Feat Starved 5e

[BurgerBeast]

I came across a comment in another thread which seemed to make the claim that 5e is too feat-starved. I remember the comment because it was a very simple way of communicating something I've always felt on some level (since 3e) but never necessarily put my finger on.

Why is it like this?

Why are feats (or are they) the one locked door in the game behind which there is a tonne of awesomeness that you will never get to have? It seems counter to the design philosophy. Spells are often (but not always) limited choices, but generally not to the same extent, and not necessarily permanently so (because wizards can always discover new spells through play).

(I suppose feats are not the only locked door. Sorcerer and Warlock spell selection and Warlock invocations come to mind). But the question remains. A lot of pages and presumably design effort went into feats considering some of them may never see play.

[DivisibleByZero]

Feats are an optional rule. If you have any sort of problem with them at all, the answer is to not use that option. Or do what many games do and offer a free one for everyone at creation.

[BurgerBeast]

Feats are an optional rule. If you have any sort of problem with them at all, the answer is to not use that option. Or do what many games do and offer a free one for everyone at creation.

I get that they're optional. But when the problem is "why can't characters have more of them?" - the answer is decidedly not to not use them at all.

But even in this context, why so limited? I guess I'm asking this more from a design perspective. Why make so much awesomeness and then lock it away?

Obviously the solution could be to just give more feats (every 3 or 2 or 1 level), but I'm curious to hear whether I'm misunderstanding something more fundamental here in terms of design goals/purpose.

[Solunaris]

I get that they're optional. But when the problem is "why can't characters have more of them?" - the answer is decidedly not to not use them at all.

But even in this context, why so limited? I guess I'm asking this more from a design perspective. Why make so much awesomeness and then lock it away?

Obviously the solution could be to just give more feats (every 3 or 2 or 1 level), but I'm curious to hear whether I'm misunderstanding something more fundamental here in terms of design goals/purpose.

One of the big parts of 5e's design philosophy was simplification. Lots of the rules are much simpler than previous editions. Feats used to have long chains that allowed for silly and absurdly powerful abilities with overly complex interactions. By making them limited, optional and have a rather large opportunity cost they've basically tackled the problem 3.5 had with feats.

Essentially, feats don't exist to directly give a character more power but a cool toy. But if you give a character too many cool toys he might be able to put them together and make the Power Cannon. And you don't want to have a single character with the ability to make a Power Cannon because that's normally an ability that takes 5 or 6 characters.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I think it comes back to the idea that each feat is supposed to be a significant, self-contained package. Taking a feat for your character is Making a Statement about who they are. They're not some guy who dabbled in magic, they're a Magic Initiate. They're not some schmuck with a glaive, they're a Polearm Master. They didn't always succeed in doing so, but that was the attempt.

[Naanomi]

I think the feat number is about right... most characters I build would really like about one more feat, meaning I have to make decisions about what I take... making decisions about character development better than just barely getting all the toys I want in general

[clash]

Feats in 3rd edition usually gave more minor bonuses to things that you could already do or ins ome cases through a chain of feats unlocked an new way to play.

Feats in 5e are supposed to be higher impact. They are supposed to help define the way you play your character, either in rp or in combat or in skill encounters or all three. They exist to accomplish or enhance characters concepts that are not well supported by the core classes alone. If you just got a bunch of feats automatically alongside your asis in your career I feel like a lot of characters would end up looking very similiar. By making feats have a cost you have to be willing to sacrifice something to achieve that character concept, rather than every martial just taking sentinel because why not.

[Cybren]

I get that they're optional. But when the problem is "why can't characters have more of them?" - the answer is decidedly not to not have more of them.

But even in this context, why so limited? I guess I'm asking this more from a design perspective. Why make so much awesomeness and then lock it away?

Obviously the solution could be to just give more feats (every 3 or 2 or 1 level), but I'm curious to hear whether I'm misunderstanding something more fundamental here in terms of design goals/purpose.

