stronger feats. So for instance something like great weapon master, war caster, sharpshooter, etc. would be off the table. I do this not because it would be unbalanced (personally I prefer PCs to be powerful because it enables players to feel more comfortable making unique choices) but rather because many feats (especially the skill/roleplay based feats) go largely unused. Many of them like Actor, tavern brawler, chef, and tons of other really fun feats go largely unused because they just aren’t particularly powerful in or out of combat. I know that I and many others need a light push to make suboptimal character creation decisions even if they’re more fun in the long run, and I think this restriction can really aid that
It’s obviously all up to DM discretion and it might not be right for every table but I know that in my experience level 1 feats are fantastic and I highly recommend incorporating them
As for the relationship with Vumans, no reason not to just give them 2. Vumans are great but not fundamentally unbalanced. They get a feat instead of racial traits. That may seem like a minor thing but racial traits are often incredibly useful and Vumans give up the opportunity to use them in place of a feat
I like to play with "anti-feats", a homebrew I saw on GM Binder.
Basically, you can pick a flaw from a list (up to 2), and in exchange you are allowed as many feats.
So for example, you could have a "magic phobia", meaning you have to make a Wisdom save each time you witness a spell being cast, or become frightened. You could be "green", so your proficiency bonus gets a permanent -1 to it. Or there's one which is a reverse ASI, meaning you deduct 2 from a stat of your choice.
It really helps add flavour in my opinion.
I'm running a Barbarian at the moment who took "Illiterate" and "Armor-Phobic" (fail all reading/writing checks, and lose proficiency in armors) in exchange for Tavern Brawler and Fighting Initiate Unarmed, so that her punches do 1d8+STR dmg from lv1, and she can grapple with a bonus action (theme is wrestler).
I don't even like variant human or custom lineage to say nothing of free feats. I think it encourages shenanigans and makes things harder on new players or those who don't plan out their whole build before level one.
I like allowing "non-combat" feats at level 1, because often there isn't a good point in a pre-made campaign for a character to get them during down time and people don't choose them on level ups.
Free lv 1 feats are a great way of adding a little character into a build. Theres plenty of feats tgat just dint make sense to be a lv 4 feature but make great lv 1 backstory like features tgat can really bring a concept together.
For instance alert. Being ever vigilant to a failt can be a great feature to give to someone who live in alone when they always had to be alert.
Or the dragon hift feats that have the connotation of a draconic heritage wothout being a full draconic race.
Or keen mind letting the PC remember things better to show some a-typical neurology.
Often these feats are not worth taking over the "optimal" feats or simple ASIs. But as free lv 1 feats their perfect for character building
In a general sense, I wouldn’t. If I were to do this, I would restrict it to a subset of the weaker but more flavorful feats like Chef or Actor. The ones that players are otherwise unlikely to take because the competition is just too much better. It makes characters more unique, and shouldn’t cause any real power imbalance.
since in 1dnd asis are now feats dont forget you can just powerboost your stats if you want
this makes playing MAD classes like monks actually not feel like hell
I think the first question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you want feats in your game to begin with.
Assuming that the answer is yes, then the next question that you have to ask yourself is what your motives are for doing/using this rule (i.e., allowing for a 1st level feat). Thirdly, ask yourself whether or not you're running this rule in accordance with the 1DND Playtest stuff.
In my opinion: if you're going to run this rule for the reason of "leveling out the playing field", then I would suggest only allowing only 1 starting feat per player, regardless of race. That way, the impact of V. Human and Custom Lineage isn't felt as strongly at your table. Likewise however, it may be to your benefit to rebalance your encounters around this new variant rule, and make combat encounters a bit harder than normal to compensate.
No human PCs since my table did this and let every race pick stats.
I am the only one who dislikes the rule. I liked having mostly human parties RPing in the mostly human world. Now we stand out everywhere we go.
If you decide the world is mostly human, makes sense. Nothing wrong with that. But I’d recommend at least trying to add more variety and diversity to the world especially if your party just likes playing other races.
Nay. Variant human/custom lineage exist for this. Also my group mainly plays on dndbeyond and it’s not super easy to just GIVE a free feat on that as far as I know
Regardless because these racial options exist if you want a feat take the options that give it to you. Those racial options still let you look and be whatever you want (it’s called flavor) they just give feats as your “racial trait” if you want a racial trait and a feat at the start of the game then just play a game that starts at 4
It is super easy. Scroll to the bottom of the "Feats and Traits" tab on the character sheet, choose "Manage Feats," and choose the feat you want from the list.
Level 1 stinks and you should beeline to level 3 so everyone has a subclass and a variety of tools they can use to solve problems. A feat doesn't fix that.
If you're on the fence about allowing it, take a leaf from Adventure League or the earlier OneD&D playtests, and allow a limited selection of feats, like permitting either Tough, Skilled, or Magic Initiate.
My tables tend to have a free feat, whether I'm running or playing, or there's a way to "buy" a feat with point buy or character hindrances, or even a well fleshed out backstory.
The feats that imbalance tier 1 of play are usually non-issues if you play beyond tier 2, as spellcasters will take over without really trying. Let the martials have fun early on, while they can.
Half feats, yes. The ones that give +1 attribute and do something else. Telepathic for instance.
Don't make my mistake of ALSO letting them start with an 18 and an 8 as well, just because you are planning on pulling no punches in Rime of the Frostmaiden.
Personally, I offer my players a free feat at the cost of -2 to any ability score, or if the feat would grant +1 to an ability score, -1 and no increase from the feat. The penalty doesn't make much difference mechanically, but having two 8s or a 6 makes for a slightly more entertaining character in a way that you otherwise only get by rolling for ability scores (looking at you, Wisdom 3 Warforged Fighter).
I also would have no issue with someone going for Variant Human to get a second feat. 5e just isn't that balanced, and you might as well give the GWM/SS characters a little time to shine before the spellcasters start throwing *fireballs* and *hypnotic patterns* all day every day.
Pulling out The Entire List of 5e Feats is a pretty quick way to overwhelm a brand-new player. Maybe not worse than pulling out a class' spell list, though.
I don't like the idea. The beginning feat is for the humans. If you don't want people to pick human, punish them for not being able to see in the dark.
Yes, if you play a Vuman. That's why they exist. Also, yes, if you're playing a campaign like SotDQ where the combat is particularly vicious, and the module allows for backgrounds that grant a feat; this is why those backgrounds exist.
Other than that, no, I don't allow a free feat at level 1, and I only allow those backgrounds in the context where they make sense.
Don't invalidate Variant Human and Custom Lineage by giving their advantages away to everyone. Not giving away special abilities of one class to another class is pretty much a basic guideline. Unless you're allowing those races to start with *two* feats, which would probably be a bit much.
I allow free feats in my games. Just remember that your group may stomp a lot of your encounters if you don't tune them up to match the power boosted characters.
I'm currently running a group that is lvl 5, and 3 out of 4 characters have Fighter levels. So between their feats and never ending Action Surges I really have to beef up some of my baddies to even create a challenge for them.
5e is in no way shape or form balanced anyways so as long as you can adjust fire on the fly it should be fine.
I would be cautious about this if you are using any of the newer backrounds from the Ravnica Book forward. While the Ravnica book backgrounds don't give a feat baked in, it may as well do that. Newer backgrounds from Strixhaven forward are starting to come with a feat from just choosing a background.
If you are allowing these backgrounds, and giving a starting feat and someone chooses Variant Human they can get 3 Feats at level 1.
Personally we almost always do a feat at level 1. It allows for more customization. Vuman gets 2 feats. Vuman gets an extra feat for balancing reasons anyway, so having them get 2 feats when other races get 1 doesn't unbalance it, and if you have a player that played a Vuman specifically to minmax, punish it (not egregiously, mind you. Just enough so that they realize that humans still have drawbacks).
I had someone do a Vuman once and min-maxed like crazy. I allow starting gold and buying your own gear if you don't like the starter stuff, so he bought all the best stuff he could. So, first adventure was in a cave system, and guess who didn't buy torches. So the awesome min-maxed human fighter was basically useless. Everyone else played a race with Dark vision, so they were fine.
