Start With Feat

[mr_odd]

Hey guys, just looking for the playground opinion on a house rule:

I am thinking on letting everyone start with a feat. I understand that feats in 5e are, well, actually good. Do you think this will over power PCs?

[Townopolis]

No more than a good magic item for each of them would. If you're really worried about it, and happen to be using point-buy, you could reduce their starting points to ~23 and give them an option of starting with a bonus feat or bonus stat boost, just in case someone's overly worried about starting out with a high primary stat.

[Greylind]

Hey guys, just looking for the playground opinion on a house rule:

I am thinking on letting everyone start with a feat. I understand that feats in 5e are, well, actually good. Do you think this will over power PCs?

I went ahead and did this, and it's working fairly well. It opens up some possibilities for characters without giving them too much.

[Draken]

I think when I do get a 5th ed campaign rolling, I will most certainly give a bonus feat to players with no strings attached. That will quite simply not detract from the simple truth that the game somehow expects you to fight eight brown bears a day at level 1 and that can go wrong really easily.

[Tasvel]

I actually did this with my group, but with some alterations. Human Variant does not exist, and everyone gets a feat at level 2. My group is made up almost exactly of one-half experienced players who unconsciously min/max at least a bit and one-half players who have no idea what they are doing. This lowers the number of critical-ish choices that a player must make at level one (I love how hard it is to screw yourself over when making a character in 5e), prevents optimizers from going for human variant every time, and allows for that flavor in specialization and gameplay that I love seeing so much.

[Inevitability]

Sounds balanced, as long as people don't start throwing Variant Human on top of that. Sentinel+Polearm Master is nice and all, but not at first level.

[Rhaegar14]

I say go for it. It opens up a lot of build options (for example, nonhuman tanks) that it would otherwise take a long time to get to.

I MIGHT keep an eye out for a player finagling a +1 ability bonus from a feat to a starting 18, though, since that's not RAI and level 1 is one of the few places that that +1 is really going to make a difference.

[Shadow]

This is copy/pasted from part of the houserules and character creation that our group uses:


Standard 27 point buy as shown in the PHB, with one stipulation noted below.

Ability score increases gained at class levels have been separated into major feats and minor feats to attempt to rectify the mutually exclusive nature of feats and ASIs, especially where the weaker feats are concerned. With the exception of the feats which grant armor proficiency, any feat which inherently offers a +1 to a stat has had that benefit removed (and is now a minor feat, so if you choose it instead of an ASI you get a +1 to any stat of your choice instead of the one listed in the feat's description). This was done to make some of the less desirable feats somewhat more desirable.

Each character starts with one ASI at creation, but [option one] below is not availabe for this ASI, and no stat can be raised above 17 at creation after racial boost and initial ASI/feat. --The max of 17 conforms to the normal point buy rules via standard 15pt max buy and +2 racial, so this extra ASI is for a feat, a more balanced character, or a little of both, without changing that max.

--- Ability Score Increase options ---
option one: +2 to one stat (not available at creation)
option two: +1 to two stats
option three: +1 to one stat and gain one minor feat
option four: gain one major feat

--- Minor Feats (18) ---
Actor (+Cha removed)
Athlete (+Str/Dex removed)
Charger
Dungeon Delver
Durable (+Con removed)
Grappler
Healer
Inspiring Leader
Keen Mind (+Int removed)
Linguist (+Int removed)
Magic Initiate
Medium Armor Master
Observant (+Int/Wis removed)
Ritual Caster
Skilled
Spell Sniper
Tavern Brawler (+Str/Con removed)
Weapon Master (+Str/Con removed)


--- Major Feats (22) ---
Alert
Crossbow Expert
Defensive Duelist
Dual Wielder (+mod, light only)
(our group just houseruled, last night, that the +mod benefit to TWF style and the non-light ability of DW feat were swapped)
Elemental Adept
Great Weapon Master
Heavily Armored (+Str remains)
Heavy Armor Master
Lightly Armored (+Str/Dex remains)
Lucky
Mage Slayer
Martial Adept
Mobile
Moderately Armored (+Str/Dex remains)
Mounted Combat
Polearm Master
Resilient
Savage Attacker
Sentinel
Sharpshooter
Shield Master
Skulker
Tough
Warcaster


The human (base) race has been altered to not suck so much compared to other races.

--- Human (base) – (gains and alters proficiency choices and alters ability bonus')
Gain proficiency in any one skill, tool, or saving throw of your choice.
Gain +2 one ability of your choice, and +1 to three other abilities.

--- Human (variant) -- (remains unchanged)
Gain proficiency in any one skill of your choice.
Gain +1 to two abilities of your choice.
Gain any feat of your choice listed above. (but not the +1 ability with a minor feat, this is not an ASI)

[mr_odd]

Thanks for the feedback guys! We won't be using the human variant, especially if I do give them these freebies.

