Giving everyone a feat at 1st level

[grimgold]

With a new campaign coming up, I was thinking about feats and I was wondering should every character should just get a feat at 1st level. My two lines of thought on that are bounded accuracy makes every +1 too important to miss, and feats are most useful/flavorful at low levels (with a few notable exceptions).

We are using a simple array, so the PCs have a max starting modifier of +3. For most classes that means that the first two stat boost will go towards their primary stat to bring it to +5, the logic being that a feat is often useful, but a bump to your primary stat is always useful. Bounded accuracy makes this even more significant, because +1s to hit are so rare every one of them is very important. Before magic items, there is a max of +11, starting value of +5, so a total of +6 to be gained from levels 2-20. It's in your interest to front load this process as much as possible and with stat boost spent on the primary stat you will have increased by +3 by level 8. After that you're free to play around with bumping other stats, or getting feats, but by that point your best served by taking mechanical feats like lucky, tough, resilient, as opposed to more flavorful feats.

Which brings me to the second point, feats are more fun at low levels. By the time you are twelfth level, your class has already defined your character to a large extent, through the abilities given, and the type of spells cast. Feats at that point give the equivalent of a middling class ability, which can go unnoticed among your other abilities. At first or low level, a feat is noticeable and character defining, for instance light armor on a wizard is interesting at 1st level, at 12th level it's much less so. A 1st level fighter with the polearm feat is a polearm fighter, where as at 12th level he is a fighter who can do a trick with polearms.

So for feats to add to a campaign I feel like they should be taken early. The only way to get them early without gimping your to hit is with variant human, which is kind of boring, but powerful enough to rate well in optimization circles. So why not instead give everyone a feat at first, and ban variant human. I don't think it will mess with balance too much, and it can grant alot of fun and customization to starting characters.

[MaxWilson]

I don't understand why you think feats cannot be taken at low levels already. I typically take feats up front and bump stats only later (12th level or so), except when I'm playing a Paladin (max CHA ASAP for save bonus), precisely because being Mobile or a Sharpshooter is transformative whereas +2 Dex is merely an incremental boost. Run the math, or do a few test combats, using a Sharpshooter with Dex 16 compared to a regular archer with Dex 18, and you'll see. E.g. against an AC 13 orc at level 4, 8.98 average damage for Dex 16 Sharpshooter compared to 6.23 for the Dex 13 guy.

Mobile is even more transformative, and Skulker is awesome for Rogues in the Underdark (hide anywhere from anyone).

Moon Druids with Mobile or Sentinel (or both) are pretty boss too.

TL;DR I think you're mistaken to prioritize early ASIs so highly. Early feats are usually more important, especially in Combat As War scenarios. Spend your 4th level ASI on a feat.

P.S. "Bounded Accuracy" is actually built around a core philosophy of bounded difficulty, if you read the designer interview. One reason for this is so that you don't have to scrounge for every +1 in order to not fall behind the monsters. I've played mid-high level characters (11ish) with only 14 or 16 in an attack stat for various reasons, and done just fine. You just have to make sure you're gaining something that's worth more.

[WickerNipple]

Several games I've heard of give everyone a feat at lvl 1 and scrap variant human.

It will have no impact on your game so long as you design encounters with it in mind.

[Ruslan]

Several games I've heard of give everyone a feat at lvl 1 and scrap variant human.

It will have no impact on your game so long as you design encounters with it in mind.

This is how I handle it in my current game. Everyone gets a feat, and since 2 feats from the get-go would be too powerful, no VH. Worked well so far.

[Socratov]

As someone who has recently started in a campaign with a feat at 1st level, I say it is great since it (if everyone selects different feats) mechanically separates the characters as they can already do something another cannot, or do something a lot better someone else cannot.

As for power, some skills are maybe less of a challenge, but on the whole it won't break the game open...

[Spiritchaser]

As a minor concern, you may find that with an extra feat, there may be some builds that are relatively more impacted than others by 20.

At 20, one extra feat is perhaps less of an advantage for a fighter or rogue.
Perhaps it could be more of an advantage for a barbarian (pure theory craft here of course)

[Santra]

I would make a point to trade the Half-Elf skill versatility for one of the racial variants from SCAG. Otherwise the already powerful Half-elf becomes an almost singular choice for players.

[MaxWilson]

I would make a point to trade the Half-Elf skill versatility for one of the racial variants from SCAG. Otherwise the already powerful Half-elf becomes an almost singular choice for players.

Only for CHA-dependent classes.

[Doug Lampert]

Several games I've heard of give everyone a feat at lvl 1 and scrap variant human.

It will have no impact on your game so long as you design encounters with it in mind.

Or you could just start everyone at level 4.

You're probably not going to be playing all 20 levels anyway, if you think level 1 has too few options or too few powers or not enough "iconic" powers, then let people start at level 4 and they can start multiclassed, or they can start with a subclass and a feat.

Your assassin is then an assassin, not a rogue planning to someday multiclass; your eldritch knight is an eldritch knigh, not a fighter who plans to someday learn some spells; and your multiclass can have two of his classes at a noticeable level and be well on his way to making the build complete.

Oh, and everyone who wants one has one or two feats to boot.

Call it level 1 if you see some magic about "starting at level 1"; "in this game you get the effects of four levels for level 1, sort of like how in third edition they used to give 4 times the skill points and effectively 4 times the feats for level 1, only more so".

[CantigThimble]

I definitely like this idea. When I'm theorycrafting characters I often just end up in the races section thinking: 'Well, this looks cool and this might be interesting and that's a neat character concept... but more than any of that all I want a feat. Sigh, human it is. Again.' It's just so much fun to have mobile, mage slayer, magic initiate, ritual caster, inspiring leader... all of them! There are just so many defining characteristics of a character you can tailor however you like using a feat or two.

[Strill]

Several games I've heard of give everyone a feat at lvl 1 and scrap variant human.

It will have no impact on your game so long as you design encounters with it in mind.

Bear in mind that if you do that, no one's going to play a Human.

[MaxWilson]

I definitely like this idea. When I'm theorycrafting characters I often just end up in the races section thinking: 'Well, this looks cool and this might be interesting and that's a neat character concept... but more than any of that all I want a feat. Sigh, human it is. Again.' It's just so much fun to have mobile, mage slayer, magic initiate, ritual caster, inspiring leader... all of them! There are just so many defining characteristics of a character you can tailor however you like using a feat or two.

Don't think of it as "another boring human." Think of it as "a Machakan--they're savannah hunters and they're all tall, skinny, and Mobile," or "a Vizheri Mage-Slayer" or "a Paiute Sharpshooter, trained since birth in the ways of the bow." Feats are as flavorful as anything in a racial block, especially 1st level ones.

[CaptAl]

If the group is familiar with DnD and won't be overwhelmed with the option, I say go for it. I'd scrap V. Human and let it run.

Skipping straight to level 3 or 4 is a decent option too. Although, for those with less experience, doing so could be quite daunting.

Ultimately, do what you think is fun and lets the group have fun too. I don't think everyone having a feat at first level is over the top, especially since the odds of playing past 11-12th level aren't real likely.

[CantigThimble]

Don't think of it as "another boring human." Think of it as "a Machakan--they're savannah hunters and they're all tall, skinny, and Mobile," or "a Vizheri Mage-Slayer" or "a Paiute Sharpshooter, trained since birth in the ways of the bow." Feats are as flavorful as anything in a racial block, especially 1st level ones.