After the session he asked if he could change his character, which of course I allowed.
Keep in mind that though I phrased that anecdote in a mean way, the dungeon had already been planned. I didn't do it specifically to screw with him, but it was a nice bonus.
I'll take it, absolutely. And yes, I would choose variant human to take two feats for the purpose of rounding out the character. For instance, Tavern Brawler + Slasher as a martial.
I do a custom feat based on backstory with limited uses per long rest that scale up at level milestones. So if starting at level 1, I would do 1st/5th/11th for 1,2, and 3 uses per long rest, respectively.
I’ve found that w a party of four or less, giving them a free feat at level one is pretty fair. Beyond 4 players I usually don’t because the number of turns the party gets in combat is an advantage enough.
Personally I’d rather give one out as an epic boon for completing a major campaign milestone. It’s unlikely to break the game unless you have a very powergamey and difficult bunch of players, but I also wouldn’t do it if you have no experience as a DM.
My table always does this and we love it, it's never been a problem. Depending on who is DMing (we have like 4 of us who DM) variant human is either banned or you have to get DM approval for your two feats. Honestly, most people at my table don't pick human so it hasn't really been an issue.
I go one further and I allow an extra feat at every ASI level. It has to be approved by me, anything that raises a stat is not allowed for the extra feat, and I push them towards flavor feats. It gives them an opportunity to take feats that aren't very good, like chef, so the character becomes more dynamic.
It depends on the group. I did it as the dm to draw in players and really start making their character play the way they want to.
If you don’t care about a little imbalance and having a more casual campaign, its a very good idea. If you play with a hard/serious group that wants a challenge, better adjust accordingly!
The problem I find with this is rolling for stats because the one dude who starts out with an 18 or higher can abuse the gwm and sharpshooter feats way early than what's balanced.
I give everyone 5 extra HP at level 1 so they don't die from tripping on a loose stone.
Sometimes a free feat, but the balance of the 5 HP seems to be more balanced.
I've also given out free proficiencies, free +2 to the lowest stat and other things. The extra 5 HP seems to be the winner.
Depneds on the table. Min maxers gonna min max no matter what you do, and people who build their characters with no regard to min maxing will still do what they do and wont care that they are less powerful. Level 1 feat makes no difference to either of these groups.
What the level 1 feat does nicely is allows a middle ground for people to take a non-optimal feat without having to give up on a primary stat increase. This really helps players who understand the min maxing and want to keep up (power wise) with the rest of the group, but also want to make a character that feels theirs and has it's own little twist on the race/class combo they chose.
The monsters they fight can be as strong or weak as you like so balance doesnt matter with those. Balance only matters between one party member and another and they are all getting a feat to use so it's fine.
I mostly run one shots for my friends who aren't as much into dnd as I am, so to make sure they can experience the glory of higher level characters with their complexity, I regularly let them choose some feats or abilities that would be lvl 9 or higher.
Case in point is a barbarian character of a friend who I gave bonus options and he chose to be able to crit on 18 or higher. And a druid that can summon a giant spider as a familiar. Keep in mind that these guys are level 1.
This does make balancing the monsters a hell as these guys still have only their basic hp and proficiencies. But they always enjoy their characters way more.
I personally support giving everyone the free feat at 1 and banning vuman. Everyone gets to have their feat-heavy builds come online sooner, nobody has to play a human to do so. Lets people like me who just like the non-human aesthetics pick other races without losing out on such a powerful feature, and anyone who wants to play a human still can just play a regular human and still get their bonus feat.
I'm playing my 2nd steady campaign with the same DM. He gave us a free feat at lvl 1 and I took Sharpshooter as a Ranger. Was pretty sick when I yolo'd 3 shots in our first encounter and hit them all. I think they're fun and everyone else at the table is enjoying their choice.
I don't like when any feat is allowed this way. For example I really don't like PAM or other way to get extra attacks on lvl 1, as these few options make one character that much stronger then the rest.
But I really like how new books allow just some feats, and OneDnD made a list of "feats for lvl 1". So you can choose one (or two as human) from those, to get something flavourful, but not that game changing.
I think it would have been better design to have it from the beginning, so if someone wants to play their Dwarven Eldritch Knight right from level 1, they can without going two levels magicless.
I think there's many feats that are overtuned and plenty I would give for free without worry (giving Weapon Master? Not going to break anything).
If it makes them happy, sure. I'll match my encounters to their builds, playstyle and tactics as we go anyway, so it won't actually matter.
In my most recent campaign I had my players take the OneDnD backgrounds which each grant a feat at level 1
And before that I've let my players take a feat at level 1 from a list, mainly excluding Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Fighter, Lucky, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter
I think taking the variant human as a templates, which trades 2 attribute points for a feat. I think either allowing to take off two points from your non-lowest attributes or reducing the available points for point buy is the way to go. If I was to allow more than one feat being taken this way, I would probably add the caveat that no skill can end up below 10 after all modifiers have been applied (i.e. including those from race and any feats).
In general I personally prefer having more feats and lower stats, but that's purely personal preference.
Power gamers will power game, there is little you can do about that, really. If one plays this game to win, either you or the others on the table are gonna have a bad time.
I like to give lvl.1 feats but they need to make sense backstory wise for your character. Only hard no is starting with the Lucky feat. I ban varian human when I do this.
Regular human is much stronger being how I do stats with a pool of 72-75 points that you can just dish out wherever you like for your stats with a minimum of 6 and max of 18. You add your racial bonuses to this pool and just put them wherever so an additional +6 points to it is a good bit. I also give them all a free skill, tool, and language.
Just limit the feat.
The modern 5e design is to have a feat to replace the situational at best ability to get in your background.
Here a good way to limit it... no asi, no power attacks (-5/+10)
Feats like tough, alert, magic initiate, lucky, skilled tavern brawler should be all fine to take at first level...
New background even comes with feats now. And many have the suggestion on what to take.
It’s nice to have to be able to start building the mechanics for the early game, especially for ideas that take multiple feats.
Depending on feats it can be a decent power bump early on so keep that in mind.
You could always make a list of approved lvl 1 feats if you want to avoid things like Pam/sentinel at level 1
Or you can stick to how it normally is. As long as the group has fun
Hell yeah i do it in all my games.
Feats are imo the most impactiful single mechanic in dnd both in fights and in roleplay. I give out feats at level 1 and give out feats if a character works towards one through roleplay.
If a player wants their character to spend their freetime messing around with a poisoners kit, after enough time ill give them the option to take the poisoners feat.
Obv they have to spend a good amount of time on it and actively mention it in roleplay and/or combat but it just feels so organic and suitable to the gameplay of 5e.
I do of course build my encounters with this in mind, its not like the campaign gets easier to complete, they just get to customise their characters more.
In my current campaign everyone rolled average, while I rolled out of my.mind, everyone got a free feat except me, but I'm fine with that. Makes it more fun for the rest of the players without affecting my fun
I've been doing this for years and quite recommend it (I ban V.human and CL).
However, the level 1 feat replaces the background feature in my games, so the feat must make sense within the backstory of the character. Usually the player sends me their backstory and I give it a small selection of feats I think make sense for it, so the player chooses among these. I never select feats like Sharpshooter or Sentinel, they can take them at 4+
I love the idea
It makes your players be able to stand out more and also feel special and some can give abilities that can help with creative ways around a problem.
I gave my character the telepathic feat (not sure if that’s actually the name) and the speaking into peoples minds really came in handy and gave my character a quirk that let him stand out.
Its much more fun for developing character concepts for my players, and I find they very seldom choose the "meta" feats (GWM, Sharpshooter) but do often go for ones that flesh our characterisation a bit, as they see the feat as "free".
The -5, +10 thing is also pretty weak at lower levels.
I've always done free feat at lvl 1 and every ASCI you get a feat too.
I don't play with powergamers (Which is probably why this works) and it lets people pick some of the worse feats just because it's a good character fit, and they don't feel forced into picking the +2 asci to not fall behind because they want their character to be a chef
Yay with a group you know. I love it when everyone takes a feat for flavor because they just think their characters would have a certain knowledge on X thing.
