Feats Should Come At Lower Levels

[Strill]

The more I look at feats, the more I'm convinced that they're being handed out too late in the game. For example, Wizards of the coast says that most games end around level 12. That means that players are only getting upwards of three feats, one of which comes at the very end of the game where it's of no use.

That means that for the vast majority of most games, you'll only have at most two feats, which are also competing against ability score upgrades. I don't think two feats is enough. I think that this, more than anything else, is why Variant Human is so popular. It's not that the perks it offers are necessarily overpowered. It's that Variant Human lets you achieve the character customization you want, early enough along in the game for it to matter.

For example, Ritual Caster is great early-game, but useless late-game because you don't have enough time to collect all the spells at that point. Magic Initiate similarly isn't likely to make much of a difference late into the game when your party has 9th-level spells.

I think that 5 feats from levels 1 - 20 is just right, but I also think that feats would be more interesting if they were pushed towards earlier levels. Instead of every 4 levels, make them come faster earlier on, and slower later on.

[Flashy]

Most tables I've played at ban variant human and grant each character a starting feat. It seems to work pretty well.

[DanyBallon]

Feats are not that popular at my table, we only got two variant human out of about a dozen character created. And when we first reached 4th level, half of the players choosed ASI over feat.

[EvilAnagram]

No, they shouldn't.

Feats aren't necessary, ad they can be very unbalancing.

[SharkForce]

Most tables I've played at ban variant human and grant each character a starting feat. It seems to work pretty well.

the problem there is that ordinary humans suck pretty massively.

[Mato]

The more I look at feats, the more I'm convinced that they're being handed out too late in the game.No one is telling you +2 str is better than heavy weapon master or that you can't play human. You just by default assumed your ability score was more important than taking a feat earlier in the game.

...Even through belts of giant's strength completely replace the need to ever increase your starting strength score. Magic items are not mechanically rare by intent, Horde of the Dragon is intended to work with a starting group of level 1 PCs and hands out two legendary items, including the extremely powerful Hazirawn (+2 sentient greatsword with +2d6 damage and a couple spells). Rise of Tiamat picks off immediately after the last adventure and continues to level 14, notably an ettin is improperly wearing a 21 str belt. So I guess what I'm saying is, try running some official adventures instead of misappropriated homebrew campaigns and see if that fixes your problem even as you take your scores to cap or beyond.

[Strill]

No one is telling you +2 str is better than heavy weapon master or that you can't play human. You just by default assumed your ability score was more important than taking a feat earlier in the game.What are you talking about? I have no idea what prompted this statement. For your information, I choose Variant Human every time.


...Even through belts of giant's strength completely replace the need to ever increase your starting strength score.Both me and my DM consider those ridiculous and terribly designed. A complete abandonment of the Bounded Accuracy system.


Magic items are not mechanically rare by intent, Horde of the Dragon is intended to work with a starting group of level 1 PCs and hands out two legendary items, including the extremely powerful Hazirawn (+2 sentient greatsword with +2d6 damage and a couple spells). Rise of Tiamat picks off immediately after the last adventure and continues to level 14, notably an ettin is improperly wearing a 21 str belt. So I guess what I'm saying is, try running some official adventures instead of misappropriated homebrew campaigns and see if that fixes your problem even as you take your scores to cap or beyond.

Where was I complaining about needing to max out ability scores? I said that feats compete against ASIs. I otherwise didn't mention ASIs at all.

[Arial Black]

If I was designing the game I'd've given each PC a feat at level 1, and the only type of human would be what the PHB calls 'variant', and that would start with an extra feat.

I imagine that they were going to do that, but when they decided to make feats optional, they couldn't give them out at 1st level anymore.

[E’Tallitnics]

…Instead of every 4 levels, make them come faster earlier on, and slower later on.

Well then, why not simply adjust the game to your tables liking? The "rules" are actually just "guidelines" and if your table doesn't agree you're free to adjust as needed.

[charcoalninja]

Just as with any edition, most tables like to play things by the book. At least where character creation is concerned.