Sure, I'm not saying humans can't be interesting, I'm just a little annoyed that almost all my characters need to end up being one out of the thirteen options for race just because I need that feat.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, I'm not saying humans can't be interesting, I'm just a little annoyed that almost all my characters need to end up being one out of the thirteen options for race just because I need that feat.

That's valid.

Since there are 42 feats available (by my quick PHB count) I view it as your characters always being one of the 42 feat-equipped options out of 55 total options (or 65-ish if you count subraces). But YMMV.

I guess I'm biased because I find fantasy races boring anyway. Mobile Machakans interest me infinitely more than semi-Tolkienesque dwarves and halflings, and random dragonborns and tieflings. Maybe I'm just racist/speciesist/humanocentric though.

[Santra]

Only for CHA-dependent classes.

No. You get +1 to two stats of your choice making you just as viable at anything as a regular human but with +2 cha, two skills, fey ancestry, and an extra language. This makes them good for any class not just cha based ones. With them being the only way to get extra skills as a race now that v-human is gone they become far too good compared to the other races.

[Strill]

I would make a point to trade the Half-Elf skill versatility for one of the racial variants from SCAG. Otherwise the already powerful Half-elf becomes an almost singular choice for players.

But those racial variants are pointless nonsense. Why would I trade two of any skill for Perception alone?

[Santra]

But those racial variants are pointless nonsense. Why would I trade two of any skill for Perception alone?

Because it would be the DM requiring to balance out HE being a little OP compared to other races if they get a free feat.

[MaxWilson]

No. You get +1 to two stats of your choice making you just as viable at anything as a regular human but with +2 cha, two skills, fey ancestry, and an extra language. This makes them good for any class not just cha based ones. With them being the only way to get extra skills as a race now that v-human is gone they become far too good compared to the other races.

Look at the opportunity cost though. For a non-CHA dependent class all the stuff you list is kind of meh. Apparently you are attracted to skills, as a player, but that only makes half-elf the "singular choice" for you. Other people will be attracted to Mountain Dwarves for the Medium Armor proficiency, or Half-Orcs for survival traits and bigger crits, or High Elves for free Greenflame Blade, or whatever. It's quite possible to play a character who is skilled only in Stealth, Perception, Athletics, and Intimidation and is 100% okay with that, and doesn't even really care about the Intimidation proficiency.

[Flashy]

Bear in mind that if you do that, no one's going to play a Human.

I do the free feat no variant human thing and all of the three groups I've started using this system have still had at least one human. One was majority human. It probably helps that I use point buy rather than rolling, but it hasn't reduced the number of humans in my groups at all.

[Strill]

I do the free feat no variant human thing and all of the three groups I've started using this system have still had at least one human. One was majority human. It probably helps that I use point buy rather than rolling, but it hasn't reduced the number of humans in my groups at all.

Sounds like your groups don't have a good grasp of optimization.

[Theodoxus]

especially in Combat As War scenarios... What is Combat As War? I've never heard of any play style called that...

As to the OP, my current campaign, i granted 1st level feats - I even let Vumans get two. I even let the players roll stats. They ended up with an 18 and 2 17s. One player is playing a Viefling who flies... she decided she wanted a 20 Int and Cha, so she picked up Observant as her 1st level feat (she's gestalt Wizard/Warlock) - oh yeah, and they're all gestalt.

My point is, create the game you and your players want to play. Nothing can 'break' a game. It's all a matter of stacking offenses. Much like most video games have increasing difficulty - either the monsters are just harder (more HPs, better hit/damage) or the game artificially inflates their numbers (so taking a level 1 character vs a level 100 monster, every hit from the monster crits for maximum damage and nothing the character attacks with will hit...)

You can do the same thing. Your players find suits of mithril armor that's +3 and provides resistance to all attacks? Well, don't take all your monsters straight out of the MM. Most, sure - let the boys have their toys - but 1 in 100 (or whatever ratio you want) are just that much better. Vibranium claws and teeth, Unobtainium skeleton, radioactive blood... whatever. Their attacks bypass the protection or they do double damage (thus halved, and thus standard); give them an interesting flaw; kryptonite, tears from a virgin, blood from a stone - whatever...

Look, if you come to the community looking for consensus, it'll never happen; you'll get 1000 replies from 30 people. Some are RAW sticklers, others are rule's lite advocates, some (like me) just use the rules as the bedrock upon which to build towers of imagination... You've thought about it, you think it'll be fun - do it. If it flops, get up, dust off and tweak or cast off the idea. The worst that happens (from my experience) is you get some grumpy players because their 'perfect concept' was wasted on a dustbin of an idea - and some people don't like recycling character concepts.

Anyway, I don't think this idea is so radical it will ruin your game. But I'm not at your table - only you can prevent forest fires... er, only you know for sure.

[MaxWilson]

What is Combat As War? I've never heard of any play style called that...

It basically means that you play adventures as a connected whole instead of a series of discrete "fair fights". If it is fair game or even expected that the PCs will deal with an Umber Hulk by Polymorphing it into an earthworm instead of killing it, and will then throw that earthworm at the tribe of goblins before releasing concentration... if it is fair or expected to lead the enemy into traps that you previously bypassed... if illusions tend to work more often than not... if you try to hire defeated hobgoblins as your own personal mercenaries, and the DM never complains about how that "imbalances" the challenges he's created for you... you're probably playing in a Combat As War game.

In sports, curbstomps are no fun to watch, and the refs try to handicap so that the underdog has at least some chance. In war, on the other hand, "if you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough," and the object is to kill, not to roll lots of random numbers.

See this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles) for more details, especially posts #1 and #5:


For CAS, the game starts when you roll initiative. Each combat is self-contained, similar to a sports league. They get irritated if they have to bother with boring stuff like counting arrows. They get irritated if the Wizard scys the next enemy group and has the right spell prepared to end the combat in his first action.
For CAW, an entire module is a game. They get irritated if they don't get the chance to prepare fights. They hate if the resource management is handwaved. They consider it a good fight if they walk over the enemies in one big swoop.

[Tanarii]

IMO it's overpowered. Vumans are already overpowered. There's a reason they're by far the optimization favorite.


What is Combat As War? I've never heard of any play style called that...Hackmaster has the original post, plus some additional stuff:
http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-combat-as-sport-versus-combat-as-war.html

It's very insightful. Especially in explaining exactly why AD&D did so many things that people regularly ditched because they didn't understand why they were there and thought they were too limiting. Things like level limits, henchmen, wandering monsters, counting arrows & rations, strict timekeeping, They were for a purpose. They weren't necessarily the *best* way to accomplish the purpose, but there was one. For example, level limits were there so there was a reason to play humans. Vumans are another way to accomplish that same goal. Albeit one that doesn't address the long-lived elves not having level 20 NPCs all over the place.

But the real meat of the article is that there is no such thing as a "level appropriate challenge" by default. There may be "level appropriate zones" ... ie Dungeons. But even then players have to discover for themselves if a zone is appropriate to their level.

[CantigThimble]

IMO it's overpowered. Vumans are already overpowered. There's a reason they're by far the optimization favorite.