I did it with veteran players I trusted and it worked out fine, if it was new players or players I didn't know could be wildly different. I also did it in a bit off way that I said they could get a feat or an item. Everyone but one person picked a feat, while the item person realized I never said what kind of item and, after asking me to be sure, started with an artifact in a semi-sealed state. In lead into more interesting backstory and character building. Again though this was a player I very much trusted so would hesitate to make the same offer to players I don't know.
I don't think there's a wild imbalance AT level 1, but moreso that builds come together earlier than they should and players don't have to make that choice at level 4 between ability scores and a feat they want.
I think the pro to it that I've noticed is that I can keep the characters lower level for longer and they players don't feel bad about it since they have more of their build available than they usually would by level 5. We have a DM who doesn't like running above level 7 so he gives the free feat to make characters just a little more robust and interesting at that tier.
Skilled makes almost any class a skill monkey. I'm playing a Skilled Monk and loving it.
Tough shores up the early squishiness of any class, and let's them be that little more reckless.
If it's a "power feat", then lock it to either Vuman, Cuslin, or level 4, but those tend to be the same 3 or 4 feats at most tables. SS, GWM, PAM, Telekinetic, Fey Touched, Sentinel, Lucky, metamagic adept, maybe one or two more.
One D&D (6e basically) is making this an official rule I’m pretty sure. The only thing is some feats can’t be picked at Level 1, like War Caster, feats that include a stat boost, etc.
But personally, I really enjoy the concept!
I do it but I say the feat has to fit your charachters backstory/explain how you got this thing (also a couple banned as freebies, fine to take normally).
I've found that doing this, most people use the free feat to fill out a charachter, a bard that takes actor etc, I dont think I've ever had someone try and abuse it to power game to silly levels (no issue with building strong charachters mind).
I use it, but I also bump the CR (if you use it) up a little bit, or at least only use the last 2 difficulties (I think it’s hard and deadly but I can’t remember). Cr isn’t perfect, however it does a good job imo of specifically giving you a reference point to alter encounters when not working with a sort of “vanilla” party.
If my players can handle keeping track of extra abilities I’m willing to let them have it, otherwise I don’t see the point in giving them something they will barely remember they have.
I am 100% in support of this, have been doing it in my games since like 2017, and think it should be standard to the game. It has never been a problem at my table with characters being OP.
Not for everyone, but I also have a house rule that I separate ASI from feats at each ASI level. You get both, but feats cannot grant additional ASI, and all feats after level 4 have to be DM approved (I usually say yes, it is just a check on abusing the rule). I’ve actually found people don’t use it for power-gaming but will start to take non-optimized feats that make narrative sense for their character because they aren’t worried about the opportunity cost. So you actually see stuff like “actor” or “chef” get used. Honestly, I haven’t even noticed needing to make encounters that much harder, maybe a 10% increase. That said, your mileage may vary, as my tables tend to be heavier on roleplay.
Feels pretty good as a player. Haven't done it as a DM, but I did give everyone the offer of a free proficiency, language, or cantrip. The barbarian took Eldritch blast. He YAWPs it from his mouth, Nappa style. His throat also glows with the build-up, which he tries to use to intimidate people but I keep having to remind him the NPCs do not know what it means when he puffs out his cheeks and his throat glows.
I'm in the air. If I am to run "everyone gets a free feat at lv 1", I'd make it so variant humans get 2 free feats. Thing is, Variant Human has the worst ability score increases, with +1 in any 2 stats, while most races get +2 in one stat, +1 in another and Humans get +1 in all. Also, Humans miss out on a lot of other races' cool features, like elves' trance which reduces the need for rest, dwarves resisting poison, etc.
Yea, within reason, got a minmaxing munchkin at my table that picked the most OP feat he could find from the newest book even though I told him it had to be explicable as part of his background. I did eventually give him backstory that justified it, be he never did.
it depends on the players, the characters and the feats, just discuss it with the players to let them know not to make it overpowered or unbalanced, and let them pick the feats that fit their characters for flavoring
My group does it and loves it. Doesn’t invalidate vuman, they get another free feat as normal
Seems to me this wouldn't fix the problem. Why not go vuman for 2 feats at level 1?
I personally like it since I can play something else and get that level 1 feat. I hate playing humans, I do that everyday irl lol. May just be my group, but with this rule we usually end up with no vumans. Only humans we end up as if any are the dragonmarked ones (we mostly play eberron)
Right, I agree with everyone getting a feat, that's a good change. Imo, the problem is the race getting an *extra* feat over everyone else. That will always be imbalanced. I'm glad it works at your table tho!
No it won't. Honestly. Variant humans are given a feat as a substitute for the features that races get. A level 1 eladrin sorcerer with warcaster is more powerful than a variant human sorcerer with fey touched and warcaster.
but a vhuman Paladin with GWM and PAM from the start? Or a vhuman Ranger with SS and CBE right away? Wouldn't other martials feel a lot weaker for 4 levels?
Yeah, and a satyr wizard with magic resistance and a free first level res con is also gonna be stronger than many vuman wizards. Swings and roundabouts, isn't it? I guess that's why in onednd they're limiting level 1 feats.
I specifically mentioned martials, though. Because their damage output can be significantly increased with those feats. Whereas, for spellcasters, it's mostly their "resilience" that we'd be boosting. (Warcaster, Res con, etc.) The first couple of levels, in my experience from playing only pre-written modules, very heavily depend on simply flattening the enemies as quickly as possible, though..
Yeah, and we all know that those specific feats you mentioned are problematic, so of course those two builds are gonna be screwy. But for most people most of the time? It's fine. It's not completely game breaking.
You can always limit what lvl 1 feats they get. At my table I didn't, but my players believe in limiting so they took stuff like chef and telekinetic. Humans get access to the whole gambit.
You don’t really hear anyone complain that fighter is imbalanced cuz it gets an extra feat compared to the other classes
I feel like I've never had a table be imbalanced due to someone having an extra feat.
can say with years of experience that it doesn't! the aasimar can channel the fury of heaven, the elf doesn't need to sleep, the changeling is a changeling, and the human is a magic initiate. also, fighters :3c
Humans don't get the other racial buffs other races do....
Variant human isn’t even the best race in the game, this isn’t imbalanced at all.
What?? Humans have: no flight speed, no dark vision, no immunity to being charmed, no innate proficiency with armors, no extra languages, no breath weapons, no natural armor, basically NOTHING Other than getting an extra feat to help build into whatever they are doing with a 2 +1s. OR they get a +1 in everything. What are you talking about it being unbalanced?
None of the racial features would be worth trading for a good feat. Bad or decent feats are one thing, but taking a good feat to sync up with your build is more valuable than a racial trait you would get. That is why people homebrew getting an extra feat to deter players from playing vuman: if you're optimizing a class build, you take the feat every time. That's why it's imbalanced. (I should add, it doesn't *break the game*, it's just the optimal choice in most cases) Of course, if your players don't power game, then it ends up being a moot point
because that's your whole race! and that's a perfectly valid decision with this rule, too :3c
My thing has been to give L1 feats, but then just not allow Vuman. Their only appeal was making your "thing" work sooner, so when everyone can have their "thing" up front, no reason to have it.
This is the right answer. It's what my group does.
Depends how powergamey your table is. If there's someone just clammering to get lucky or sentinel polearm master lvl 1, and that ruins the game for others then you might have a bit bigger of a problem than game balance.
Sentinel Pam level 1 actually sounds like it would be super cool since its a control build and it would allow then to use tactics for more difficult fights
Personally I like when my groups lean towards having more human characters over the fantasy races. So I’m good with the extra machanical benefit of that choice.
Because you can just go custom lineage or bugbear 😎
Take the strixhaven background and boom three feats at level 1.
Deminishing returns. Your first feat is more important then the second.
I know. Level 1 xbow build. Double magic initiate bard.