[Forum Explorer]

Well this would make the PCs a lot stronger, and make later levels more boring as you stop receiving as many things.

Honestly I don't see the need to give the PCs feats earlier. If I really feel the need to give them a power boost then I'll look into giving them a strong magic item.

[Raphite1]

They feel about right to me.

I'd like more combat-relevant character customization in the game, but that'll come with time as new material is released.

[Demonic Spoon]

Both me and my DM consider those ridiculous and terribly designed. A complete abandonment of the Bounded Accuracy system.


You can hate them all you like, but a magic item that explicitly sets your strength to a particular value below the normal cap and prevents you from ever increasing it beyond that value is pretty damn near the definition of bounded accuracy.

[Strill]

You can hate them all you like, but a magic item that explicitly sets your strength to a particular value below the normal cap and prevents you from ever increasing it beyond that value is pretty damn near the definition of bounded accuracy.

That's not what Belts of Giant's Strength do. They set your Strength from anywhere between 21 and 29.

[djreynolds]

I have yet to play with feats yet, it sad and pathetic but our DM says no, and I require everyone's pity!!!!

Feats are awesome, or imagine they are because I have yet to use them, and in many regards trump stats. Take them earlier. I'd rather have shield master at 4, than say an 18 or 19 strength and I'd rather have sharpshooter or great weapon master at 8 than maxed out attack stat. Sentinel, which I didn't even understand fully and looked like a fool on that recent thread because the experts hand breast feed it to me, should be taken as early as possible because it awesome.

Even if you roll with SBPI, I would take feats first. I live vicariously through you ladies and gents that actually get to use feats, especially the fighters who end up with like all 20's and no feats and wizards and war caster and/or resilient.

I mean I would like to know what it feels like to land a critical hit, arrow in the pie hole, with sharpshooter. Does it ever happen, does a tree that falls in the woods make a sound, alas.... I will never know.

[Demonic Spoon]

That's not what Belts of Giant's Strength do. They set your Strength from anywhere between 21 and 29.

Right - I was confusing those with the other magic items that set the relevant attribute to 19.

[Coidzor]

That's not what Belts of Giant's Strength do. They set your Strength from anywhere between 21 and 29.

Well, the weakest one does break the cap, but not in any way that affects mechanics beyond carrying capacity, at least.

[D.U.P.A.]

Just start the campaign at higher level then. Not every campaign must start at level 1, but those which do, are usually more about survival where players must cope with limited options.

[coredump]

Feats are supposed to be character defining... not just one in a list of abilities. They are powerful.

Making them rare makes a lot more sense. No need to have them come faster; it should mean something to be high level.

[pibby]

Be a fighter.
Problem solved. :smallsmile:

[TrollCapAmerica]

At my table we just give you a feat at first level ala 3.5. Really all it ends up doing is letting you out your main stat quicker and/or get some npn-essential utility feats like Alert or Resilient before your hurling Meteor Swarms and Wishing Simulacrum armies

[Atalas]

I've toyed with feats in 5e a few times, and haven't been disappointed yet. We always roll our stats and I've managed to get 1 18 every time which goes into my main stat (so far, always charisma cause I've played Bards, a Warlock, and a Sorcerer). The feats are nice but it depends on just what you want your character to do. I actually have a decision in one as to whether I want to take an ASI to boost my Bard's Wis up to 14 so he can multi-class into Cleric at level 9, or take a feat to boost it to 13 and get some other nice abilities and still multi-class. Or whether I want to multi-class at all and just boost Dex to 18 so I can do a tad more in a fight if needed and have better AC.

It's as it's been said, its all about what you want to do and whether you deem what feats offer is more important than boosting an ability score. Also, if your party has enough spellcasters and you have the disposal income and the downtime, you can make the stat-boosting items. Belt of Hill Giant Strength is only a Rare item and takes 200 days for a single person to make. Or 100 if the rest of the party is willing to do work to support you so you don't have to earn a living for yourself. Or 100 if you have one other spellcaster to help, which turns into 50 if the rest of the party is willing to support you both. And that's not assuming you don't just have the disposable income to live off of the loot you got adventuring so none of you have to work.