But like Syndrome says, if everyone is OP, no one is. (as long as the DM adjusts difficulty appropriately)

[Tanarii]

But like Syndrome says, if everyone is OP, no one is. (as long as the DM adjusts difficulty appropriately)As long as the accelerated level gain (from defeating higher XP challenges for a given level) is acceptable, that's a fair point.

[Grey Watcher]

You can also just divorce Feats and ASI's entirely: take a page from 3.5 and just get feats on one schedule (eg one feat every level that's a multiple of three), ASI's on another, unrelated schedule. Any feat that normally includes +1 to an ability score no longer does so, but only counts as half a feat (so you can take two of them).

As usual, you're going to have to tweak your encounters to account for somewhat more powerful, versatile PCs, but in games where I've played in such a system it didn't seem to be game breakingly OP.

EDIT: Fighters and other more-ASI's-than-normal classes would also need tweaking.

[CantigThimble]

As long as the accelerated level gain (from defeating higher XP challenges for a given level) is acceptable, that's a fair point.

Like I mentioned earlier, I really just like how this means I DON'T need to take VHuman for everything. I love feats in this edition, they aren't just the source of the additional X +1s you need to have at level Y to have a viable character. They're real ways to customize a character, giving personality and versatility without the loss of spellcasting or attack progression every class relies on.(multiclassing) Sure you can just use them to squeeze out a few more DPR but you can also use them to let your fighter revive the cleric with a healing kit or let the rogue cast animal messenger and those are things that DPR just can't do. I don't want to take away the ability to have a feat at 1st level, so to keep people from feeling obligated to play VHumans I'd much rather let elves and dwarves have it too.

[grimgold]

I would make a point to trade the Half-Elf skill versatility for one of the racial variants from SCAG. Otherwise the already powerful Half-elf becomes an almost singular choice for players.

I think half-elf is kind of it's own issue, and I don't think a change to everyone is going to make it worse of better. Still I'd probably clip one of the extra +1s and leave skill versatility, which would leave it in the same position for cha classes that gnomes are for int classes.

[Spiritchaser]

See this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles) for more details, especially posts #1 and #5:

I just have to say: thanks for linking that thread. The concepts have always been there for me in some way... but putting a name to them and a bit of discussion do wonders.

[manny2510]

As a DM I like V.human being OP because it makes more players play humans. If I can get more humans in a party than any other race it reflects my campaign populations well. Also players are allowed to be OP because I can make OP encounters.

[mephnick]

I allow a free feat at first level, but the players choose from a list of the more flavourful (weak) feats that I don't think anyone would take otherwise.

So they can't take Polearm Master, Sharpshooter etc, but they can take Keen Mind, Healer, Linguist etc.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

One thing I'm trying out with my next campaign is the following.

Remove all racial ASI and remove all ASI from leveling.

You gain a feat at first level, and then as your class dictates.

When you take a feat you can take two "half feats" or one "full feat". You don't gain a bonus to ASI from feats.

I'm making a list of half and full feats, mostly just the optimized feats versus the feats that people don't typically take because they aren't that awesome...

So how do you raise ASI?

Easily.

As a DM I will be keeping track of each character. The more they use ability checks the more marks they get on my little chart (that I still need to make). This is everything from Athletics in battle, using Arcana or Religion to determine a creature, or even Con checks to keep pushing on.

You don't get your ASI automatically, you have to roleplay and show your character growth. This will encourage ability check use. I will allow each skill to have bonus action checks and action checks.

To grapple you need an Action (Athletics) check. To extend a jump you would just need a bonus action to extent your jump. When using Insight to tell if someone is lying you can use your passive insight as a bonus action or roll as an action.

Also, everyone gets inspiration 1/day. Using your background and stuff helps with ASI growth instead of giving inspiration.

[Addaran]

I love the idea of a free feats. A lot of them are very fun, giving more options and/or different feels to your character.
And some classes are kinda obligated to take the ASI to stay good. Like fighters with the exception of GWM/sharpshooter builds. Casters have to boost the attack bonus/saves or take proficient in con saves (or warcaster).

Being able to get your "war mage" an armor at lvl 1, taking the magic initiate feat on a spell-less class or half-feats like actor when it fits the concept, that's awesome. =D

[Gastronomie]

I might be going offtopic (in case sorry), but I have an idea about giving 1 free Feat from the start to all PCs, then limiting the boosts at Level 4, 8...and so on to just "Ability Score Improvements".
Except, I will in advance ask the players about what sorts of Feats they want, and occasionally make NPCs appear in-game that will, once they get along nice with the PCs, "teach" the characters those particular "Feats". Or, some NPCs will also teach Feats that the PCs wouldn't want to learn in exchange for a good old Ability Score Improvement, but still find sorta handy and neat (because that's what many underpowered Feats are like).

For instance, a wandering Warlock NPC could teach Magic Initiate(@Eldritch Blast and Hex) to the party Sorcerer. The NPC Swashbuckler who had his lover killed by the primal antagonist Necromancer would teach the party Paladin the feat "Mage Slayer". The master fighter would train with the Barbarian he finds talented enough and give him the "Martial Adept"...and so on.
Then there are stuff like Tavern Brawler or Savage Attacker, which many people find interesting, but eventually never obtain. So maybe, the players would be regarded as heroes in a Barbaric tribe, and the leader of the tribe teaches the fighter "Savage Attacker"...or some stuff like that. Aforementioned revenging swashbuckler could also give someone "Keen Mind".

These "feats" wouldn't be given out all the time, by just completing a random short quest or request - the PCs will have to build good relationships with the corresponding NPCs. I think this is both more logical than simply saying "My character suddenly knows how to slay spellcasters since he's gained a level", and also encourages interaction with many NPCs - which I believe is a major part of any TRPG.

What'd guys reckon?

[Dimers]

I love the idea of a free feats. A lot of them are very fun, giving more options and/or different feels to your character.
And some classes are kinda obligated to take the ASI to stay good. Like fighters with the exception of GWM/sharpshooter builds. Casters have to boost the attack bonus/saves or take proficient in con saves (or warcaster).

Being able to get your "war mage" an armor at lvl 1, taking the magic initiate feat on a spell-less class or half-feats like actor when it fits the concept, that's awesome. =D

Yep. I like fun and flavorful character concepts that are more complex at level 1 than any single class's mechanics allow. A free feat at 1st helps a lot.


These "feats" wouldn't be given out all the time, by just completing a random short quest or request - the PCs will have to build good relationships with the corresponding NPCs. I think this is both more logical than simply saying "My character suddenly knows how to slay spellcasters since he's gained a level", and also encourages interaction with many NPCs - which I believe is a major part of any TRPG.

What'd guys reckon?

Sounds lovely (and not off-topic). That would make a good game. It combines characterization with mechanics -- that's the sweet spot for an activity which is both roleplaying and a game.

[bid]

Try to limit it to RP feats. Acting and reading lips is fun. Or at least impose it for vuman's second feat.

Or allow any half-feat without the matching stat increase.

[grimgold]

One thing has been troubling me in this, why on earth did they get rid of feats at first level anyway? Feats are meant to seem more character defining in 5th, which would make it all the more reason you would want to get them early. I feel like we are missing two thirds of the conversation, it has to be something to do with humans getting a feat, and a two feat start would be a bit over the top. So they make it so only humans get feats at first to preserve two and a half editions of tradition. Then decide that's too powerful, so they make the current humans race we see as it in the PHB, and in a final twist included their original idea of humans as variant humans.