Feats are limited because
1) giving more "feat slots" under the current system would mean giving a lot of ability score bonuses, which would be bad for a variety of sub-reasons
a) the cap of 20 means that quickly characters will have either all great stats, bucking against archetypes
b) players who are optimization minded will feel obligated to take feats, and the intentionally optional rule will feel even more mandatory, creating a bigger delta between optimized and
non-optimized PCs
c) removing the ability score cap would make bounded accuracy harder to achieve
and d) decoupling feats from those ability score increases would necessitate another 'natural' balancing mechanism between characters that choose to take feats and those that don't.
2) Adding more feat slots would necessitate adding more feats, increasing page count, complexity, and potential for power imbalances, meaning more development time and thus higher cost
3) There's nothing stopping your DM from giving you a free feat as a reward if your normal number of ability score increases is unsatisfactory. Just like there's nothing stopping your DM from giving you a free save proficiency, or language, or limb. (I actually posted an outline of an idea for figuring out the relative 'cost' of those kind of non-standard in-game rewards, but all the people I showed it to misinterpreted it as a point-based variant that would let players pick out their saves and spells, because people on D&D forums are terrible)

[Willie the Duck]

My interpretation of the design philosophy reason is that the designers wanted to go back to the day when saying "<character> is a 3rd level fighter" told you at least 51%-75% of what the character's deal was, mechanically. 5e without feats, this is pretty much the case (especially if you include subclass/archtype). I mean, sure, you can have Str-based or Dex-based (and melee Dex or ranged Dex) combat types, and which spells a wizard has also tells you a lot about what they do, but not like say 3e. In 3e, all the different feats and how they interacted and the system mastery expected could drastically swing a character from being X to being Y. Especially if you have something like a gish build--a few feats could change whether this character was mostly a spellcaster who just had some survivability or whether they waded into the front line and boosted their attacks with spell power. 5e this is not the case without feats, and adding the feats back in doesn't change that, much... Warcaster for a cleric, bladelock, or paladin or something means that your strategies change (since melee + concentration is actually viable). PAM and Sentinel definitely lock in what weapons you are likely to be using. But nothing veers wildly off course be the addition of a single feat. That's my best guess at why they set it up at max 1/4 levels, and not some other level of feat intensity.

[Lombra]

I can totally live with an 18 in main stat in favor of a cool/useful feat if I really want it. I agree with Grod, the design intention is that each feat should be a big package of tools that should cover all the needs of a character. Some feats just don't feel like that, mostly because the concept of the three pillars is almost never taken in account while discussing about feats.

[Scathain]

I can totally live with an 18 in main stat in favor of a cool/useful feat if I really want it. I agree with Grod, the design intention is that each feat should be a big package of tools that should cover all the needs of a character. Some feats just don't feel like that, mostly because the concept of the three pillars is almost never taken in account while discussing about feats.

And yeah, if every feat was as powerful as GWM, or as flavorful as Keen Mind, etc., it wouldn't feel so bad only having one or two in an entire campaign. But so many feats never see the light of day.

I'm one of those DM's (thanks to this forum) that implements a "one free feat" house rule for this exact reason. I also make players pick non stat increase feats for two major reasons: because I'm still wary of pushing the limits of Bounded Accuracy, and because I like seeing players pick feats like Charger and the like to expand their character concepts.

[Lombra]

And yeah, if every feat was as powerful as GWM, or as flavorful as Keen Mind, etc., it wouldn't feel so bad only having one or two in an entire campaign. But so many feats never see the light of day.

I'm one of those DM's (thanks to this forum) that implements a "one free feat" house rule for this exact reason. I also make players pick non stat increase feats for two major reasons: because I'm still wary of pushing the limits of Bounded Accuracy, and because I like seeing players pick feats like Charger and the like to expand their character concepts.

Tangentially, I was lately pondering on the value that charger has for a barbarian: keep that rage going!

I'm a big fan of that houserule too anyways.

[Basement Cat]

Feats are like trophies...too many and they start to lose their special value.

As far as there being too few awarded remember the DMG states that PC's can do jobs in order to get feats as rewards from trained NPCs.

So if you want to get Magic Initiate with an eye towards Wizard spells then do a job for a 2nd or 3rd tier Wizard and get training instead of gold pieces as a reward. I have a character who works alone a lot but is an ascetic so skill, languages, and feats are his primary rewards.