[Arial Black]

One advantage of a feat at 1st level is that you are not having to choose between that and +2 to your main stat.

That means that you can have a cool, defining feat at level 1 instead of level 12(!), whan the game's nearly over. If you ever get to 12.

[DanyBallon]

One advantage of a feat at 1st level is that you are not having to choose between that and +2 to your main stat.

That means that you can have a cool, defining feat at level 1 instead of level 12(!), whan the game's nearly over. If you ever get to 12.

Getting a +2 in you main attribute is not that important. In 5e you can be pretty efficient with a 16. This let you either choose an interesting feat or boosting some other attribute. This ain't 3.P anymore, getting every +s are not a requirement to be good.

[Cybren]

Getting a +2 in you main attribute is not that important. In 5e you can be pretty efficient with a 16. This let you either choose an interesting feat or boosting some other attribute. This ain't 3.P anymore, getting every +s are not a requirement to be good.

That depends on class, though. A bard, for example, really wants more charisma: it gets themanother use of inspiration per rest, a bonus to your spell casting attack rolls and saving throws, and a boost to all your social skills.

[Atalas]

That depends on class, though. A bard, for example, really wants more charisma: it gets them another use of inspiration per rest, a bonus to your spell casting attack rolls and saving throws, and a boost to all your social skills.

It does depend on class. All the more 'prepared' casters get more spells to pick from each day depending on their casting modifier, and as you said Bard's get more Inspirations if they have higher charisma. But this is expanding the use of a very finite resource. And pretty much no matter how high a bonus you have, it still doesn't matter if your rolls are bad. Same as it doesn't matter how low your stats are if you roll well.

[Strill]

It does depend on class. All the more 'prepared' casters get more spells to pick from each day depending on their casting modifier, and as you said Bard's get more Inspirations if they have higher charisma. But this is expanding the use of a very finite resource. And pretty much no matter how high a bonus you have, it still doesn't matter if your rolls are bad. Same as it doesn't matter how low your stats are if you roll well.

That's not true. Stats CAN overcome bad rolls. With Resilient(CON), you can reach +9 to your con saves, such that you automatically pass all concentration checks, if the damage is 20 or less. Or similarly you have stuff like Pass Without Trace or Arcane Lock that add +10 to difficulty checks. That means you absolutely must have a very high bonus in order to even have a chance of passing these checks.

[Coidzor]

Feats are supposed to be character defining... not just one in a list of abilities. They are powerful.

Making them rare makes a lot more sense. No need to have them come faster; it should mean something to be high level.

It should mean something to be high level regardless of feats. That's what class features are for.

[Anonymouswizard]

the problem there is that ordinary humans suck pretty massively.

I think this is mainly so that you can play an 'all humans' game without having to use feats, I highly suspect that Variant Human is the intended version.

I also agree that your first Ability Score Increase/Feat coming at 4th level is a tad late, but not so late as to be worth making a fuss about. In levels 1-3 you're supposed to be getting used to your class and advancing to the 'competent' stage. When I do manage to run a game though I intend to give out a free +2 to an Ability Score or Feat depending on what the player wants and the character concept. I like feats, but looking through them there's really only a couple I'd take for any character, so having to wait until 4th and 8th level isn't that big of a deal for me. These feats seem to be approximately 3 3.5 feats anyway, so if you spend all your ASI on feats then you would have spent about 15 3.5 feats on the same capabilities, if they even exist. The powerful character defining Feats+Feats being optional is the only reason I decided to even pick up the Player's Handbook anyway.

[rollingForInit]

I think one reason that feats start being available at level 4 is that the first three levels are sort of ... learning levels. First level is very basic, by the second you get a bunch of new class features, and by the third every class has come online completely. Introducing the optional feats earlier would mean more info at the same time for new players.