Back on course, if humans are too gimpy without variant human being able to prop them up, what would you replace a feat with to bring them back into balance, maybe proficiency with a save of their choice, or make it a +2 and a + 1 instead of two +1s to stats of their choice.

[CodeRed]

Bear in mind that if you do that, no one's going to play a Human.

Nope. Totally untrue. Human is still absolutely worth taking and a lot of my players still do even with VHuman out of the mix. A total of +6 across all your stats lets you do some really good stuff with point buy (which is what my group uses).

I fully support the free feat at lvl 1, remove the variant human option. It works well in my group and I'm finding that when players have access to more feats, they pick the more interesting or flavorful ones instead of the pure power ones. When you only get a maximum of 5 feats for most classes, Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master, etc. always get picked over the more cool options. Letting people branch out a bit more at first level helps define characters more and makes them less carbon copy if two people happen to pick the same class. All in all, this houserule is one that works really well for my group and I'd urge people to try it out. (If you're worried about the power too much, then limit the free feat to non-combat feats.)

[MeeposFire]

One thing has been troubling me in this, why on earth did they get rid of feats at first level anyway? Feats are meant to seem more character defining in 5th, which would make it all the more reason you would want to get them early. I feel like we are missing two thirds of the conversation, it has to be something to do with humans getting a feat, and a two feat start would be a bit over the top. So they make it so only humans get feats at first to preserve two and a half editions of tradition. Then decide that's too powerful, so they make the current humans race we see as it in the PHB, and in a final twist included their original idea of humans as variant humans.

Back on course, if humans are too gimpy without variant human being able to prop them up, what would you replace a feat with to bring them back into balance, maybe proficiency with a save of their choice, or make it a +2 and a + 1 instead of two +1s to stats of their choice.

I think you have that backwards. I think they started off with the idea that feats would be optional so if you start with that then having a feat at 1st level probably does not make too much sense. Variant human is a variant because of the fact that feat rules are optional by design.

[Strill]

Nope. Totally untrue. Human is still absolutely worth taking and a lot of my players still do even with VHuman out of the mix. A total of +6 across all your stats lets you do some really good stuff with point buy (which is what my group uses).

Then you haven't looked at your options. Each character has no more than 3 ability scores that are relevant to their class. Other ability scores are only useful for skills and saves. Increasing Saves by one point is a very mediocre benefit, and for skills you're better off with Half-elf.

[Flashy]

To be honest a lot of players I've encountered just like being competent at a lot of different things. It's not playing universally to the strengths of a class, but human does seem to remain reasonably popular under this rule set.

[Strill]

To be honest a lot of players I've encountered just like being competent at a lot of different things. It's not playing universally to the strengths of a class, but human does seem to remain reasonably popular under this rule set.

Then you're better off as a Half-Elf for the extra skills.

[Flashy]

Then you're better off as a Half-Elf for the extra skills.

Sure? I'm not arguing human is more optimal than half elf, I'm arguing that it effectively fits the needs of a subsection of players and is still likely to see play under the no variant human free feat for everyone ruleset. Some people just like seeing a character sheet with a lot of 14s on it. In my experience at least one player per group, but your mileage may vary. Literally my only point is that as far as I can tell humans don't vanish from play, regardless of how mildly more optimal half elves are in any given situation.

[Strill]

Sure? I'm not arguing human is more optimal than half elf, I'm arguing that it effectively fits the needs of a subsection of players and is still likely to see play under the no variant human free feat for everyone ruleset. Some people just like seeing a character sheet with a lot of 14s on it. In my experience at least one player per group, but your mileage may vary. Literally my only point is that as far as I can tell humans don't vanish from play, regardless of how mildly more optimal half elves are in any given situation.

So your argument is, "My players are arbitrary and ignorant, so the race is ok". That doesn't sound like much of an argument to me.

[Theodoxus]

So your argument is, "My players are arbitrary and ignorant, so the race is ok". That doesn't sound like much of an argument to me.

And your argument is 'you're not squeezing out every possible point of optimization! You're playing it wrong!'

I mean, I'm a super duper huge fan of HElves. I find not only are the skill points freaking cream of the crop, but a total of +4 to attributes AND darkvision? Come on, it's the perfect race. That there are 1/4 classes that use Cha as their primary stat (paladins being a bit MAD in that regard, but still)... even if you're dumping Cha, with SPBI, you're always at a 10 - and you're still getting the +1 to 2 stats a human does. So, for the cost of a feat, you get +1 skill, darkvision and elven ancestry. That's like Skulker on steroids. Yeah, I'd buy a feat called 'My daddy was an elf', kthxbye!

HOWEVER. They're elves. And sometimes, you don't want to be the passionate Spock in the group. Pointy ears, an affinity for golden wine and lilting voices that emasculate you... just nah.

So yeah, maybe a tad bit less condescension on what others like to play. Keep with your bad (s)elf, and we'll rock the HElves together, but choose your battles :smallwink:

[djreynolds]

I like the idea of giving every caster, war caster so I do not have to hear anymore of V or S or M. I would consider giving a martial class a feat of similar strength that is useful, for me a would suggest durable or tough. It is difficult to measure the effect.

[PoeticDwarf]

With a new campaign coming up, I was thinking about feats and I was wondering should every character should just get a feat at 1st level. My two lines of thought on that are bounded accuracy makes every +1 too important to miss, and feats are most useful/flavorful at low levels (with a few notable exceptions).

We are using a simple array, so the PCs have a max starting modifier of +3. For most classes that means that the first two stat boost will go towards their primary stat to bring it to +5, the logic being that a feat is often useful, but a bump to your primary stat is always useful. Bounded accuracy makes this even more significant, because +1s to hit are so rare every one of them is very important. Before magic items, there is a max of +11, starting value of +5, so a total of +6 to be gained from levels 2-20. It's in your interest to front load this process as much as possible and with stat boost spent on the primary stat you will have increased by +3 by level 8. After that you're free to play around with bumping other stats, or getting feats, but by that point your best served by taking mechanical feats like lucky, tough, resilient, as opposed to more flavorful feats.

Which brings me to the second point, feats are more fun at low levels. By the time you are twelfth level, your class has already defined your character to a large extent, through the abilities given, and the type of spells cast. Feats at that point give the equivalent of a middling class ability, which can go unnoticed among your other abilities. At first or low level, a feat is noticeable and character defining, for instance light armor on a wizard is interesting at 1st level, at 12th level it's much less so. A 1st level fighter with the polearm feat is a polearm fighter, where as at 12th level he is a fighter who can do a trick with polearms.

So for feats to add to a campaign I feel like they should be taken early. The only way to get them early without gimping your to hit is with variant human, which is kind of boring, but powerful enough to rate well in optimization circles. So why not instead give everyone a feat at first, and ban variant human. I don't think it will mess with balance too much, and it can grant alot of fun and customization to starting characters.
People will probably get 17 primary and then resillent or something but a feat at first level is a good idea, many DMs use it.

[Strill]

And your argument is 'you're not squeezing out every possible point of optimization! You're playing it wrong!'

If a game option is only competitive by player fiat, rather than on its own merits, the system is screwed up.

[Dimers]

If a game option is only competitive by player fiat, rather than on its own merits, the system is screwed up.