[Logosloki]

I resolved this situation by just starting at the fourth level and allowing eveyone to choose a feat. The next campaign I DM though I might divide up the feats into combat-orientated and social-orientated and allow people to take one of each. I don't really see the issue of starting everyone with either a feat, or if you are feeling generous the choice of a feat or a magic item.


Thanks for the feedback guys! We won't be using the human variant, especially if I do give them these freebies.

I would still allow Human Variant to be honest, since the human base is a little on the poor side. Instead of a feat though an extra skill, language or tool proficiency might be appropriate of everyone is receiving a feat.

[Hytheter]

the game somehow expects you to fight eight brown bears a day at level 1

What are you talking about?

[MadBear]

What are you talking about?

He's referring to the fact that 1 brown bear is the equivalent of a medium encounter for 4 PC's at level 1. Characters are expected to be able to fight between 6-8 fights before a long rest.

Keep in mind that a single brown has an AC of 11, and will drop like a fly, but it does an average of 19 dmg if both attacks hit.

Seems fairly balanced to me, but I guess in some groups that might be too much to handle.

[Draken]

What are you talking about?


He's referring to the fact that 1 brown bear is the equivalent of a medium encounter for 4 PC's at level 1. Characters are expected to be able to fight between 6-8 fights before a long rest.

Keep in mind that a single brown has an AC of 11, and will drop like a fly, but it does an average of 19 dmg if both attacks hit.

Seems fairly balanced to me, but I guess in some groups that might be too much to handle.

That's what I mean, the Brown Bear is not exactly the beefiest thing around, but if you don't kill it before it acts, there is a very good chance that it will destroy someone.

[edge2054]

I predict your game will have very few, if any, humans. Giving everyone a free feat really tramples on the human niche. Giving everyone a free feat and barring variant human is doubly painful.

[MadBear]

That's what I mean, the Brown Bear is not exactly the beefiest thing around, but if you don't kill it before it acts, there is a very good chance that it will destroy someone.

granted, against a martial character, the worst that happens is that they start on the dying tract, and will probably be healed before death.

[Greylind]

Sounds balanced, as long as people don't start throwing Variant Human on top of that. Sentinel+Polearm Master is nice and all, but not at first level.

Only one player in my group opted for variant human, and he's playing a Wild Magic Sorcerer, Noble background, 8 Wisdom, and a desire to Kirk his way around the world. The fact that he has Magic Initiate and Spell Sniper isn't all that unbalancing after that.
Other characters include a dragonborn war cleric who took Observant, a high elf rogue (going arcane trickster) who took Magic Initiate, and a wood elf monk with Skilled so is basically the party ranger.

[odigity]

I would still allow Human Variant to be honest, since the human base is a little on the poor side. Instead of a feat though an extra skill, language or tool proficiency might be appropriate of everyone is receiving a feat.

A feat is worth far more than a proficiency. If you swap one for another, no player who is sensitive to optimization will take Variant Human in your game. If you're going to give everyone a free feat AND leave Variant Human as an option, then don't change Variant Human. Let them have their two feats.

[Ziegander]

granted, against a martial character, the worst that happens is that they start on the dying tract, and will probably be healed before death.

Okay? And then you have 1d3+4 other encounters to deal with that day, all before you ever level up. If one character can be expected to be dropped to 0 (or instantly killed) per encounter, and you have four party members, and you fight in 6 encounters per day, how many surviving PCs do you think you'll have by the end of the day? By the book, 1st level D&D seems insanely difficult to me, I agree with Draken.

[Fwiffo86]

Hey guys, just looking for the playground opinion on a house rule:

I am thinking on letting everyone start with a feat. I understand that feats in 5e are, well, actually good. Do you think this will over power PCs?

I am of the opinion that starting with a feat is vastly overpowered, as well as the variant human also being vastly overpowered. But that aside:

As long as your PCs are having fun, I see no reason not to do this. You may just have to add a bit to the encounters (equivalent to one additional PC during budget calculations) I would think.

[odigity]

Okay? And then you have 1d3+4 other encounters to deal with that day, all before you ever level up. If one character can be expected to be dropped to 0 (or instantly killed) per encounter, and you have four party members, and you fight in 6 encounters per day, how many surviving PCs do you think you'll have by the end of the day? By the book, 1st level D&D seems insanely difficult to me, I agree with Draken.

Can't we just accept the fact that perfect balance from the first minute through 20th level is absurdly hard to achieve, and that pushing hard on the edge cases and then pointing "see!? see!?" is not terribly interesting?

Don't give them 6 encounters/day at level 1, and don't make all of them brown bears. Mix it up. Most CR1s probably don't do 19dmg on a full attack, right?