[Grod_The_Giant]

My interpretation of the design philosophy reason is that the designers wanted to go back to the day when saying "<character> is a 3rd level fighter" told you at least 51%-75% of what the character's deal was, mechanically. 5e without feats, this is pretty much the case (especially if you include subclass/archtype). I mean, sure, you can have Str-based or Dex-based (and melee Dex or ranged Dex) combat types, and which spells a wizard has also tells you a lot about what they do, but not like say 3e. In 3e, all the different feats and how they interacted and the system mastery expected could drastically swing a character from being X to being Y. Especially if you have something like a gish build--a few feats could change whether this character was mostly a spellcaster who just had some survivability or whether they waded into the front line and boosted their attacks with spell power. 5e this is not the case without feats, and adding the feats back in doesn't change that, much... Warcaster for a cleric, bladelock, or paladin or something means that your strategies change (since melee + concentration is actually viable). PAM and Sentinel definitely lock in what weapons you are likely to be using. But nothing veers wildly off course be the addition of a single feat. That's my best guess at why they set it up at max 1/4 levels, and not some other level of feat intensity.
I'd argue that 5e feats can often be significantly more defining than most 3.5 feats, which tended to be "you do your thing, but a little better." Something like Healer or Magic Initiate can radically change how a character feels, and even something like GWM or Elemental Adept provide the same sort of focus that you'd need several feats and levels in 3.5 to represent.


And yeah, if every feat was as powerful as GWM, or as flavorful as Keen Mind, etc., it wouldn't feel so bad only having one or two in an entire campaign. But so many feats never see the light of day.

I'm one of those DM's (thanks to this forum) that implements a "one free feat" house rule for this exact reason. I also make players pick non stat increase feats for two major reasons: because I'm still wary of pushing the limits of Bounded Accuracy, and because I like seeing players pick feats like Charger and the like to expand their character concepts.
But... the +1 stat feats don't break the BA caps? They provide half an ASI because they only provide half the benefit of a normal feat. They tend to be less powerful, but more flavorful. (Unless you mean at 1st level? I can see not wanting the extra +1 at 1st level, since that could let you hit an 18)

[Willie the Duck]

I'd argue that 5e feats can often be significantly more defining than most 3.5 feats, which tended to be "you do your thing, but a little better." Something like Healer or Magic Initiate can radically change how a character feels, and even something like GWM or Elemental Adept provide the same sort of focus that you'd need several feats and levels in 3.5 to represent.

3e was all over the board, because Weapon Focus and Natural Caster (or whatever it was called that let druids cast while wildshaped) were both feats. However, feats could set up builds, and builds defined characters. In 5e, Healer or Magic Initiate might define a character's feel, but mechanically, it is still the classes, not the builds, which define what you spend most of your rounds of activity doing.

[MrWesson22]

In an upcoming campaign I am going to DM, I will give a bonus feat at first level but only from the UA skill and racial feat lists. Something to think about.

[Naanomi]

In an upcoming campaign I am going to DM, I will give a bonus feat at first level but only from the UA skill and racial feat lists. Something to think about.
Hrm... I'd expect a fair amount of Dragon Wings, Ellen Accuracy... maybe some Stealthy, Perceptive, Brawny... or just efforts to start with 18 in a stat

[Hrugner]

Many of the old feats are bundled together so you have many feats stuck together, feats that give a plus 2 or 4 to something aren't going to show up due to bounded accuracy, the feats that alter action type are unnecessary, some systems are gutted or relegated to a single class no longer supporting feats, and the mobility feats have mostly been made baseline. That said, there's still plenty of room for feats. Many of the class bridging feats, those feats which supported multiclassing, could be ported over for instance.

Are there specific feats you want to see, or is it just a sense of sparseness.

[Scathain]

I'd argue that 5e feats can often be significantly more defining than most 3.5 feats, which tended to be "you do your thing, but a little better." Something like Healer or Magic Initiate can radically change how a character feels, and even something like GWM or Elemental Adept provide the same sort of focus that you'd need several feats and levels in 3.5 to represent.