Welcome to D&D. :smallamused:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Welcome to D&D. :smallamused:

version 5.0*!







*kinda...

[Theodoxus]

If a game option is only competitive by player fiat, rather than on its own merits, the system is screwed up.

You're talking about 10ths of a degree of difference. A +1 to an attribute, while decried as the OMG, bestest thing evar!!! by 5e standards, is still only a 5% increase in overall power, and that's only reflected if the original stat was odd. Otherwise, it's effectively a null starter, and at best, a holdover for an ASI later on, delaying the advancement of said character by at least 3 more levels.

The operative word of my criticism is 'squeezing' - you really are crushing every possible advantage out of a race, for tiny rewards and demeaning anyone who thinks differently. The system isn't screwed up, just because every race doesn't provide the exact same relative value in every circumstance. In fact, if it did, you'd probably be the first on the bandwagon asking why the only differences between races were their fluff!

[Secret Wizard]

My GM is doing it and it works great.

All players are Humans except for an Elf and a Half-Elf.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You're talking about 10ths of a degree of difference. A +1 to an attribute, while decried as the OMG, bestest thing evar!!! by 5e standards, is still only a 5% increase in overall power, and that's only reflected if the original stat was odd. Otherwise, it's effectively a null starter, and at best, a holdover for an ASI later on, delaying the advancement of said character by at least 3 more levels.

The operative word of my criticism is 'squeezing' - you really are crushing every possible advantage out of a race, for tiny rewards and demeaning anyone who thinks differently. The system isn't screwed up, just because every race doesn't provide the exact same relative value in every circumstance. In fact, if it did, you'd probably be the first on the bandwagon asking why the only differences between races were their fluff!

Well the game is screwed up because racial ability score increases cause, especially new players, to go into tired old cliche race/class combination.

Any rule that hurts roleplaying is a bad rule.

Now there is a difference between hurting roleplay and hindering roleplay. A halfing getting specific stats cause players to stay away from certain classes, that hurts roleplaying. A halfling getting disadvantage on attacks with heavy weapons hinders roleplay. You can live with that if you are a barbarian but a lot of people don't even think to take Halfling Barbarian.

I think races should be different based on abilities and fluff, but each race should have the same base potential for each class. Not because I love gnomebarians (I do, gnomebarian of Ioun or Erathis or I forget the other knowledge deity that made gunpowder...) but because racial ASI cause others to not even try the gnomebarians of the world.

Hard to explain by typing, I can do better in person haha.

[georgie_leech]

Well the game is screwed up because racial ability score increases cause, especially new players, to go into tired old cliche race/class combination.

Any rule that hurts roleplaying is a bad rule.

Now there is a difference between hurting roleplay and hindering roleplay. A halfing getting specific stats cause players to stay away from certain classes, that hurts roleplaying. A halfling getting disadvantage on attacks with heavy weapons hinders roleplay. You can live with that if you are a barbarian but a lot of people don't even think to take Halfling Barbarian.

I think races should be different based on abilities and fluff, but each race should have the same base potential for each class. Not because I love gnomebarians (I do, gnomebarian of Ioun or Erathis or I forget the other knowledge deity that made gunpowder...) but because racial ASI cause others to not even try the gnomebarians of the world.

Hard to explain by typing, I can do better in person haha.

Or the Halfling Barbarian wields a different weapon more suited for their size, or sucks it up and looks for ways to mitigate the risks of how they can cancel out that disadvantage by offering up advantage on attacks against them. The heavy weapons they can't wield properly all have versatile variants that can be used in their place, and are sized more or less proportionally. What you're complaining about appears to be mechanical balance, not so much roleplay.

Also the you might be thinking of Gond for the gunpowder deity.

[Strill]

You're talking about 10ths of a degree of difference. A +1 to an attribute, while decried as the OMG, bestest thing evar!!! by 5e standards, is still only a 5% increase in overall power, and that's only reflected if the original stat was odd. Otherwise, it's effectively a null starter, and at best, a holdover for an ASI later on, delaying the advancement of said character by at least 3 more levels.A +1 to your STR or DEX mod represents about a 20% overall weapon DPR increase. A feat like Greatweapon Master, in most cases represents about 50% damage increase. It's not minor at all.


The operative word of my criticism is 'squeezing' - you really are crushing every possible advantage out of a race, for tiny rewards and demeaning anyone who thinks differently. The system isn't screwed up, just because every race doesn't provide the exact same relative value in every circumstance. In fact, if it did, you'd probably be the first on the bandwagon asking why the only differences between races were their fluff!I'm not saying they should all be the same. I'm saying they should be comparable. A +1 bonus to your three tertiary stats is an extremely minimal benefit. So minimal that I'd call it trivial and irrelevant. You'd benefit far more from the Lucky trait or from a skill proficiency. No, Any race other race is better. Heck, even Dragonborn would be better than a normal human and they're a terrible race.

If your players think that whatever benefit they got from their tertiary stats is worth what they sacrificed, they're wrong.

[Dimers]

If your players think that whatever benefit they got from their tertiary stats is worth what they sacrificed, they're wrong.

Thank you for the public service announcement telling people they're having fun the wrong way. :smallsmile:

[Strill]

Well the game is screwed up because racial ability score increases cause, especially new players, to go into tired old cliche race/class combination.That's the entire point. The ability score bonuses are explicitly there to make you choose matching race/class combos. That is their sole purpose.


Any rule that hurts roleplaying is a bad rule. It doesn't hurt roleplay. It reinforces each race's archetype. Why do you even use fantasy races if you don't care about the archetypes they embody? If there's ultimately no fundamental difference between a human and a dwarf and an elf, then just throw out the fantasy races entirely and have everyone play a human, because that's what you're doing already.


Thank you for the public service announcement telling people they're having fun the wrong way. :smallsmile:

D&D 5e made great strides in ensuring that there weren't any trap options to trick new players, but standard human is such an option.

[Gastronomie]

Isn't there like, the option of allowing players to choose what ability scores they wanna enhance?

Like, a Dragonborn "Draconic Bloodline" Sorcerer could choose CHA+2 CON+1 instead of STR+2 CHA+1 (but not CHA+3 - each "amount" has to be the same).
Because that's what I'm thinking of implimenting in my games.

The idea that everyone of a particular race is muscular/fast-moving/smart/good-looking/whatever sounds sorta rediculous to me.

[bid]

Isn't there like, the option of allowing players to choose what ability scores they wanna enhance?
Shades of 13th Age, where you pick one of the 2 racial +2 and one of the 2 class' +2.

For instance, a draconic (Str/Cha) sorcerer (Dex/Cha) could for some weird reason start Str+2/Dex+2.

[djreynolds]

I allow a free feat at first level, but the players choose from a list of the more flavourful (weak) feats that I don't think anyone would take otherwise.

So they can't take Polearm Master, Sharpshooter etc, but they can take Keen Mind, Healer, Linguist etc.

You know, this is actually fair.

I had mentioned war caster, only because I hate dealing with components and all that, and sometimes you are just gonna lose your concentration anyhow, especially when you die at the hands of a dragon's breath weapon.

But I could definitely see stuff like linguist or durable or even charger.