[odigity]

I am of the opinion that starting with a feat is vastly overpowered, as well as the variant human also being vastly overpowered. But that aside:

As long as your PCs are having fun, I see no reason not to do this. You may just have to add a bit to the encounters (equivalent to one additional PC during budget calculations) I would think.

If I had to prioritize the aspects of balance, I'd say:

1) balance between classes, which is not affected greatly by giving everyone a free feat (might benefit some classes more than others if you dig into what new things are possible with an extra feat)
2) balance between characters and monsters of appropriate CR

I imagine the benefit of an extra feat at level 1 is great at level 1, but less noticeable at level 20. So, it seems like a reasonable change for a DM who is of the opinion that D&D 5e is currently too difficult for a level 1 party.

Personally, I'd rather play it straight and just have the party be careful, and a DM who wants the same thing we want (great adventures without killing off the chars right away despite careful play). But I can see why some would like the extra feat option.

[MaxWilson]

I think when I do get a 5th ed campaign rolling, I will most certainly give a bonus feat to players with no strings attached. That will quite simply not detract from the simple truth that the game somehow expects you to fight eight brown bears a day at level 1 and that can go wrong really easily.

Brown Bears are 200 XP, so for a group of four PCs (1200 XP per day) that would be six brown bears in a day, which incidentally is enough for them to go up to level 2.

With four PCs, you have pretty good odds of one of them getting initiative before the bear, and the bear doesn't even have Stealth so it's a good chance it isn't starting off in melee range. I would lay odds on an intelligent party killing all six grizzlies that day--and even if someone dies due to accumulated bad luck, it's not like they have a lot of time invested in the character. Easy enough to write it off and make a new one.

My viewpoint may be skewed a bit by allowing feats and variant humans, and the fact that 4d6 drop lowest seven times is my groups' stat-rolling method of choice.


Okay? And then you have 1d3+4 other encounters to deal with that day, all before you ever level up. If one character can be expected to be dropped to 0 (or instantly killed) per encounter, and you have four party members, and you fight in 6 encounters per day, how many surviving PCs do you think you'll have by the end of the day? By the book, 1st level D&D seems insanely difficult to me, I agree with Draken.

That's just it. I would expect to have a PC drop to zero HP in one or two of those fights, and then bounce back up due to Healing Word. I certainly don't expect to have someone drop in each fight.

[Ziegander]

Can't we just accept the fact that perfect balance from the first minute through 20th level is absurdly hard to achieve, and that pushing hard on the edge cases and then pointing "see!? see!?" is not terribly interesting?

Don't give them 6 encounters/day at level 1, and don't make all of them brown bears. Mix it up. Most CR1s probably don't do 19dmg on a full attack, right?

I've played the game, I'm not just pushing at edge cases and eyeballing numbers. 4 goblins can TPK a party of 5 PCs. A Bugbear can ambush for 17 damage in one hit. Two Vine Blights can destroy a party of 4 1st level PCs with entangle and constrict. A pair of gnolls isn't quite so dangerous, but are still pretty badass. These are all encounters that have occurred in-game, and, yes, I'm still learning how to tweak encounters and judge their balance on my own apart from using the CR system, but I'm not arguing that if I throw the encounter guidelines out the window I can't achieve balance. I said if you play by the book, then 1st level 5e (I said D&D, I meant 5e) is very deadly and swingy.

[MadBear]

Okay? And then you have 1d3+4 other encounters to deal with that day, all before you ever level up. If one character can be expected to be dropped to 0 (or instantly killed) per encounter, and you have four party members, and you fight in 6 encounters per day, how many surviving PCs do you think you'll have by the end of the day? By the book, 1st level D&D seems insanely difficult to me, I agree with Draken.

..... you don't get to start with the assumption that both will hit.

the brown bear has a passive perception of 13, and no proficiency in sneaking around. So the likelyhood of it getting a surprise attack is very low. It has a +0 to it's initiative so the likelyhood of it going first is also low.

With a +5 to hit, it'll hit a fighter in chainmail and shield 50% of the time, so on average only 1 of it's attacks will hit the frontliner. On a non-melee combatant, it'll hit closer to 70% of the time (so only around a 50% chance of both attacks hitting).

With an AC of 11, a profient attack can expect to hit it 75% of the time.

After the battle, you can expect that a fighter could always use his second wind, or a cleric a heal spell to patch up the wounds, or a paladin his lay on hands.

On average, I think it's reasonable to see the bear deal 0 damage before he gets dropped, unless he surprises them (in which case it's a harder encounter, and should be judged as such). In the instances where the characters don't drop the bear before it enters melee, expect it to do some damage.