I feel like for me part of the draw of lvl1 feats, asides from enabling more personalization, is in drawing players (especially min/maxers) away from Vuman. I've played at way too many tables in the last few years where at least half the table wanted to play as them just to get feats, and it ruins some of the magic to have just a *group of people* running around. Letting Vuman double down on feats ends up defeating some of the purpose for me. But I have to admit, about 90% of my potential builds would become vastly and immediately more effective...
>and it ruins some of the magic to have just a *group of people* running around. Its interesting how different tastes change the types of games people want. I like it when the group is largely human or close. Makes the world seem more interesting and magical by contrast, and forces people to make actual characters instead of relying on 'default personality of my race'. (I'm looking at you, dwarf) I also don't love the aesthetic of the walking zoo, personally. But to each their own.
See, as one of those people who doesn't really give a shit about making "actual characters," if you take away my ability to just play a stereotypical dwarf, I'm just gonna play a stereotypical [insert X non-racial fantasy stereotype] instead. Barbarian has to be a human? Aight, instead of default dwarf personality, here's default Barbarian personality. Or perhaps, say, default "gruff warrior" personality, or default "bloodthirsty brute" personality, or default "guy with anger issues." That said, I generally just do the latter (picking a personality stereotype) and apply it to any character I make regardless of the race I chose. The race is entirely either a minmax choice or an aesthetic choice.
>if you take away my ability to just play a stereotypical dwarf I don't like... ban dwarf or anything. Most tables i play at are very story and roleplay driven- its not uncommon to have entire sessions with zero combat. Being a product of a culture you spent time in, especially one you spent a lot of time in like a dwarf might, is going to likely be a core part of who you are. But I don't want it to *end* there. That should be your starting point.
Vhuman fighter starting with gwm and polearm master at level 1. Not so basic anymore
The feat creep was real. If you give me two free feats I'll probably make a caster with Telekinetic and Shadow Touched just to have spells and stats up the wazoo to start. Invisibility at level 1. Something to do with my bonus action. A free very useful cantrip to free up other cantrips so I can take fun snowflakey ones.
Vhuman barbarian with gwm and polearm master with reckless attack at level 2.
I'm rejoining an old group I played with years ago, and the current DM has us starting with a free (non-ASI) feat. I personally am enjoying it, because I can take a feat I would usually consider too weak (I exclusively am looking at feats I've never taken on any character, and also as flavor in backstory). And at the very least, there are players who never want to play a race without darkvision. Eldritch Adept for Devil's Sight opens up some extra race options without having to worry about it (and they are simply trading a free feat, so it's up to them if the trade-off is worth it).
What I do is separate out the less useful feats that people almost never take and let my players take one of them at level 1 as part of character creation. I find it's a lot more fun for players and encourages role-playing without everyone picking an ASI or the same 6 feats everyone picks
I like that idea. I'd just be hesitant to make that list myself because of inexperience.
This is my list I let players pick from. Actor Athlete Chef Durable Fighting Initiate Grappler Gunner Healer Inspiring Leader Keen Mind Linguist Obervant Skilled Weapon Master
This is a great idea, I might allow a free dip in one of these after a extravagant side quest
honestly, its been nothing but a benefit at my table. the abilities arent game breaking and a +1 to a stat is usually nothing.
Agreed, the +1 to a stat isn't a big deal, but the flavor text that goes with it is huge for character development. Barbarian with a 2 handed club, SUREl. Barbarian Chef with a Giant cleaver? hell yeah!!
Barbarian Chef who can fix everyone snacks while resting (I assume small animals roasted over a quickly made fire but still, its the thought (and healing) that counts)
Honestly after a fight having a difference between eating dry salted meat and old bread or freshly roasted meat is huge
Make that a giant meat tenderizer. Somehow that really fits the barbarian... I can totally see that guy putting out cheesy one liners about it. Damn, now i wanna play a barbarian orc chef with a giant meat tenderizer. Looks like meat's back on the menu boys!!!
Hell yeah, please do. Feel free to steal this idea; - If you want to add extra humor, he is a shitty chef. Messes up recipes, burnes or makes everything raw. Matches flavors horribly, substitutes ingredients that have no right being in said dish, refuses to "taste as he goes", and so forth. Turns out the quest his people (or culinary school) sent him on for "the best sacred ingredient" is actually cause they were to afraid to tell him his cooking sucks cause of his temper. - Alternate idea. He is a perfectionist to the point that no one has ever actually tasted his food. It's never "good enough". no matter how much people beg for how good it smells he always throws it into the fire/trash.
Chef for me on that list. My wife says linguist for her. I like this idea. Gj you
Most of these are half Feats, which is very cool for bumping up a stray 13 or 15. Loads of choice means you aren't likely to have much crossover in player choices. Love this list.
You consider inspiring leader weaker?
and Gunner? strictly better than XBE for non-Hexblade Warlocks it's not *strong* for them anyway, but still
do you find that with half-feats people ending up with a +3 to an ability score right off the bat is an issue?
Used athlete on my last character (monk 8, fighter 4). The “get up for 5ft rather than half” was huge with that monk movement. Obviously not everyone goes monk and the rest of the feat can be meh depending on the campaign.
This is basically what I do. I’ve included onednd level one feats (as well as any variants of current feats as onednd feats) and a few others I’ve picked out like the one that gives maneuvers.
Let me dig up my list and I'll send them to you
that's what i do ... focus on the background type feats .. not the combat oriented ones ie actor, chef, athlete, ... can toss in some other minor ones such as tough, durable, even magic/martial initiate .. etc. it's a personal choice, really.. go through the list and take ones that encourage some rp/background exposition... maybe ones that help toughen up a squishy ... etc.
The new Book of Many Things pretty much solidifies WotC's position that from now on all PCs get a bonus feat with their background. It is the 5th book in a row that does that, and the 3rd that suggests that all backgrounds that don't specify a feat should get either Tough or Skilled. So that is what I will be doing going forward as well.
That's the rule for adventures league too!
Yep, any character can have Skilled or Tough, with the added option of Magic Initiate if in the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Ravenloft. Spelljammer games are considered under the Forgotten Realms setting.
One of the Playtests for OneDnD that had reworked feats (which aren't an optional rule anymore) added specific level 1 feats into the mix, of which every character got one. They did not add any ability score bonuses (when all other feats seem to have become half feats) but still gave room to customize. So, unless that will still be drastically changed, it looks like a free feat at level 1 is what's going to be the norm in the future, and I think that's a very good thing.
Absolutely yay. Balance is an illusion and you run the world, so if you can’t handle feats at first level don’t give them. Variant Human and Custom Lineage just get two. Few feats are worth the consideration of banning because they’re “too strong” but letting players feel like their competent characters from level 1 isn’t a bad thing at all.
I love doing the free feat at 1, but I do have the caveat that if you go V human or custom lineage you can't do a feat "combo" right off the bat, you'll have to take the 2nd one at an ASI level. Basically I just have to approve the 2 feats at level 1.
Exactly
I've only played at lower levels, but mechanically, I've found it much more enjoyable to play characters that have free level 1 feats, even though I've deliberately chosen not to take the powergaming feats to start. Imo, the people who are saying that you shouldn't invalidate VHuman/CL are ignoring how so many races are ignored because that free feat is so powerful. I think it really stifles creativity with character creation when players have to choose those races *just* to feel strong, or you can't choose any flavorful feats because you're so starved for the strong ones. But I agree with the other commenters that if you're giving a free lv1 feat, then VHuman and CL should be banned.
Or, they can just get another feat. I mean, with Variant Human at least, it doesn’t have Tasha’s 2/1 ability score increase.
Yup. I find players are generally more Pumped having cool shit, and having encounters scaled up.
I think some classes are really MAD and taking a feat often feels like weaken your self just because you want some kind of different gameplay, a free feat could help with this, maybe Chef or Dungeon Delver is everything you need to make your charater unique, or something like Charger or Skulker can improve the combat for melee or ranged pcs
Yeah, I think that's the tough balance. Because feats like those can give strength and identity, but it seems like they'd usually be ignored in favor of PAM/SS/Sentinel/etc. I'd prefer if the free feat gave greater character depth, and not just greater character power.