[Vogonjeltz]

With a new campaign coming up, I was thinking about feats and I was wondering should every character should just get a feat at 1st level. My two lines of thought on that are bounded accuracy makes every +1 too important to miss, and feats are most useful/flavorful at low levels (with a few notable exceptions).

We are using a simple array, so the PCs have a max starting modifier of +3. For most classes that means that the first two stat boost will go towards their primary stat to bring it to +5, the logic being that a feat is often useful, but a bump to your primary stat is always useful. Bounded accuracy makes this even more significant, because +1s to hit are so rare every one of them is very important. Before magic items, there is a max of +11, starting value of +5, so a total of +6 to be gained from levels 2-20. It's in your interest to front load this process as much as possible and with stat boost spent on the primary stat you will have increased by +3 by level 8. After that you're free to play around with bumping other stats, or getting feats, but by that point your best served by taking mechanical feats like lucky, tough, resilient, as opposed to more flavorful feats.

Which brings me to the second point, feats are more fun at low levels. By the time you are twelfth level, your class has already defined your character to a large extent, through the abilities given, and the type of spells cast. Feats at that point give the equivalent of a middling class ability, which can go unnoticed among your other abilities. At first or low level, a feat is noticeable and character defining, for instance light armor on a wizard is interesting at 1st level, at 12th level it's much less so. A 1st level fighter with the polearm feat is a polearm fighter, where as at 12th level he is a fighter who can do a trick with polearms.

So for feats to add to a campaign I feel like they should be taken early. The only way to get them early without gimping your to hit is with variant human, which is kind of boring, but powerful enough to rate well in optimization circles. So why not instead give everyone a feat at first, and ban variant human. I don't think it will mess with balance too much, and it can grant alot of fun and customization to starting characters.

I hate this idea because it punishes players for choosing to play a human character. Variant Human already gives up essentially all other racial traits in order to get that feat, and many of the racial traits are partial feats themselves.

Dwarven Combat Training or Elf weapon training, for example, are basically Weapon Master; Mask of the Wild and Naturally Stealthy are lesser forms of Skulker; and many of the racial traits simply can't be replicated via a feat, making the non-human racial options already quite powerful in their own right.


But those racial variants are pointless nonsense. Why would I trade two of any skill for Perception alone?

No one would as obviously you could just pick Perception along with another skill through Skill Versatility.

The use of the word "or" is almost certainly a typo because there's no rational explanation for having that be a thing.

It's probably meant to read: "instead take the elf trait Keen Senses and a trait based on your elf parentage:"

That way you substitute having two skills for one skill and one other thing.

[Coffee_Dragon]

As a player I wouldn't mind this house rule if you still allowed variant humans and gave everyone the bonus feat equally. If not, I'd feel like you wanted everyone to play nonhumans, which is not my general preference.

[mephnick]

You know, this is actually fair.

Yeah, we've found it adds depth to an early character concept without automatically giving everyone the strongest feats in the game.

Let's be honest, unless you're really devoted to a concept, no one is taking Keen Mind or Linguist etc with one of their few ASIs. But as a free trait at character creation? Sure.

[Dalebert]

Just curious. Does anyone actually play non-variant humans now? Aside from a flavor thing, it seems like people would choose it only for really MAD characters. I haven't yet had a character concept that would seem to benefit much from +1 to all their stats.

[mephnick]

Well, in my group we all roll a stat block and then players can choose any one that's been rolled. Usually everyone picks the same one, but I could see regular human making an odd numbered roll better than the "best" roll for certain characters.

But that's a pretty darn specific case and it still hasn't happened even in our game.

[Secret Wizard]

Just curious. Does anyone actually play non-variant humans now? Aside from a flavor thing, it seems like people would choose it only for really MAD characters. I haven't yet had a character concept that would seem to benefit much from +1 to all their stats.

As I mentioned, 3/5 of the players use humans in my group - my monk, the paladin and the fighter.

For martials, I think it's still worth It.

Granted, we use point buy (27 points, 8 base, max 15)

[brainface]

Nonvariant human is mostly just boring. +1 to off stats isn't... isn't great? I don't know why they don't get any additional skill proficiencies or just... anything, really.

[djreynolds]

Nonvariant human is mostly just boring. +1 to off stats isn't... isn't great? I don't know why they don't get any additional skill proficiencies or just... anything, really.

IMO, I think plain old human is good for characters like a bard or warlock who are going to have their fingers in a lot pies. You know they want to stealth, and have a good social skill, and arcana and medicine. Or someone with MAD needs.

But they are boring, and have no "nutrients"

[MaxWilson]

Nonvariant human is mostly just boring. +1 to off stats isn't... isn't great? I don't know why they don't get any additional skill proficiencies or just... anything, really.

They do get a free language proficiency.

[djreynolds]

Yeah, we've found it adds depth to an early character concept without automatically giving everyone the strongest feats in the game.

Let's be honest, unless you're really devoted to a concept, no one is taking Keen Mind or Linguist etc with one of their few ASIs. But as a free trait at character creation? Sure.

This could be a boon. These feats are often left alone. Even durable could be a real blessing, and seeing charger actually in action would be nice. Hey your dwarf fight gets charger. And the wizard gets healer.

[mephnick]

This could be a boon. These feats are often left alone. Even durable could be a real blessing, and seeing charger actually in action would be nice. Hey your dwarf fight gets charger. And the wizard gets healer.

Durable and Charger were both taken this campaign in fact! Charger has helped the Halfling a lot with her short move speed. I believe the other two were Athletics (made the Ranger a lot more Rangery) and Actor (which turned out to be quite strong, but the warlock can now play his role perfectly).

[MaxWilson]

Durable and Charger were both taken this campaign in fact! Charger has helped the Halfling a lot with her short move speed. I believe the other two were Athletics (made the Ranger a lot more Rangery) and Actor (which turned out to be quite strong, but the warlock can now play his role perfectly).

An interesting way to run a campaign would be to use a scarcity model for feats, with "bidding" being how early you spend your ASI on the feat. In other words, only one player at the table can take a given feat--if I take GWM at 4th level, you can't take it too, so maybe you take Polearm Master, which means that I can't take PM at 6th level and I need to find another niche. You could balance it out by giving them an ASI and a feat at every ASI level, so it doesn't feel like you're trying to rip them off. Eventually you'll start seeing wacky optimizations like Weapon Master Rogues who are Sneak Attacking with Nets (because they're a ranged weapon!) since the obvious optimizations have already been taken by other PCs. Likely to be a gonzo campaign.

[Shining Wrath]

I gave feats from a short list that I called "non-combat" feats at level 1.

Actor
Dungeon Delver
Keen Mind
Linguist
Observant
Ritual Caster
Skilled


With the constraint that if the feat boosts an ability score, it can't be one of your top 3 scores. I wound up with 3 people taking Observant and trading the ability score increase for something else, 1 Actor, 1 Linguist, and 1 Ritual Caster.

[Scorpienne]

I'd be worried about losing the special awesomeness of humans and their 1st level feat. After all getting your first feat is AMAZING and that means humans are AMAZING before anyone else is. Getting your second feat is pretty good... nice, but not as good as the first feat.

p

[Coffee_Dragon]

But some of these feats should normally be of great interest to certain flavours of character and campaign. It just seems weird to allow boosts to some builds/visions and not others.

[mephnick]

But some of these feats should normally be of great interest to certain flavours of character and campaign. It just seems weird to allow boosts to some builds/visions and not others.