Which is also why I prefer to start playing at least on level 4. Preferably higher. If you think that the first levels are boring because there are no feats, start your campaigns at higher levels. There's nothing that says you gotta start at level 1.

[Anonymouswizard]

I think one reason that feats start being available at level 4 is that the first three levels are sort of ... learning levels. First level is very basic, by the second you get a bunch of new class features, and by the third every class has come online completely. Introducing the optional feats earlier would mean more info at the same time for new players.

Which is also why I prefer to start playing at least on level 4. Preferably higher. If you think that the first levels are boring because there are no feats, start your campaigns at higher levels. There's nothing that says you gotta start at level 1.

To expand on this, nothing says you can't break from the other character creation rules/suggestions as well. Do you want your players to begin with a Feat at level 1? Go ahead. Have an array of 18, 16, 15, 13, 12, 10? If the DM agrees you can use it. Multiclass without the required stats? It's only a problem if your GM doesn't let you.

Most of the rules that define a character are guidelines. They say:
-Characters start at 1st level, unless the DM says so.
-Characters only have one class, unless the DM says so.
-Characters do not have access to feats, unless the DM says so.

I see no reason why 'Characters gain their first feat at 4th level' should not be added to that list. Sure, you aren't officially playing D&D 5e, but I plan to start a bunch of 5e newbies off at 3rd level, so who cares? :smallwink:

[Broken Crown]

At my table we just give you a feat at first level ala 3.5....

Has anyone else tried this? How has it worked out?

It strikes me as a good way to help add variety to beginning characters, since most classes don't get their "archetypes" until 3rd level.

Skipping the lower levels is a viable alternative, but there's a different feel and style of play to the low levels. You shouldn't have to choose between that and more fully fleshed-out characters.

[Forrestfire]

My group has been doing that and hasn't looked back. It brings a lot more variety in concepts and mechanics, because so many feats are character-defining in D&D 5e.

Let's say someone wants to use a hand crossbow effectively. Or that someone wants to use a shield in a fight as an offensive weapon (which is a basic technique, one that was a major part of shield use for pretty much every society that used them). Or maybe they want to be a dabbler who has some minor magic. Or they want to be able to use a polearm and have it be different from just grabbing a sword. Or they want to be someone who can defend their allies. Oh! What if they want to be able to punch things effectively and don't want the fluff and mechanical baggage that comes with being a monk? Or to be able to be a gish?

If you don't grant a feat at level 1, you are saying "you can suck it up and not play your character until level 4, or you can be a human."

Some people may find that fun. I don't, and neither does my group. I greatly recommend houseruling in a level 1 feat because of this; I consider it a failing of the system that many basic character concepts in it are outright not possible at level 1. An adventurer should be competent, and the character you want to play shouldn't be locked away for three levels of play (or force the game to be started at higher levels, if the group prefers a lower level start). That's potentially months of waiting to actually play your character, depending on the pacing of your game and how the DM is implementing experience points.

[DanyBallon]

If you don't grant a feat at level 1, you are saying "you can suck it up and not play your character until level 4, or you can be a human."

Some people may find that fun. I don't, and neither does my group. I greatly recommend houseruling in a level 1 feat because of this; I consider it a failing of the system that many basic character concepts in it are outright not possible at level 1. An adventurer should be competent, and the character you want to play shouldn't be locked away for three levels of play (or force the game to be started at higher levels, if the group prefers a lower level start). That's potentially months of waiting to actually play your character, depending on the pacing of your game and how the DM is implementing experience points.

or it could be that level 1-3 you're an adventurer in training and you're concept is kicking in just the moment you become a real adventurer.

[Coidzor]

or it could be that level 1-3 you're an adventurer in training and you're concept is kicking in just the moment you become a real adventurer.

And some people don't like the idea that when starting play at level 1 they're doing NoBadWrongFun by not having them start out as complete scrubs.

[EvilAnagram]

And some people don't like the idea that when starting play at level 1 they're doing NoBadWrongFun by not having them start out as complete scrubs.