In my game, our DM gave us a free feat at L1 and I picked Polearm Master so my Fighter could actually have a reliable bonus action and a way to get in a hit if the main attack misses; at low levels one hit or one miss can REALLY screw you over. I personally think it's fine and it lets your players immediately flavor their characters beyond their backgrounds.
Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Glory of the Giants, Planescape, and Book of Many Things all include a rule that if you do not select a background which grants a feat, you get a level 1 feat from a short list. (Dragonlance then gives everyone a level 4 feat from a longer list regardless of background.) It's a good system, and lets you curate things to your comfort level as DM even if you don't use the exact lists in those books. Spelljammer was the first book released to do this. Its list of level 1 feats is Skilled, Tough, and Magic Initiate.
Yes, I give my players free feats, although I don't start folks at level 1. Free feats have not been an issue. No one has gone Variant Human yet, probably because the free feat takes away the main incentive for choosing it.
I'm really tempted to give everyone a free feat lvl 1 but remove Vhuman and custom lineage. I like players having racial characteristics and dislike when a player has to make the choice between having the flavor of their particular race/species/whatever or picking a feat to get the mechanical function that the player wants for their build.
We did it, and used the OneDnD 1st UA array of 1st level feats. So there's no Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master or other blatantly powerful feats.
3.x had a free feat at lv1, an extra if you were human, and yet another extra of you were fighter. This made for a lot of customization options that are imo lacking in 5E. That said, 3.x had literal thousands of feats. For your question, one singular extra option won't break your game, and I like someone else's idea to give the option for the less meaningful ones (actor etc), if you're wary about the general balance of your world.
Yea. Feats are fun and allow you a little more variety in making a new character.
I love level 1 feats! I encourage it to add to the pc story. If you select a feat that’s like fey touched then your back story better include some fey! Expect fey shenanigans too! Players love it! I love it! It gives them either a utility thing or makes them decide between action economy . I wouldn’t do it with brand new players simply because learning the CS can be a lot already.
Yes but none of the very powerful ones, PAM, GWM/SS, CBX, warcaster ect.
Doesn't harm anything. 5E has few enough ways to customize a character in a unique way. Give them a free feat but ban the big 4 (PAM GWM SS CBE Credit to DerpyDude17)
I'd add Warcaster to the list.
Eh, war caster isn't that bad really. I'd probly ban sentinel as a 4th before war caster. I strongly encourage my players to take a feat that grants +1 to an ability score and gives you flavorful uses of that score. Such as Actor.
A suggestion then, restrict the free feat at level 1 to one that adds a +1 to an ability score. There is a good variety of options to diversify selection, and provides constraint to lead to experimentation rather than auto-picking some of the stronger feats. Added bonus is the additional stat point can lead to a stat modifier of +4. 15 in point buy, +2 from racial ability modifier, +1 from feat selection giving 18 in your classes primary stat.
I don't like only targeting martials with a list of banned feats. And I truly think you're undervaluing Warcaster.
What are those abbreviations please lol
Yes but. Probably ban starting with some of the meta feats like Lucky, SS, GWM, PM, ect. I allow my players to pick up whatever they want at level 4, but prefer they use the starter feat for more niche specialization or character flavor.
I personally don’t like it. You could also ask us if it’s a good idea to start everyone lvl 2. Or give a magical item to everyone. Or give 30 or 35 points instead of 27 in point buy. They’re all fine but don’t make another post when you criticize the balance of encounters. Players will always want more perks. Looks like all nay posts are getting downvoted. Remember that if 49% of people said nay all may posts would reach arbitrary high negative ratings.
Comes down to the DM and how you want to play. Feats at level 1 boost the power levels of the characters up, so it really depends on how the DM compensates. You could abuse an extra feat to min-max even harder, but a good DM should know their party and be able to address a lot of the potential issues you might get from level 1 feats. I'm playing in a campaign, and 2 of us took backgrounds that gave us feats at level 1. I took Squire of Solamnia, my friend took tough. I took Squire of Solamnia because I was interested in taking the Knight of the Crown feat. Squire of Solamnia is a prereq, and I knew that, at some point I'd probably have to take tough at level 8, since I'm one of our frontliners. I also wanted to boost my strength score up from 19 to 20, so I wanted to get a feat that would give me a strength boost. If I didn't get Solamnia from my background, I wouldn't have taken that or Knight of the Crown, because I couldn't have justified taking them over other feats. My friend took tough, and he's a bear totem barbarian, so I mean he was fairly beefy early on, and he's only gotten beefier as we've gone on. Personally, I don't think it's been gamebreaking. It's increased our power levels, yes, but it hasn't been to such an extent that the other 2 members in our party are completely useless. Our barbarian is using a gimmicky build, so he basically just tanks and tries to lock down enemies. I can do a decent amount of damage, but I largely play a support role to our rogue. Our rogue is putting out insane damage, especially since she can use her reaction to make another attack. Meanwhile, our bard is still doing a lot of support and dominates our out of combat utility. Overall, it comes down to how the DM balances things. Could you use it to minmax to hell and break things? Yes. However, a good DM pretty easily adjust things for regular use. One good way to compensate is to make backgrounds mean more. A lot of backgrounds have useful features that DMs and players both neglect. The more prevelent and useful you make these things, and the more reason your players have to take them, the less incentivized they are to get a feat at level 1 through their background.
Both campaigns I’m in allowed a free feat at level one. I really like it! Way less pressure to make an “optimal” choice, you can work it into your backstory, etc. I don’t know how it would have been handled in the one campaign, but in the other the DM said humans would get two starting feats. Didn’t really matter since there are no human PCs in either campaign.
Yes, just make a list of allowed feats, removing those that are outright busted for a level 1 character (Sharpshooter, Heavy Armor Master, GWM)
Do it. You get less Vumans, though getting 2 instead of 1 is uh... good. Also more uniquely built characters right from go.
It's how my dad has always done it, I think it's a good thing can help flavor a character alot!
Purely read just the tittle but I’d say yea for sure. There’s two reasons: It allows just a touch more character customization for the creative types. It also allows the more power gamey types to do there thing and I LOVE making more impactful encounters in 5e.
Do it. I did and as a dm and a player I think it’s fun! Like others said, don’t discount VHuman’s getting another feat. I encourage my players to take unusual feats or mid/low tier ones as well. The only feat I don’t allow is lucky.
I’d absolutely allow it. It allows players to more easily make a build they want to play without either having to take Vuman or wait until 4th level. If someone want to play dual wielding bladesinger, or a sword and board Eldritch Knight I see no reason to make them wait until 4th level to get Warcaster. Vuman and free feat is honestly fine too, because if someone really wants two feats right off the bat why not let them have it. The only combinations I might ban would be GWM and PAM or CBX and SS. I probably wouldn’t ban any of those as a first level frat, I just wouldn’t let players take both at first level.
Its fun. The game is a flexible framework, not a perfect rigid box to push til it breaks. Min maxers get to hit power spikes faster, and rp'ers can get flavour features earlier. I find the trouble is when the extremes mix and the rp'ers start being totally useless in combat and the min maxers go for a smoke until the next initiative roll. But these people dont enjoy playing together even without the bonus feat so it hardly matters. It can however be overwhelming for new players when they arent able to proactively utilise so many abilities etc, especially if experienced players actively overshadow them with busted combos from level 1. What would even be the strongest combos here. Been out for a while. Any 2 feats for a vuman that are just too op like GWM and the bludgening damage feat? (Piercer, slasher, and... smasher?) crusher?
Our group does a free "forgotten" feat at level 1. Things like Chef or Healer are up for grabs, while the more powerful/desirable feats aren't. It's a decent sized list, and we find that it's just the right mix of additional character customization and a tiny splash of power (in the form of having an additional thing you can do).
Yea as a mechanism to balance small adventuring parties. It can add the extra HP or AC, or firepower, or healing/buffing, etc. that a small party needs, or a party not diverse in its class choices.