Now if you start the battle with the bear already in melee range, of course you're favoring the bears abilities, but then why didn't the group have a chance to spot it ahead of time.

[mr_odd]

A feat is worth far more than a proficiency. If you swap one for another, no player who is sensitive to optimization will take Variant Human in your game. If you're going to give everyone a free feat AND leave Variant Human as an option, then don't change Variant Human. Let them have their two feats.

I wouldn't say that anyone in the party is interested in optimizing. Everyone picks their race/class almost purely on character concept. Those who wan to be human will be human, regardless of the bonuses. In fact, getting a +1 to everything might be somewhat enticing to them.


I am of the opinion that starting with a feat is vastly overpowered, as well as the variant human also being vastly overpowered. But that aside:

As long as your PCs are having fun, I see no reason not to do this. You may just have to add a bit to the encounters (equivalent to one additional PC during budget calculations) I would think.

Yeah, at this point in my budding DM experience, I'm not overly worried about overpowering the party as a whole, considering I can throw them against whatever opposition I deem fit.


If I had to prioritize the aspects of balance, I'd say:

1) balance between classes, which is not affected greatly by giving everyone a free feat (might benefit some classes more than others if you dig into what new things are possible with an extra feat)
2) balance between characters and monsters of appropriate CR

I imagine the benefit of an extra feat at level 1 is great at level 1, but less noticeable at level 20. So, it seems like a reasonable change for a DM who is of the opinion that D&D 5e is currently too difficult for a level 1 party.

Personally, I'd rather play it straight and just have the party be careful, and a DM who wants the same thing we want (great adventures without killing off the chars right away despite careful play). But I can see why some would like the extra feat option.

With our current campaign, I'm playing everything "by the books" more or less, so with 5e, I'm experimenting with some small houserule and homebrew changes right out of the gate. More so adding, than changing the rules per se.

[Draken]

The bears are illustrative of a point. That point is that 5th edition is dangerous and lethal, this does not really change over the levels except that it becomes less swingy as you depart the first few levels.

It is not an issue of "a bear will cause a TPK", it is a concern that "a bear can drop a character immediately and there is an expectation that you can fight as many as eight of them between long rests. These eight creatures don't have to be bears. They can be vastly more dangerous, four-striking flying quadrones, unhealable* life-sapping specters, murderous ambushing bugbears, or a hose of smaller enemies. Would you dare the technically appropriate encounter against twenty strangely vicious Owls, would you dare face them seven more times?
*As in, can't use heal spells to deal with it, only long rests.

The point isn't that it is not balanced (the last one is a jerk move, mind you), it is that the game's baseline is very dangerous, and giving PCs a few extra toys will not change that by a whole lot.

Well, Except for heavy armor mastery and the owl fight, the HAM is immune to owls.

[mr_odd]

The bears are illustrative of a point. That point is that 5th edition is dangerous and lethal, this does not really change over the levels except that it becomes less swingy as you depart the first few levels.

It is not an issue of "a bear will cause a TPK", it is a concern that "a bear can drop a character immediately and there is an expectation that you can fight as many as eight of them between long rests. These eight creatures don't have to be bears. They can be vastly more dangerous, four-striking flying quadrones, unhealable* life-sapping specters, murderous ambushing bugbears, or a hose of smaller enemies. Would you dare the technically appropriate encounter against twenty strangely vicious Owls, would you dare face them seven more times?
*As in, can't use heal spells to deal with it, only long rests.

The point isn't that it is not balanced (the last one is a jerk move, mind you), it is that the game's baseline is very dangerous, and giving PCs a few extra toys will not change that by a whole lot.

Well, Except for heavy armor mastery and the owl fight, the HAM is immune to owls.

I might love everything about this post.

[MaxWilson]

I've played the game, I'm not just pushing at edge cases and eyeballing numbers. 4 goblins can TPK a party of 5 PCs.

That's probably why they are rated as a Deadly encounter worth 400 XP. (50 XP per goblin, x2 for being a gang.) Same goes for the twenty owls, except those exceed even the Deadly limits unless you have 6 or more PCs. See the encounter building rules.


I said if you play by the book, then 1st level 5e (I said D&D, I meant 5e) is very deadly and swingy.

I agree. I also think that makes first level a lot of fun. I did a party meet a few weeks ago where three first level characters got the drop on three orcs (ludicrously difficult encounter, balanced by the fact that the party got to prep their own ambush). It was really scary and quite fun. Some people enjoy deadly and swingy, others don't. YMMV.

[Ziegander]

No, I also enjoy it. I'm just agreeing with Draken, that throwing a bonus feat at the 1st level players isn't going to unbalance their power level so much that they start to stomp every encounter.

[rlc]

...the HAM is immune to owls.

i'm just going to quote this out of context. nothing else to see in my post here.