The game is designed for them to start out as scrubs. If they want to start out with significant power boosts (like feats), then combat will have to be adjusted. If they don't like play at first level, they shouldn't start out at first level. That's the easiest fix.

Not that giving feats out is a terrible house rule, it's just not one I'm fond of.

[DanyBallon]

And some people don't like the idea that when starting play at level 1 they're doing NoBadWrongFun by not having them start out as complete scrubs.

I wasn't saying that giving feat at 1st level is badwrongfun, I was replying to someone who was arguing that the game had a design flaw for not allowing feat at 1st level because without feat his character concept can't be fulfilled. What I was saying, is that before 4th level the game assume that characters are not yet full adventurer, hence it could explain the lack of feat before that.

[Strill]

The game is designed for them to start out as scrubs. If they want to start out with significant power boosts (like feats), then combat will have to be adjusted. If they don't like play at first level, they shouldn't start out at first level. That's the easiest fix.

Not that giving feats out is a terrible house rule, it's just not one I'm fond of.

Feats are no more powerful than magic weapons, and those are optional. As far as I see it, the game has plenty of room for power boosts over and above the recommended.

[DanyBallon]

Feats are no more powerful than magic weapons, and both are optional. As far as I see it, the game has plenty of room for power boosts over and above the recommended.

Fixed it for you :smalltongue:

[Vogonjeltz]

And some people don't like the idea that when starting play at level 1 they're doing NoBadWrongFun by not having them start out as complete scrubs.

Well, at level 1 they are "scrubs", whereas at level 4 they're veteran adventurers.

It's the difference between Aragorn and the Hobbits at the beginning of Lord of the Rings.

It's not bad wrong fun hyperbolic rhetoric...it's the game definition of what being level 1 means.

[DemonSlayer6]

One thing to note for feats is that they are typically equivalent to Ability Score increases.

Observant increases Passive Perception and Passive Investigation checks by a sold +5 *and* give a +1 ability score improvement to either Intelligence or Wisdom. This will be massively useful, especially if your Wisdom or Intelligence is an odd score and thus you get a net +6 to one of the passive skills, a +1 to the active skill, and +1 to each other check you make with that ability score.

Savage Attacker replaces a +2 Strength/Dexterity increase for rerolling damage die. For a 1d6 weapon, this pushes the average damage up from 3.5 to 4.3 per hit. Which is arguably weaker since you get +1 damage but not a +1 to hit. For a 2d6 weapon, however, this could balance out (and it has a higher chance to balance or even surpass expectations when we consider AC being bound so things naturally become easier to hit as you level up).

A similar thing is Great Weapon Master, where you can take -5 to hit to do +10 damage. If you get it at level 4 then you depend on the die roll. But at level 5 you now get "roll + 1" to hit (thus putting the chance to hit in your favor ever so slightly). Even when you get it, it should average out to at least a couple more points of damage on average. Which some people may feel is worthwhile to not hit as frequently.

------

In fact, it seems absurd to expect a character at Level 12 or Level 14 to have either more than +6 to their stats or more than three feats. The former is because a player with +6 spread among their ability scores should have at least one maxed and another close to being maxed. The latter is because while they may not have maxed ability scores they'll still be as powerful as those who do have maxed ability scores.


A Bard 12 that maxes Dex and takes Alert has an initiative of +5 (from dex) +5 (from feat) +2 (from Jack of All Trades) for a total Initiative Modifier of +12. Gonna go first most of the time, whether to cast a Faerie Fire or wade into combat.
A magic-user that uses concentration spells can go for max on their Primary stat and try for near-max on Constitution (maybe +3 or +4 on Constitution saving throws, including Concentration saves), or go for max on their primary ability and take Resilient (surefire +4 on Constitution saving throws, maybe even +5).
And the "maybe even +5" is because if the character begins with a 17 in their primary stat and a 14 in their Constitution (mods of +3 and +2, respectively), the first ability score will be to primary (so 19, thus +4 bonus) and the second could be primary to 20 and Con to 15 (so +5 and +2, respectively). Taking Resilient will raise Constitution to 16 (now a +3 bonus) and still you get the +4 proficiency bonus. You went from +2 on the saving throw to +7; a differential of not-insignificant +5.