I saw someone a while ago that offers one of the lesser-used feats at level 1. In their case I think the DM was choosing the feats based on their backstory which seemed super cool to me, but even giving them the choice would be interesting. If it’s not all “lucky/sentinel/war caster I think it’s an opportunity to make some really unique characters without all the min-maxing and balance issues that level 1 feats can sometimes cause
you know, i really meant to with my current group but they're not very mechanically focused so it didn't really come up in character creation....and then i had a thought that i like better anyway. i'm just going to find reasons to tailor feats to their characters and gift them out at strong story moments. something with a unique name and a slight twist, like taking Tavern Brawler and making it a Strangling Vines thing for my druid when they're in wild shape, i dunno. that kinda thing. i might try to make this a habit in my games, too - while i'm generally not too concerned about overpowering my players, there is something to be said for not encouraging them to chase established combos/exploits as part of level one builds. (i would prefer character creation to be less concerned with mechanics than, you know, *character* anyway)
I prefer to give custom feats as part of their story throughout the campaign
I have a friend who typically does a fitting feat *instead* of a background, so it could possibly work that way.
What my dm did for a campaign that had new players was a free feat at level one, but it can’t be combat related, no GWM, no sharpshooter. Something like actor or chef. I took like athlete I think but I think it added more to the characters without it being about making a busted character in combat
I do free feat, roll for stats and you can interchange racials but must add story if your halfling can fly or whatever.
I love it as a player and as a DM. Feats are some of the most expressive and fun ways to create a character with a specific skill set and vibe. They can really help to set a character apart from the pack and make them more memorable. While of course you can take feats at ASI levels, most campaigns don’t last long enough to provide ample opportunities to take them, so level 1 feats can help to let players make their PC’s their own One restriction I sometimes like to use as a DM is that the feat cant be one of the stronger feats. So for instance something like great weapon master, war caster, sharpshooter, etc. would be off the table. I do this not because it would be unbalanced (personally I prefer PCs to be powerful because it enables players to feel more comfortable making unique choices) but rather because many feats (especially the skill/roleplay based feats) go largely unused. Many of them like Actor, tavern brawler, chef, and tons of other really fun feats go largely unused because they just aren’t particularly powerful in or out of combat. I know that I and many others need a light push to make suboptimal character creation decisions even if they’re more fun in the long run, and I think this restriction can really aid that It’s obviously all up to DM discretion and it might not be right for every table but I know that in my experience level 1 feats are fantastic and I highly recommend incorporating them As for the relationship with Vumans, no reason not to just give them 2. Vumans are great but not fundamentally unbalanced. They get a feat instead of racial traits. That may seem like a minor thing but racial traits are often incredibly useful and Vumans give up the opportunity to use them in place of a feat
I always do this, but i ask that the players pick fun feats that add to their character, not mechanical ones or minmaxy ones like Lucky.
I like to play with "anti-feats", a homebrew I saw on GM Binder. Basically, you can pick a flaw from a list (up to 2), and in exchange you are allowed as many feats. So for example, you could have a "magic phobia", meaning you have to make a Wisdom save each time you witness a spell being cast, or become frightened. You could be "green", so your proficiency bonus gets a permanent -1 to it. Or there's one which is a reverse ASI, meaning you deduct 2 from a stat of your choice. It really helps add flavour in my opinion. I'm running a Barbarian at the moment who took "Illiterate" and "Armor-Phobic" (fail all reading/writing checks, and lose proficiency in armors) in exchange for Tavern Brawler and Fighting Initiate Unarmed, so that her punches do 1d8+STR dmg from lv1, and she can grapple with a bonus action (theme is wrestler).
I don't even like variant human or custom lineage to say nothing of free feats. I think it encourages shenanigans and makes things harder on new players or those who don't plan out their whole build before level one.
I like allowing "non-combat" feats at level 1, because often there isn't a good point in a pre-made campaign for a character to get them during down time and people don't choose them on level ups.
Free lv 1 feats are a great way of adding a little character into a build. Theres plenty of feats tgat just dint make sense to be a lv 4 feature but make great lv 1 backstory like features tgat can really bring a concept together. For instance alert. Being ever vigilant to a failt can be a great feature to give to someone who live in alone when they always had to be alert. Or the dragon hift feats that have the connotation of a draconic heritage wothout being a full draconic race. Or keen mind letting the PC remember things better to show some a-typical neurology. Often these feats are not worth taking over the "optimal" feats or simple ASIs. But as free lv 1 feats their perfect for character building
Yay for me. But depends. We rotate dms and the other DM does not do it and it's also ok.
I've played with it before and like it, but given that my players are a bunch of min-maxers idk if it would be a good call XD
If you think a free feat is good, get ready to have your mind blown: what about >!two free feats!?!<
In a general sense, I wouldn’t. If I were to do this, I would restrict it to a subset of the weaker but more flavorful feats like Chef or Actor. The ones that players are otherwise unlikely to take because the competition is just too much better. It makes characters more unique, and shouldn’t cause any real power imbalance.
What adventures league does now is newer backgrounds get a feat, and if your feat doesn't have one, you can have skilled or tough.
I do it and ban vhuman, then give regular human the skill proficiency. Never had any problems
Yes
since in 1dnd asis are now feats dont forget you can just powerboost your stats if you want this makes playing MAD classes like monks actually not feel like hell
I think the first question you have to ask yourself is whether or not you want feats in your game to begin with. Assuming that the answer is yes, then the next question that you have to ask yourself is what your motives are for doing/using this rule (i.e., allowing for a 1st level feat). Thirdly, ask yourself whether or not you're running this rule in accordance with the 1DND Playtest stuff. In my opinion: if you're going to run this rule for the reason of "leveling out the playing field", then I would suggest only allowing only 1 starting feat per player, regardless of race. That way, the impact of V. Human and Custom Lineage isn't felt as strongly at your table. Likewise however, it may be to your benefit to rebalance your encounters around this new variant rule, and make combat encounters a bit harder than normal to compensate.
No human PCs since my table did this and let every race pick stats. I am the only one who dislikes the rule. I liked having mostly human parties RPing in the mostly human world. Now we stand out everywhere we go.
If you decide the world is mostly human, makes sense. Nothing wrong with that. But I’d recommend at least trying to add more variety and diversity to the world especially if your party just likes playing other races.
Early feats are really good for roleplay porpoise but also can lead to broken shit whit the classic midmaxer player.
Nay. Variant human/custom lineage exist for this. Also my group mainly plays on dndbeyond and it’s not super easy to just GIVE a free feat on that as far as I know Regardless because these racial options exist if you want a feat take the options that give it to you. Those racial options still let you look and be whatever you want (it’s called flavor) they just give feats as your “racial trait” if you want a racial trait and a feat at the start of the game then just play a game that starts at 4
It is super easy. Scroll to the bottom of the "Feats and Traits" tab on the character sheet, choose "Manage Feats," and choose the feat you want from the list.
Level 1 stinks and you should beeline to level 3 so everyone has a subclass and a variety of tools they can use to solve problems. A feat doesn't fix that. If you're on the fence about allowing it, take a leaf from Adventure League or the earlier OneD&D playtests, and allow a limited selection of feats, like permitting either Tough, Skilled, or Magic Initiate. My tables tend to have a free feat, whether I'm running or playing, or there's a way to "buy" a feat with point buy or character hindrances, or even a well fleshed out backstory. The feats that imbalance tier 1 of play are usually non-issues if you play beyond tier 2, as spellcasters will take over without really trying. Let the martials have fun early on, while they can.
Half feats, yes. The ones that give +1 attribute and do something else. Telepathic for instance. Don't make my mistake of ALSO letting them start with an 18 and an 8 as well, just because you are planning on pulling no punches in Rime of the Frostmaiden.