But... the +1 stat feats don't break the BA caps? They provide half an ASI because they only provide half the benefit of a normal feat. They tend to be less powerful, but more flavorful. (Unless you mean at 1st level? I can see not wanting the extra +1 at 1st level, since that could let you hit an 18)

My bad for not specifying, yes I meant at 1st level.

[BurgerBeast]

Okay, so why did they overlap the optional feat structure on top of the ASI structure?

What would happen if, for example, you decided to follow the 3e feat progression: 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th... as an addition to the ASIs (which must be spent on ASIs only)? Would this be feat overkill?

Could they be granted at 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 18? Would that be too powerful?

What if you had limited selection by race/class? Or different levels of feat access might be divided into combat feats versus character feats (for lack of a better term)?

Bad ideas? Or doable?

(Also, I like the suggestion about having feats be rewards for in-game decisions, and I am planning to use it.)

[Coffee_Dragon]

I think the perception of feat starvation is at least partially caused by the somewhat understandable sentiment that certain feats are necessary to affirm certain character concepts. For any capability for which a feat arbitrarily exists to give a mechanical edge, the absence of the feat is effectively also a statement, or a glaring incongruity. Because Keen Mind grants certain traits, you cannot freely flavour yourself as having any of them. You can't call yourself truly observant without Observant, and you're not excellently alert without Alert. A polearm fighter without Polearm Master cannot even be trying. This also hits characters unevenly: one concept might have a dozen flavour and ability matches among feats, while another could be "lucky" enough to have few or none and go straight stats for as long as the campaign will last.

[sightlessrealit]

I mean, you don't have to give more ASI's to give feats.

You could give free ones at corner stone points.

Me personally, I give my players a free one at 1st, 10th, & if they ever reach it 20th level.

Feats are, fun & defines your character.

A Bard who takes Diplomat isn't just a great speaker. They are good enough to inspire a nation.

[Theodoxus]

I'm building a monk using standard array. Didn't get to be a ghostwise, so my Dex is 16, Wis is 15. I'm going +1/+1 every 4 levels, so my AC goes up every time, by Dex based stuff increases opposite my Wis based stuff...

But I really want mobile - because reasons. So, I contemplated, Maximizing my stats, (taking Observant along the way for that last +1 Wis) but that means Mobile at 19 (so, never used - boring!) or delaying my attribute progression, but get a decent toy to play with, starting at 4th.

I opted for the toy.

Now, this is for a campaign where the new to me DM has stated it will be a long term campaign. Very sand box, where level 20 is the expected goal - at some point. Of course, I've never played with this guy, or most of the folks in the meetup group, so it might easily come to a quick halt in 1-3 sessions... but assuming it's all good - I hoping the guy groks BA and has built the campaign world around it - because if he's assuming everyone is going to have a 20 in their combat stat by level 4, but is forcing us to use standard array (not even PB...) then it's going to be very deadly.

TL;DR - 5E is VERY feat starved if you're wanting maximized stats, but starting with SA or PB for generation. But if the campaign is built around the idea of BA - stats matter less and feats can be more prevalent...

[Sigreid]

I get that they're optional. But when the problem is "why can't characters have more of them?" - the answer is decidedly not to not use them at all.

But even in this context, why so limited? I guess I'm asking this more from a design perspective. Why make so much awesomeness and then lock it away?

Obviously the solution could be to just give more feats (every 3 or 2 or 1 level), but I'm curious to hear whether I'm misunderstanding something more fundamental here in terms of design goals/purpose.

If I'm not mistaken (AFB right now) in the DMG when it talks about boons in says that a feat can be a boon reward. Special training given because you saved the day or whatever. So the feats you get from leveling up are the training you sought or gave yourself. Boon feats are earned. As long as you're fair with the party about earning them, I don't see a problem.