It'd have to be a pretty damn specific character or campaign vision to take Keen Mind or Linguist as one of your couple feats (assuming most players also take a couple stat boosts).

To be fair, I don't allow Observant or Skilled at level 1 as I think they stand well enough on their own to be real feats.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I was thinking of Observant in particular but also Dungeon Delver or Skilled. And once you trim the list down to "OK, about a third of you get to have photographic memory for free, guess there was a photographic memory magic surge about where y'all grew up", it starts to become kind of silly.

[djreynolds]

An interesting way to run a campaign would be to use a scarcity model for feats, with "bidding" being how early you spend your ASI on the feat. In other words, only one player at the table can take a given feat--if I take GWM at 4th level, you can't take it too, so maybe you take Polearm Master, which means that I can't take PM at 6th level and I need to find another niche. You could balance it out by giving them an ASI and a feat at every ASI level, so it doesn't feel like you're trying to rip them off. Eventually you'll start seeing wacky optimizations like Weapon Master Rogues who are Sneak Attacking with Nets (because they're a ranged weapon!) since the obvious optimizations have already been taken by other PCs. Likely to be a gonzo campaign.

Sneak attack with nets, that's awesome. Very nice.

[mephnick]

I was thinking of Observant in particular but also Dungeon Delver or Skilled. And once you trim the list down to "OK, about a third of you get to have photographic memory for free, guess there was a photographic memory magic surge about where y'all grew up", it starts to become kind of silly.

Don't worry, people don't even take it when it's free. :smalltongue:

[MaxWilson]

But some of these feats should normally be of great interest to certain flavours of character and campaign. It just seems weird to allow boosts to some builds/visions and not others.

From a constraint optimization perspective, it's not a boost relative to something else, it's just a fresh game. Admittedly that means that the Internet won't be as helpful when you're constructing your build--but having other people do your work for you is never as much fun anyway.

So, taking into account the type of campaign and any house rules in play including the bonus feat, you build a character that you will enjoy--or you bow out of the campaign and spend your time doing something else.

[Coffee_Dragon]

I would think that if the collection of flavour abilities in mechanical packages leads to people "bowing out of the campaign" because they crave those abilities yet refuse to pay the associated costs, then the best answer is not to start handing out those packages for free, maintaining all their conceptual drawbacks, but to free the flavour abilities from the packages and allow players free selective access to them as appropriate.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I gave feats from a short list that I called "non-combat" feats at level 1.

Actor
Dungeon Delver
Keen Mind
Linguist
Observant
Ritual Caster
Skilled


With the constraint that if the feat boosts an ability score, it can't be one of your top 3 scores. I wound up with 3 people taking Observant and trading the ability score increase for something else, 1 Actor, 1 Linguist, and 1 Ritual Caster.

I would throw in the following feats, these are mostly just not worth taking as a feat outside of niche builds

Weapon Master: While a direct combat feat, the classes that need weapons will already have acess to the weapons. This ends up either being a niche feat or a fluff feat (Wizard taking up a longsword to be like their great great whatever grandfather).

Charger: A combat feat that isn't worth taking as a feat but can be handy for Clerics and for low level fighter's/barbarians. Especially for games that won't hit 5th level.

Durable: I've never really seen this taken as it is mostly a rest feat. Its decent but... Meh. Might as well give it away for free to help fluff a character.

Light/medium/heavy armored: AC is trvial as everyone has what they need/want. This ends up mostly a fluff piece. You also only go up one level so it's not like a wizard will get medium or heavy armor right off the gun.

I tend to go along with the houserule of all races gain a +2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 to ability scores so I wouldn't allow these feats to give a bonus to any score. Might combine a couple of the feats (if you take an armored feat you also gain weapon master).

[JoeJ]

One other thought, if the campaign is going to have a particular theme, you can reinforce that by giving everyone the same feat at first level. So everybody starts out with Mounted Combatant if the campaign is going to be about knights in shining armor (or barbarians out on the steppe), or Defensive Dualist if it's a swashbuckling campaign, or even Actor if the group thinks it would be fun to play a wandering band of entertainers who keep stumbling into adventures.

[CantigThimble]

One other thought, if the campaign is going to have a particular theme, you can reinforce that by giving everyone the same feat at first level. So everybody starts out with Mounted Combatant if the campaign is going to be about knights in shining armor (or barbarians out on the steppe), or Defensive Dualist if it's a swashbuckling campaign, or even Actor if the group thinks it would be fun to play a wandering band of entertainers who keep stumbling into adventures.

I'm not a fan of that idea as it removes the specialness of the feats if your entire party has the same one. The whole point of feats in my opinion is the individual customization. But you could definitely give themed feats using a slightly longer list:

Cavalier Campaign:
Magic Initiate for Beast Bond, Shield of Faith or Heroism and cantrips like Light, Guidance, Resistance, Thaumaturgy, Spare the Dying or Vicious Mockery (depending on how much Monty Python you have with your knights).
Inspiring Leader
Martial Adpet
Armor Proficiency Feats
Mounted Combat

Swashbuckler Campaign:
Magic Initiate for Jump, Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Grease or Heroism and cantrips like Vicious Mockery, Prestidigitation, Guidance and Dancing Lights.
Grappler
Lucky (maybe a version that can only be used on certain things if it's too strong)
Martial Adept
Tavern Brawler
Defensive Duelist

Entertainer Campaign:
Magic Initiate (I really love this feat) for Charm Person, Disguise Self or Unseen Servant with cantrips like Thaumaturgy, Prestidigitation, Friends, Vicious Mockery, Guidance, Message, Minor Illusion or Dancing Lights.
Inspiring Leader
Linguist
Lucky
Observant
Skilled
Skulker
Actor

This lets you reinforce the general theme while still giving them their own unique specialization. Actor gets boring pretty fast when your entire party has it.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm not a fan of that idea as it removes the specialness of the feats if your entire party has the same one. The whole point of feats in my opinion is the individual customization. But you could definitely give themed feats using a slightly longer list:

Cavalier Campaign:
Magic Initiate for Beast Bond, Shield of Faith or Heroism and cantrips like Light, Guidance, Resistance, Thaumaturgy, Spare the Dying or Vicious Mockery (depending on how much Monty Python you have with your knights).
Inspiring Leader
Martial Adpet
Armor Proficiency Feats
Mounted Combat

Swashbuckler Campaign:
Magic Initiate for Jump, Expeditious Retreat, Feather Fall, Grease or Heroism and cantrips like Vicious Mockery, Prestidigitation, Guidance and Dancing Lights.
Grappler
Lucky (maybe a version that can only be used on certain things if it's too strong)
Martial Adept
Tavern Brawler
Defensive Duelist

Entertainer Campaign:
Magic Initiate (I really love this feat) for Charm Person, Disguise Self or Unseen Servant with cantrips like Thaumaturgy, Prestidigitation, Friends, Vicious Mockery, Guidance, Message, Minor Illusion or Dancing Lights.
Inspiring Leader
Linguist
Lucky
Observant
Skilled
Skulker
Actor

This lets you reinforce the general theme while still giving them their own unique specialization. Actor gets boring pretty fast when your entire party has it.

Most of the feats aren't really that special. I bet variant humans are quite popular since they could take Actor and be real good with the oposite sex.