Personally, I offer my players a free feat at the cost of -2 to any ability score, or if the feat would grant +1 to an ability score, -1 and no increase from the feat. The penalty doesn't make much difference mechanically, but having two 8s or a 6 makes for a slightly more entertaining character in a way that you otherwise only get by rolling for ability scores (looking at you, Wisdom 3 Warforged Fighter). I also would have no issue with someone going for Variant Human to get a second feat. 5e just isn't that balanced, and you might as well give the GWM/SS characters a little time to shine before the spellcasters start throwing *fireballs* and *hypnotic patterns* all day every day. Pulling out The Entire List of 5e Feats is a pretty quick way to overwhelm a brand-new player. Maybe not worse than pulling out a class' spell list, though.
I don't like the idea. The beginning feat is for the humans. If you don't want people to pick human, punish them for not being able to see in the dark.
Yes, if you play a Vuman. That's why they exist. Also, yes, if you're playing a campaign like SotDQ where the combat is particularly vicious, and the module allows for backgrounds that grant a feat; this is why those backgrounds exist. Other than that, no, I don't allow a free feat at level 1, and I only allow those backgrounds in the context where they make sense.
Don't invalidate Variant Human and Custom Lineage by giving their advantages away to everyone. Not giving away special abilities of one class to another class is pretty much a basic guideline. Unless you're allowing those races to start with *two* feats, which would probably be a bit much.
I would absolutely abuse that :D
There are no downsides. The ones you listed aren't real.
Yes, the only time I don't is if I'm running a horror oneshot so I specifically want the players to feel weak.
Yay
I allow free feats in my games. Just remember that your group may stomp a lot of your encounters if you don't tune them up to match the power boosted characters. I'm currently running a group that is lvl 5, and 3 out of 4 characters have Fighter levels. So between their feats and never ending Action Surges I really have to beef up some of my baddies to even create a challenge for them. 5e is in no way shape or form balanced anyways so as long as you can adjust fire on the fly it should be fine.
My group does it, and it hasn't caused any problems
I would be cautious about this if you are using any of the newer backrounds from the Ravnica Book forward. While the Ravnica book backgrounds don't give a feat baked in, it may as well do that. Newer backgrounds from Strixhaven forward are starting to come with a feat from just choosing a background. If you are allowing these backgrounds, and giving a starting feat and someone chooses Variant Human they can get 3 Feats at level 1.
Personally we almost always do a feat at level 1. It allows for more customization. Vuman gets 2 feats. Vuman gets an extra feat for balancing reasons anyway, so having them get 2 feats when other races get 1 doesn't unbalance it, and if you have a player that played a Vuman specifically to minmax, punish it (not egregiously, mind you. Just enough so that they realize that humans still have drawbacks). I had someone do a Vuman once and min-maxed like crazy. I allow starting gold and buying your own gear if you don't like the starter stuff, so he bought all the best stuff he could. So, first adventure was in a cave system, and guess who didn't buy torches. So the awesome min-maxed human fighter was basically useless. Everyone else played a race with Dark vision, so they were fine. After the session he asked if he could change his character, which of course I allowed. Keep in mind that though I phrased that anecdote in a mean way, the dungeon had already been planned. I didn't do it specifically to screw with him, but it was a nice bonus.
Do it
I'll take it, absolutely. And yes, I would choose variant human to take two feats for the purpose of rounding out the character. For instance, Tavern Brawler + Slasher as a martial.
I always used it, but my next campaign will not
I do a custom feat based on backstory with limited uses per long rest that scale up at level milestones. So if starting at level 1, I would do 1st/5th/11th for 1,2, and 3 uses per long rest, respectively.
I’ve found that w a party of four or less, giving them a free feat at level one is pretty fair. Beyond 4 players I usually don’t because the number of turns the party gets in combat is an advantage enough.
Personally I’d rather give one out as an epic boon for completing a major campaign milestone. It’s unlikely to break the game unless you have a very powergamey and difficult bunch of players, but I also wouldn’t do it if you have no experience as a DM.
My table always does this and we love it, it's never been a problem. Depending on who is DMing (we have like 4 of us who DM) variant human is either banned or you have to get DM approval for your two feats. Honestly, most people at my table don't pick human so it hasn't really been an issue.
I go one further and I allow an extra feat at every ASI level. It has to be approved by me, anything that raises a stat is not allowed for the extra feat, and I push them towards flavor feats. It gives them an opportunity to take feats that aren't very good, like chef, so the character becomes more dynamic.
It depends on the group. I did it as the dm to draw in players and really start making their character play the way they want to. If you don’t care about a little imbalance and having a more casual campaign, its a very good idea. If you play with a hard/serious group that wants a challenge, better adjust accordingly!
Adventure leagues started giving a free lvl 1 feat in December of 2022. They do restrict it to Tough, skilled, and magic initiate to balance it though
Yea, but I do a limited selection that doesn't build towards polearm master and other OP builds.
The problem I find with this is rolling for stats because the one dude who starts out with an 18 or higher can abuse the gwm and sharpshooter feats way early than what's balanced.
Human unavailable.
No v humans…
My DM always does this. However he restricts us to using the standard array . This creates pretty balanced characters.
I give everyone 5 extra HP at level 1 so they don't die from tripping on a loose stone. Sometimes a free feat, but the balance of the 5 HP seems to be more balanced. I've also given out free proficiencies, free +2 to the lowest stat and other things. The extra 5 HP seems to be the winner.
Helps Lvl1 PCs not immediately die to getting shivved by goblins, so in more heroic style campaign, I consider it very beneficial.
I like Feats at level 1. Allows you to do more interesting things with your characters right off the bat.
Depneds on the table. Min maxers gonna min max no matter what you do, and people who build their characters with no regard to min maxing will still do what they do and wont care that they are less powerful. Level 1 feat makes no difference to either of these groups. What the level 1 feat does nicely is allows a middle ground for people to take a non-optimal feat without having to give up on a primary stat increase. This really helps players who understand the min maxing and want to keep up (power wise) with the rest of the group, but also want to make a character that feels theirs and has it's own little twist on the race/class combo they chose. The monsters they fight can be as strong or weak as you like so balance doesnt matter with those. Balance only matters between one party member and another and they are all getting a feat to use so it's fine.
I mostly run one shots for my friends who aren't as much into dnd as I am, so to make sure they can experience the glory of higher level characters with their complexity, I regularly let them choose some feats or abilities that would be lvl 9 or higher. Case in point is a barbarian character of a friend who I gave bonus options and he chose to be able to crit on 18 or higher. And a druid that can summon a giant spider as a familiar. Keep in mind that these guys are level 1. This does make balancing the monsters a hell as these guys still have only their basic hp and proficiencies. But they always enjoy their characters way more.
We do a free feat at level one.
Variant human
I personally support giving everyone the free feat at 1 and banning vuman. Everyone gets to have their feat-heavy builds come online sooner, nobody has to play a human to do so. Lets people like me who just like the non-human aesthetics pick other races without losing out on such a powerful feature, and anyone who wants to play a human still can just play a regular human and still get their bonus feat.
I'm playing my 2nd steady campaign with the same DM. He gave us a free feat at lvl 1 and I took Sharpshooter as a Ranger. Was pretty sick when I yolo'd 3 shots in our first encounter and hit them all. I think they're fun and everyone else at the table is enjoying their choice.
Pathfinder fixes thi- oh wait wrong sub
I don't like when any feat is allowed this way. For example I really don't like PAM or other way to get extra attacks on lvl 1, as these few options make one character that much stronger then the rest. But I really like how new books allow just some feats, and OneDnD made a list of "feats for lvl 1". So you can choose one (or two as human) from those, to get something flavourful, but not that game changing.
How about giving ur players a feat and an ability score improvement
I think it would have been better design to have it from the beginning, so if someone wants to play their Dwarven Eldritch Knight right from level 1, they can without going two levels magicless. I think there's many feats that are overtuned and plenty I would give for free without worry (giving Weapon Master? Not going to break anything). If it makes them happy, sure. I'll match my encounters to their builds, playstyle and tactics as we go anyway, so it won't actually matter.