[Pex]

But... the +1 stat feats don't break the BA caps? They provide half an ASI because they only provide half the benefit of a normal feat. They tend to be less powerful, but more flavorful. (Unless you mean at 1st level? I can see not wanting the extra +1 at 1st level, since that could let you hit an 18)

Darn. For the first time I finally disagree with you on these Forums. (Welcome to the club. :smallyuk:) There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an 18 at 1st level for it to be discouraged. You can already get one without any house rules. It's only the variant, Point Buy, that prevents it.

I like what 5E did for the feats themselves. Because of how they are I don't mind not having as many in number as in 3E. I don't like it costs an ASI. The reason players are not taking particular feats is because they aren't worth that cost.

[coolAlias]

Another factor is that it takes so dang long for any feat-based character concept to come online.

Basically any non-variant human non-fighter with such a concept has to wait until at least 8th level if not 12th before their concept can be realized. That's usually the majority of if not the entire campaign.

Want a mobile alert monk that is also a skilled healer? Well buckle up, because that's going to take you the whole game to accomplish, and neither your AC nor your attack/damage bonus will be going up that whole time.

Now, it's not like the above example is unplayable. Far from it. But when you play a character for months or years and they still don't match what you originally imagined, that's a tough sell.

That said, I don't think the system as it stands is bad. It forces hard decisions (for some characters) when leveling up, and that's great. Granting a bonus feat from a select list to every character at 1st level would open up a lot of character concepts without altering play balance too much. Even allowing variant humans to get 2 feats this way should be fine, otherwise you'd probably see very few human characters at your table.

Allowing more feats than that e.g. by decoupling them from ASIs, however, would most probably have a significant impact on balance. If you want to play a high-powered game, go for it and maybe even use 32+ point buy, but for most games, I think the current balance is pretty good.

[pwykersotz]

Another factor is that it takes so dang long for any feat-based character concept to come online.

I have considered trying a variant game where all feats and class features are collapsed into the first level, with HP and proficiency bonus being your level-up reward.

Could be fun.

[sightlessrealit]

I have considered trying a variant game where all feats and class features are collapsed into the first level, with HP and proficiency bonus being your level-up reward.

Could be fun.

O.o
Dear god. That's that's...............I so wanna try that.

[Beelzebubba]

I think they took a look at the sheer number of 'named' powers and feats in 3.x / 4.x and pulled back. It was all getting to be too much.

While it does incorporate a lot of innovative ideas from more recent games, this version is intentionally 'Basic' in it's feel.

[Sigreid]

I have considered trying a variant game where all feats and class features are collapsed into the first level, with HP and proficiency bonus being your level-up reward.

Could be fun.

And all of a sudden the Champion fighter becomes awesome with Survivor at 1st level making him a nearly indestructible killing machine.

[Specter]

Compared to 3e, feats now actually mean something good from the start. I like feats in 5e more than I used to.

And in some builds (namely fighter), sometimes you get more feats than you know what to do with.

[Willie the Duck]

What would happen if, for example, you decided to follow the 3e feat progression: 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th... as an addition to the ASIs (which must be spent on ASIs only)? Would this be feat overkill?

Could they be granted at 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 18? Would that be too powerful?

Overkill compared to what, and too powerful for what? To run alongside PCs built using a more by-the-book method? Absolutely for both. To play with in a campaign where everyone (PCs or PC analogues) has the same benefit? Go right ahead. The worst that happens is that you have to raise the difficulty of the challenges. It might end up a very strange campaign, though, although I can't quite predict how.

[coolAlias]

I have considered trying a variant game where all feats and class features are collapsed into the first level, with HP and proficiency bonus being your level-up reward.

Could be fun.
A more normal alternative is to simply start characters off at say 4th level, but yes, your hypothetical approach would certainly be interesting!

[Naanomi]

And all of a sudden the Champion fighter becomes awesome with Survivor at 1st level making him a nearly indestructible killing machine.
Meh not at first... you'd only have 18 HP at most

I think it would be hard to reign in casters; 9th level spells from the start trumps low HP martial characters with starting equipment

[Grod_The_Giant]

Darn. For the first time I finally disagree with you on these Forums. (Welcome to the club. :smallyuk:) There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an 18 at 1st level for it to be discouraged. You can already get one without any house rules. It's only the variant, Point Buy, that prevents it.

