WHat is your opinion on giving everyone a free feat?

[JMAP94]

What are your opinions on giving players a free feat at starting level (humans would get two via racial bonus)? Also, as a GM, how would you balance encounters?

I'm going to start DM ing this summer for my first time. In addition, there are a few players completely new to RPGs, so I'm deadly afraid of game balance so that they don't feel useless. One thing about 5e (and most RPs) that sticks out to me is how overpowered humans seem. In every Pathfinder and D&D game I've played, about 50-75% of players go human. Now I say OP, but after reading a lot of people's comments in the subject matter I'm convinced that they're slightly better than the other races (maybe on par with half elf). So, one of my friends who has GMd a lot before suggested that if I was worried about game balance, I could just give everyone a free feat, and humans would get a second one via their racial bonus. Now, from my research, players who have tried this find that it makes humans actually the worst racial choices in the game and takes away that advantage.

[Potato_Priest]

There are a lot of niche builds that I could use 2 feats for. For example, I could finally try out a charger/weapon master rogue(to get the whip). Just keep in mind that by doing that you are setting humans up for some insane pairings right out of the gate, like crossbow master/sharpshooter and polearm master/sentinel. However, it does sound like it will tend to balance things away from humans. Most really good feat combos only use 2 feats, so the other races will catch up to humans significantly faster.

Anyway, that's my "from the armchair" analysis. I've never playtested such a thing.

[Steel Mirror]

I usually do this when I run 5E (the only reason I didn't do it in my current game here on GitP is because I was trying to playtest the power levels of some homebrew stuff, and even then I really considered it). It's not unbalancing in the bad way, where characters will get out of whack in relation to each each other and make it harder to keep everyone having fun. It's overpowered in the good way, where every character is better at doing what they do and players all get to have fun. You'll have to throw a bit more challenge at them to make up for the power boost, but as GM it's not like you're ever constrained on how many mooks you can throw into the XP grinder.

I really enjoy it, and I'm sure your players will as well.

EDIT: As to how to balance the encounters, it's not really that difficult. You'll get a sense for what your party is capable of as you go (I think variation between different groups and different party compositions is probably a bigger difference IME than the power bump granted from getting a bonus feat). If I were to try and make a rule of thumb, I'd say bump up your XP budget per encounter by about 10%.

[Arkhios]

Personally, I would advise against giving humans two feats right off the bat at first level. Instead, if you give a bonus feat to everyone, I'd suggest ruling out the variant human completely (=simply put, don't allow it). Why? Because in 5th edition a single feat is much more powerful than in previous editions and their equivalent (such as Pathfinder, as it really isn't D&D anymore).

A bonus feat and +1 to every ability score is likely to make a human very compelling choice, but at the same time, it's (in my opinion at least) more "balanced" towards other races that way. And, since humans are depicted as the most versatile race, a +1 bonus to each stat is very good way to resemble that. Even though it means that you'd get one less skill and known language.

[Ivogel]

I would let them choose 1 'flavour' feat that fits their character or background instead of a combat oriented feat. A human still has an advantage this way because it can choose any feat + a flavour feat

Taking great weapon master and polearm master at lv1 might be efficient but not really fun for everyone.

[Arkhios]

I would let them choose 1 'flavour' feat that fits their character or background instead of a combat oriented feat. A human still has an advantage this way because it can choose any feat + a flavour feat

Taking great weapon master and polearm master at lv1 might be efficient but not really fun for everyone.

That would be a decent option, I admit; and to drive the latter point home: That would be the most likely human build anywhere (along with, perhaps, crossbow expert + sharpshooter). I wouldn't be surprised at all if in your group you'd have multiple characters that'd be essentially copies of each other, using either of the two combos mentioned earlier.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm inclined to agree with Arkhios; I very much like giving people a free feat early on*, to help round out character concepts-- or even, in some cases, enable them-- and distinguish otherwise-similar characters, but two at once might be too much. Then again, the normal human is horrifically dull, so if you do ban vHuman I'd rewrite the base race**. I wouldn't worry too much about balance with a bunch of new players, though... if anything, I'd worry about options paralysis. Limiting things to half-feats, maybe with the ability bump removed, might be a decent compromise.