Plus feats don't have a lot of hard prerequisites. Hell, anyone worth a decent stick can use ppolearm master.

[CantigThimble]

Most of the feats aren't really that special. I bet variant humans are quite popular since they could take Actor and be real good with the oposite sex.

Plus feats don't have a lot of hard prerequisites. Hell, anyone worth a decent stick can use ppolearm master.

A character with Actor can behave a lot differently than a character without Actor in social situations. Someone with actor can do things people without actor are simply incapable of in certain situations. As long as everyone doesn't take the same thing feats can be very defining features of the character and make them feel unique. The level 5 Champion fighter with Mobile has a very different style from the level 5 Champion fighter with Shield Master.

Giving players more options to express themselves and their personal playstyle through their character helps them get emotionally invested. (which is one reason why I think the archetypes in 5e are brilliantly designed)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

A character with Actor can behave a lot differently than a character without Actor in social situations. Someone with actor can do things people without actor are simply incapable of in certain situations. As long as everyone doesn't take the same thing feats can be very defining features of the character and make them feel unique. The level 5 Champion fighter with Mobile has a very different style from the level 5 Champion fighter with Shield Master.

Giving players more options to express themselves and their personal playstyle through their character helps them get emotionally invested. (which is one reason why I think the archetypes in 5e are brilliantly designed)

Nothing stops all the PCs from taking actor. The feat itself is not special at all if it can be passed around like a 5 sp wench.

In 3e the Mage Slayer line of feats were special because only specific builds could take them. Now most feats, and some of the others, can and will be taken by anyone.

I saw a Mountain Dwarf chaos sorcerer with sentinel and Polearm master.

If a mage can take martial feats then those feats aren't very special. To be special you have to rare or unique, taking feats aren't unique. If feats are allowed them everyone pretty much can take each feat (few exceptions but even then, ASI prerequisites aren't that high).

[CantigThimble]

You are correct that 5e doesn't work like 3e. Features are special to your character because you chose them over the other options, not because your character was literally the only one who could take them in the first place. I don't really see the problem if you're implying there is one. :smallconfused: (correct me if I'm wrong there)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You are correct that 5e doesn't work like 3e. Features are special to your character because you chose them over the other options, not because your character was literally the only one who could take them in the first place. I don't really see the problem if you're implying there is one. :smallconfused: (correct me if I'm wrong there)

I'm saying that feats aren't special, because they aren't. Anyone can take them, and to try and romanticize them is a bit odd.

Some general feats in 3e weren't special either, but the multitude of feats (even some general feats) became special because not just any Joe smoe could pick them up.

Fighter is special because other classes can't take the same options. Wizards are special because of their mastery over schools of magic. Clerics are special because of their domains.

Feats just aren't special.

[georgie_leech]

I'm saying that feats aren't special, because they aren't. Anyone can take them, and to try and romanticize them is a bit odd.

Some general feats in 3e weren't special either, but the multitude of feats (even some general feats) became special because not just any Joe smoe could pick them up.

Fighter is special because other classes can't take the same options. Wizards are special because of their mastery over schools of magic. Clerics are special because of their domains.

Feats just aren't special.

Neither are ability score increases or the ability to make extra attacks. What's your point?

[CantigThimble]

I'm saying that feats aren't special, because they aren't. Anyone can take them, and to try and romanticize them is a bit odd.

Some general feats in 3e weren't special either, but the multitude of feats (even some general feats) became special because not just any Joe smoe could pick them up.

Fighter is special because other classes can't take the same options. Wizards are special because of their mastery over schools of magic. Clerics are special because of their domains.

Feats just aren't special.

But anyone can take levels in fighter, wizard or cleric and get those same features. I don't see how that's any different from feats fundamentally.

Feats, like every other aspect of character creation, are a way for players to express themselves through their character in the decisions they make. The fact that you have lots of options but this one is the one that you chose makes the character belong to the player more than if they didn't have that option. I'd even say the fact that practically all the feats are available to each character makes the decision more interesting and personal than if there was a list of feats only fighters could take or only wizards could take. Basically I'm saying I don't think mechanical exclusivity is necessary for the creative experience at all.

[Dalebert]

I'd even say the fact that practically all the feats are available to each character makes the decision more interesting and personal than if there was a list of feats only fighters could take or only wizards could take. Basically I'm saying I don't think mechanical exclusivity is necessary for the creative experience at all.

But then your character won't fit the stereotype that I have in my head for what you're supposed to be.

[Mr.Moron]

You can also just divorce Feats and ASI's entirely: take a page from 3.5 and just get feats on one schedule (eg one feat every level that's a multiple of three), ASI's on another, unrelated schedule. Any feat that normally includes +1 to an ability score no longer does so, but only counts as half a feat (so you can take two of them).

As usual, you're going to have to tweak your encounters to account for somewhat more powerful, versatile PCs, but in games where I've played in such a system it didn't seem to be game breakingly OP.

EDIT: Fighters and other more-ASI's-than-normal classes would also need tweaking.

You could just make it so every time you get an ASI you get an ASI + Feat and just embrace the power creep. Maximum feat gain and maximum stat gain rates aren't affected, so you aren't even going to mess with core math.

Just one thing to consider if you enjoy power play.

[Randomthom]

Most of the responses to this thread basically boil down to one basic point;
Giving everyone a feat at first level works well for character variety but has some knock-on effects
Variant Human is powerful
Standard Human isn't
Giving every character a free feat at first level and denying players variant human is balanced but ends up with too few humans in play. This seems odd in a world where the supposed dominant race is human.

There's a few ways to "fix" this.
1. Allow variant human again and give them immediate access to two feats.
2. Buff standard human.
3. Control feat lists (cue arguing about which feat belongs in which list)

First, consider that prior to any houseruling, variant human is generally considered the most powerful race in many builds. It is simpler to disallow it from the start and work with bringing the standard human back up-to-scratch.

Second, there very clearly are two tiers of feats but with some that are debatable as to which side of the line they fall on, particularly regarding the feats that also carry a +1 stat. One post suggested that these be part of the allowable list but only selectable if they did not boost your primary stat (e.g. Wizard could not choose linguist). A variant on this might be to suggest that the Wizard can choose linguist but the +1 goes to Wis or Cha instead (to represent a more travelled & world-wise or more skilled tongue) in the interest of opening as many character concept builds as possible.

[JoeJ]

If not having very many (or any) humans in the party is actually a problem for your world, you can simply require that a certain percentage of the group be human. Have the players create their characters together during session 0 and they can work out a race/class/background/etc. mix that you can work with.

[Mr.Moron]

If not having very many (or any) humans in the party is actually a problem for your world, you can simply require that a certain percentage of the group be human. Have the players create their characters together during session 0 and they can work out a race/class/background/etc. mix that you can work with.

It's also worth noting that the problem is less "There are too few humans" and more "Humans are less than ideal from an optimization standpoint". The latter only leads to the former with a group/players particularly focused on CharOP. Which honestly isn't most players and groups that I've had experience with. Even in the most CharOP focused groups I've played with or run for it's been at most half the table that gives it any serious consideration and half of them aren't even actually any good at it.

[mephnick]

So what would you guys do to buff Human assuming that you were banning V.Human?

Right now I keep V.Human with the list of free level 1 feats, so they start with 2, but I'd prefer if everyone started off on the same level feat-wise.