I like what 5E did for the feats themselves. Because of how they are I don't mind not having as many in number as in 3E. I don't like it costs an ASI. The reason players are not taking particular feats is because they aren't worth that cost.
Oh, I personally don't have a problem with starting 18s. I allowed rolled stats when I ran 5e (with some adjustments). One guy rolled 18, 18, 17 and wasn't really noticably better than anyone else. I can see why it might cause complaints, though.


Okay, so why did they overlap the optional feat structure on top of the ASI structure?

What would happen if, for example, you decided to follow the 3e feat progression: 1st, 3rd, 6th, 9th... as an addition to the ASIs (which must be spent on ASIs only)? Would this be feat overkill?

Could they be granted at 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 18? Would that be too powerful?
Too powerful? Ehhh... possibly? Party-wide buffs or nerfs are usually okay, because you can just tune encounter difficulty up or down to match, but I'd worry about winding up in a position where the party winds up a bunch of glass cannons-- capable of punching well above their expected weight class but not able to take a hit at the same level.

Overkill? Almost certainly. I mean, maybe not if you allow all the UA feats, but I would worry about characters running out of feats they actually care about. I'd suggest instead something like 1, 4, 10, and 16; that lets you get a combo operational early, then slows down once you've got the ones you really want.

[coolAlias]

Also, most 5e characters are perfectly playable, at least until high level (haven't personally played there yet), without ever increasing their starting stats. A main stat of 16 will do you just fine in most campaigns even at 12th level.

So, if you recognize that maximizing your main stat doesn't have to be a priority, that opens up all those ASIs for feats.

If you want players to be able to both have cool feats AND to max at least their main stat, then sure, give them some extra ASIs to spend or give them chances to gain feats in-game - as long as all the characters have equal opportunity to benefit, it's not going to break the game.

[DivisibleByZero]

Meh not at first... you'd only have 18 HP at most

I think it would be hard to reign in casters; 9th level spells from the start trumps low HP martial characters with starting equipment

Casters wouldn't get 9th level spells from the start. Spellcasting is a feature. That feature wouldn't change.
What would change is that they would get their 14th level subclass feature at level 1, for example.

[Sariel Vailo]

Id like more racial feats i play a lot of drow literally noted by my avatar which i made and i give the forum name i use.so more racial feats i mean the ua was a lil nice but better ones i mean of all drow culture one two feats. All dwarven culture. See what i am getting at playgrounders

[Willie the Duck]

Id like more racial feats i play a lot of drow literally noted by my avatar which i made and i give the forum name i use.so more racial feats i mean the ua was a lil nice but better ones i mean of all drow culture one two feats. All dwarven culture. See what i am getting at playgrounders

No. That's why punctuation matters.

[Tetrasodium]

I'm pretty sure that the other thread is this one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?527279-Fixing-the-human-race) & in the context it's not so much that players are feat starved as the fact that the variant human's bonus feat plus player chooses stat bonuses is often able to seem significantly more attractive & shiny than those of many of other PHB races.

[Gtdead]

Feats are really powerful in 5e, which creates the need to limit how many of them you get. However this also makes them taxes when creating any build.

A fighter without offensive feats is half the character. A cleric without WC and Res:CON can't really go in melee when half his spell list requires him to.

[Naanomi]

Casters wouldn't get 9th level spells from the start. Spellcasting is a feature. That feature wouldn't change.
What would change is that they would get their 14th level subclass feature at level 1, for example.
Sorry I guess I misread it, it seemed to say that only HP and Proficiency bonuses would increase and you'd get all other class features at first level

[Theodoxus]

I have considered trying a variant game where all feats and class features are collapsed into the first level, with HP and proficiency bonus being your level-up reward.

Could be fun.

I'm considering a variant game where Proficiency Bonus isn't a thing; most things that utilize proficiency get Advantage instead and everything else gets bonuses from equipment (material, construction, etc.)

[Vaz]

I've played and DM'd a game where you can get a Bonus feat every time you get a Stat Increase normally, and at the same time, divorce stats from class level, and have it by character level.