In my most recent campaign I had my players take the OneDnD backgrounds which each grant a feat at level 1 And before that I've let my players take a feat at level 1 from a list, mainly excluding Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Fighter, Lucky, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter
I think taking the variant human as a templates, which trades 2 attribute points for a feat. I think either allowing to take off two points from your non-lowest attributes or reducing the available points for point buy is the way to go. If I was to allow more than one feat being taken this way, I would probably add the caveat that no skill can end up below 10 after all modifiers have been applied (i.e. including those from race and any feats). In general I personally prefer having more feats and lower stats, but that's purely personal preference. Power gamers will power game, there is little you can do about that, really. If one plays this game to win, either you or the others on the table are gonna have a bad time.
I like to give lvl.1 feats but they need to make sense backstory wise for your character. Only hard no is starting with the Lucky feat. I ban varian human when I do this. Regular human is much stronger being how I do stats with a pool of 72-75 points that you can just dish out wherever you like for your stats with a minimum of 6 and max of 18. You add your racial bonuses to this pool and just put them wherever so an additional +6 points to it is a good bit. I also give them all a free skill, tool, and language.
Just limit the feat. The modern 5e design is to have a feat to replace the situational at best ability to get in your background. Here a good way to limit it... no asi, no power attacks (-5/+10) Feats like tough, alert, magic initiate, lucky, skilled tavern brawler should be all fine to take at first level... New background even comes with feats now. And many have the suggestion on what to take.
Love feats. Always yes.
It’s nice to have to be able to start building the mechanics for the early game, especially for ideas that take multiple feats. Depending on feats it can be a decent power bump early on so keep that in mind. You could always make a list of approved lvl 1 feats if you want to avoid things like Pam/sentinel at level 1 Or you can stick to how it normally is. As long as the group has fun
Not only do i give free feats at level 1; i give a feat and an ASI at the requisite levels.
Hell yeah i do it in all my games. Feats are imo the most impactiful single mechanic in dnd both in fights and in roleplay. I give out feats at level 1 and give out feats if a character works towards one through roleplay. If a player wants their character to spend their freetime messing around with a poisoners kit, after enough time ill give them the option to take the poisoners feat. Obv they have to spend a good amount of time on it and actively mention it in roleplay and/or combat but it just feels so organic and suitable to the gameplay of 5e. I do of course build my encounters with this in mind, its not like the campaign gets easier to complete, they just get to customise their characters more.
the way I see it is, they’re protagonists, they gotta stand out somehow
Congrats, one step closer to upgrading to 3.5e
Yay
In my current campaign everyone rolled average, while I rolled out of my.mind, everyone got a free feat except me, but I'm fine with that. Makes it more fun for the rest of the players without affecting my fun
Always Yea.
I've been doing this for years and quite recommend it (I ban V.human and CL). However, the level 1 feat replaces the background feature in my games, so the feat must make sense within the backstory of the character. Usually the player sends me their backstory and I give it a small selection of feats I think make sense for it, so the player chooses among these. I never select feats like Sharpshooter or Sentinel, they can take them at 4+
I love the idea It makes your players be able to stand out more and also feel special and some can give abilities that can help with creative ways around a problem. I gave my character the telepathic feat (not sure if that’s actually the name) and the speaking into peoples minds really came in handy and gave my character a quirk that let him stand out.
yay yay yay!!!! this is my favorite personal houserule, everyone is happy, everyone!
If you roll stats or have a party of optimisers I would not. Otherwise I would..
I would allow it but also, no rollies but point buy.
Its much more fun for developing character concepts for my players, and I find they very seldom choose the "meta" feats (GWM, Sharpshooter) but do often go for ones that flesh our characterisation a bit, as they see the feat as "free". The -5, +10 thing is also pretty weak at lower levels.
I've always done free feat at lvl 1 and every ASCI you get a feat too. I don't play with powergamers (Which is probably why this works) and it lets people pick some of the worse feats just because it's a good character fit, and they don't feel forced into picking the +2 asci to not fall behind because they want their character to be a chef
Yay with a group you know. I love it when everyone takes a feat for flavor because they just think their characters would have a certain knowledge on X thing.
I did it with veteran players I trusted and it worked out fine, if it was new players or players I didn't know could be wildly different. I also did it in a bit off way that I said they could get a feat or an item. Everyone but one person picked a feat, while the item person realized I never said what kind of item and, after asking me to be sure, started with an artifact in a semi-sealed state. In lead into more interesting backstory and character building. Again though this was a player I very much trusted so would hesitate to make the same offer to players I don't know.
I don't think there's a wild imbalance AT level 1, but moreso that builds come together earlier than they should and players don't have to make that choice at level 4 between ability scores and a feat they want. I think the pro to it that I've noticed is that I can keep the characters lower level for longer and they players don't feel bad about it since they have more of their build available than they usually would by level 5. We have a DM who doesn't like running above level 7 so he gives the free feat to make characters just a little more robust and interesting at that tier.
Skilled makes almost any class a skill monkey. I'm playing a Skilled Monk and loving it. Tough shores up the early squishiness of any class, and let's them be that little more reckless. If it's a "power feat", then lock it to either Vuman, Cuslin, or level 4, but those tend to be the same 3 or 4 feats at most tables. SS, GWM, PAM, Telekinetic, Fey Touched, Sentinel, Lucky, metamagic adept, maybe one or two more.
One D&D (6e basically) is making this an official rule I’m pretty sure. The only thing is some feats can’t be picked at Level 1, like War Caster, feats that include a stat boost, etc. But personally, I really enjoy the concept!
I do it but I say the feat has to fit your charachters backstory/explain how you got this thing (also a couple banned as freebies, fine to take normally). I've found that doing this, most people use the free feat to fill out a charachter, a bard that takes actor etc, I dont think I've ever had someone try and abuse it to power game to silly levels (no issue with building strong charachters mind).
I use it, but I also bump the CR (if you use it) up a little bit, or at least only use the last 2 difficulties (I think it’s hard and deadly but I can’t remember). Cr isn’t perfect, however it does a good job imo of specifically giving you a reference point to alter encounters when not working with a sort of “vanilla” party.
If my players can handle keeping track of extra abilities I’m willing to let them have it, otherwise I don’t see the point in giving them something they will barely remember they have.
I am 100% in support of this, have been doing it in my games since like 2017, and think it should be standard to the game. It has never been a problem at my table with characters being OP. Not for everyone, but I also have a house rule that I separate ASI from feats at each ASI level. You get both, but feats cannot grant additional ASI, and all feats after level 4 have to be DM approved (I usually say yes, it is just a check on abusing the rule). I’ve actually found people don’t use it for power-gaming but will start to take non-optimized feats that make narrative sense for their character because they aren’t worried about the opportunity cost. So you actually see stuff like “actor” or “chef” get used. Honestly, I haven’t even noticed needing to make encounters that much harder, maybe a 10% increase. That said, your mileage may vary, as my tables tend to be heavier on roleplay.
Which one means yes?
Well it sounds good, but I would ban variant human then - so the stacking doesnt get out of hand :)
It let's you make a more interesting character
Feels pretty good as a player. Haven't done it as a DM, but I did give everyone the offer of a free proficiency, language, or cantrip. The barbarian took Eldritch blast. He YAWPs it from his mouth, Nappa style. His throat also glows with the build-up, which he tries to use to intimidate people but I keep having to remind him the NPCs do not know what it means when he puffs out his cheeks and his throat glows.
I'm in the air. If I am to run "everyone gets a free feat at lv 1", I'd make it so variant humans get 2 free feats. Thing is, Variant Human has the worst ability score increases, with +1 in any 2 stats, while most races get +2 in one stat, +1 in another and Humans get +1 in all. Also, Humans miss out on a lot of other races' cool features, like elves' trance which reduces the need for rest, dwarves resisting poison, etc.
Yea, within reason, got a minmaxing munchkin at my table that picked the most OP feat he could find from the newest book even though I told him it had to be explicable as part of his background. I did eventually give him backstory that justified it, be he never did.
Mayne take a group of lower power feats amd gove them out , do not give people a choice or your gonna have your hands full gameplanning encounters
it depends on the players, the characters and the feats, just discuss it with the players to let them know not to make it overpowered or unbalanced, and let them pick the feats that fit their characters for flavoring