*I'm also fond of "2nd or 3rd level, whichever you don't pick your subclass at;" that way you're making a significant choice at each of the three first levels.

**Which is what I did in my last campaign; humans had a magic-heavy and militarized culture in that world, so I gave them light armor, one martial weapon, one cantrip off a short list (I think it was Firebolt, Shocking Grasp, Blade Ward or True Strike), and one skill with a "reroll 1's" bonus.

[Potato_Priest]

I wouldn't worry too much about balance with a bunch of new players, though... if anything, I'd worry about options paralysis.

That is a very good point. When I help a new player make a character, I generally steer them clear of feats because it's much easier to go wrong with them, and because both them and I are usually anxious to get into the game without a bunch more fiddly choices. For example, one new guy (who didn't have my help) went and took polearm master on a sorcerer who was a) not proficient with polearms(aside from quarterstaff) and b) only moderately strong (he had a 14 in strength). We had to help him totally redo his build the next day.

The idea of making humans take a feat and a "flavor feat" seems like a good one, but I'm not sure where to draw the line between regular and flavor. Is ritual caster a flavor or a regular feat?

[Grod_The_Giant]

The idea of making humans take a feat and a "flavor feat" seems like a good one, but I'm not sure where to draw the line between regular and flavor. Is ritual caster a flavor or a regular feat?
The easiest division is between full and half feats-- those that also give a +1 to an ability score, which are weaker and tend to be more about the noncombat part of the game.

[Kislath]

The way I see it, having a cool feat is partly what makes someone want to go around adventuring in the first place.
"Dude, that was awesome! You should totally try to make a living at that!"

Humans get the extra feat to make up for not having the special abilities the other races get, and I'm cool with that. It also makes sense, since only humanity has the kind of civilization that leads to/allows for such a diverse set of skills and the opportunity to hone them.

As for game balance, I find that this is rarely ever a real issue in practice. Sometimes you get a Gnome Ranger who has nothing to do and can't keep up with the rest of the party, but that's why they invented multiclassing, right?

[The7thBobba]

I say, go for it :) In my gaming group we have multiple ways of allowing extra feats. We have few powergamer issues, because we all understand the basic priciples pleasant gaming :) If you feel like it could upset the balance, just give your encounters extra feats as well. Or determine that they have some other edge. You are the GM afterall. It is your job to shape the world and the story, and to make it interesting and fun.
TLDR: a few extra feats never hurt anyone - that didn't play with a power-hungry douche :smallwink:

[shuyung]

With feats, there's a power spike at some point, and then a diminishing returns. You have to decide if you are for or against the spike occurring sooner, rather than later. If you take a first level character (and this is assuming a game run somewhere in the 3rd edition D&D spectrum), all characters are guaranteed 1 feat, all humans are guaranteed 2 feats, all characters and certain classes are guaranteed 2 feats, and all humans and certain classes are guaranteed 3 feats. So you have a range of 1X-3X access. Meanwhile, if you award everyone an additional feat, you end up with all characters guaranteed 2 feats, all humans are guaranteed 3 feats, all characters and certain classes are guaranteed 3 feats, and all humans and certain classes are guaranteed 4 feats. Which gives you a range of 1X-2X. The access gap is narrowed.

Another thing you could do is increase the rate of feat acquisition. I was recently perusing Monte Cook's Collected Book of Experimental Might, wherein he describes awarding a feat every level. The reasons being, first of all, feats are a very good tool by which a player individualizes his character, second, that feats are fun for everyone, and third, that the sheer number of published feats means that players are faced with disappointment when they feel they can't realize a feat assortment anywhere close to what they hope for.