And those are just two possibilities that show how Feats can equal or surpass ability score improvements in 5e. So a character should not be given too many of them at lower levels, and it makes sense for them to be taken in place of ability score improvements given how 5e works.

-----

Now, this isn't to dismiss house-rules and such where every character starts with a feat on top of their racial abilities. But if you do that, that should be the only time they get an extra feat (not including Fighters who get extra feats as a class ability, and variant humans who should still get something so they aren't complete trash) and the difficulty of the challenges must reflect the need of the characters to have that feat lest the adventures become too easy.

[Demonic Spoon]

Well, at level 1 they are "scrubs", whereas at level 4 they're veteran adventurers.

It's the difference between Aragorn and the Hobbits at the beginning of Lord of the Rings.

It's not bad wrong fun hyperbolic rhetoric...it's the game definition of what being level 1 means.

I tend to agree that simply starting at level 3-4 is a better solution than giving players free feats to make them not scrubs at level 1.

Okay, sure, they can do some cool tricks now at level 1 - but they still get dropped in one hit by anything that looks at them, and most of them don't even have their subclass yet.
They're for the most part still scrubs.

[Doug Lampert]

I think one reason that feats start being available at level 4 is that the first three levels are sort of ... learning levels. First level is very basic, by the second you get a bunch of new class features, and by the third every class has come online completely. Introducing the optional feats earlier would mean more info at the same time for new players.

Which is also why I prefer to start playing at least on level 4. Preferably higher. If you think that the first levels are boring because there are no feats, start your campaigns at higher levels. There's nothing that says you gotta start at level 1.

Yep, the game is DESIGNED on the basis that experienced players start at level 3 or 4. Want a starting feat. Start at level 4, done.

[Shining Wrath]

I am considering giving my players a free feat at next level up, and in the future giving them one at level 1 even if character creation is of a higher level.

Limiting the choices of feats to the non-combat feats, and also if a feat gives a +1 ASI you only gain the point if the ability score is one of your three lowest scores (no buffing your casting stat / prime melee stat).

So take Actor or Linguist, but not Great Weapon Master; and Resilient only in a quaternary or lower stat. It's a way to make characters different and more interesting without too much power boost.

[Aurthur]

I gave my players the option for a feat at character creation. If I were to do it again, I'd probably do the same thing but offer an ASI (+2) as an option as well. It does allow characters to start with a little more class definition than previous and also doesn't seem overpowered in the early game when heroes are pretty fragile already.

[Gracht Grabmaw]

I kind of appreciate it since the individual feats are much much more powerful than they've ever been. I'd rather have a limited number of a very cool thing than a whole bunch of worthless options I forget about anyway half the time.

[Arial Black]

It seems that most of the NPCs have at least two hit dice. The old idea that PCs are extraordinary-at level one-is no longer true in 5E.

I honestly believe that '3rd level is the new 1st level'. Compare a 3rd level 5E PC to a 1st level 4E PC. Similar amount of hit points, a bunch of starting class abilities, career-defining path...

I really think we are intended to start at 3rd, unless the players are new to the game.

PotA is intended to start at 3rd. Does anyone know the recommended starting level for OotA?

[DanyBallon]

It seems that most of the NPCs have at least two hit dice. The old idea that PCs are extraordinary-at level one-is no longer true in 5E.

I honestly believe that '3rd level is the new 1st level'. Compare a 3rd level 5E PC to a 1st level 4E PC. Similar amount of hit points, a bunch of starting class abilities, career-defining path...

I really think we are intended to start at 3rd, unless the players are new to the game.

PotA is intended to start at 3rd. Does anyone know the recommended starting level for OotA?

From what I read, it start at 1st level. But this doesn't mean that characters are full adventurer before level 3 or 4