It allowed people to play fun characters that did lots of things and had plenty of things to do in combat. It meant a bit more work for the DM, but as long as everyone is building to the same rules, the balance among the teams are preserved.

[GlenSmash!]

Also, most 5e characters are perfectly playable, at least until high level (haven't personally played there yet), without ever increasing their starting stats. A main stat of 16 will do you just fine in most campaigns even at 12th level.

So, if you recognize that maximizing your main stat doesn't have to be a priority, that opens up all those ASIs for feats.

If you want players to be able to both have cool feats AND to max at least their main stat, then sure, give them some extra ASIs to spend or give them chances to gain feats in-game - as long as all the characters have equal opportunity to benefit, it's not going to break the game.

I agree with this, and in fact I'm starting to think it's doable even with a main stat of 14. There are a lot of ways to boost attack bonuses besides increasing your main stat like Archery Fighting Style, Bless, Reckless Attack.

[DivisibleByZero]

Sorry I guess I misread it, it seemed to say that only HP and Proficiency bonuses would increase and you'd get all other class features at first level

That's exactly what it said.
Spellcasting is a class feature. Within that class feature, it gates things by level. Since the class feature hasn't changed, the gates don't come down.
The only thing that changes are class features which are *gained* at a certain level. Those would be gained at 1st level.
But once you have the feature, it functions as normal for whatever level you are. That's the idea that was trying to be conveyed.

[Naanomi]

That's exactly what it said.
Spellcasting is a class feature. Within that class feature, it gates things by level. Since the class feature hasn't changed, the gates don't come down.
The only thing that changes are class features which are *gained* at a certain level. Those would be gained at 1st level.
But once you have the feature, it functions as normal for whatever level you are. That's the idea that was trying to be conveyed.
Would take some massaging for classes that don't get spellcasting at first level, but I have a better idea of what this would look like.

There would be a few sticky points still I think... flight (especially the storm sorcerer version) would have its usual low level implications... transmuter would have a first level ressurection...

Some abilities would dominate low levels because of the numbers alone (subsoul monk, beastmaster's pet, primal champion, Holy Nimbus, Hurl through Hell). Spell Mastery is probably overwhelming at low level

The capstone abilities that 'refill resources when you run out' are much stronger with limited resources, but I don't think they'd break anything.

You'd have to make some decisions about what qualifies as 'progressing an ability' as well... fighter's extra attacks? Persistent rage? Elemental Wildshape? Archdruid? Mystic Arcanum?

And how would things like Magical Secrets and the like work?

[Phelan Boots]

Whenever I draft up a character for fun, I almost always find myself trying to plan for a level 1 feat. It's frustrating for sure.

[BurgerBeast]

Whenever I draft up a character for fun, I almost always find myself trying to plan for a level 1 feat. It's frustrating for sure.

I'm starting to think (as a result of the input in this thread) that a more front-loaded progression is the way to go. Maybe simply add in feats at levels 1,2,4,7,11,16, and maybe at 20, too. Or even more front loaded: like 2 feats at level 1, 1 feat at levels 2, 4, 7, 11, 16.

[Phelan Boots]

I'm starting to think (as a result of the input in this thread) that a more front-loaded progression is the way to go. Maybe simply add in feats at levels 1,2,4,7,11,16, and maybe at 20, too. Or even more front loaded: like 2 feats at level 1, 1 feat at levels 2, 4, 7, 11, 16.

As much as feats interest me, it's definitely more about getting them online fast, than it is "MOAR FEETS!!!" Some characters need x,y, and z feat to feel complete. That could be the whole campaign. And then there's the cool multiclass combos that sound good on paper, but then you realize your delaying feats even more. And you might only get 4 ASIs total.

I like the idea of Level 1 feats and front loading in general. On top of that, detatching them from class level would be great for multiclasses. I have no idea what I would do with 7 feats though.

How about 2 at 1st, 1 at 3rd, 1 at 5th, and 1 at 10th PC levels?

[BurgerBeast]

How about 2 at 1st, 1 at 3rd, 1 at 5th, and 1 at 10th PC levels?

Seems pretty solid to me.

[JellyPooga]

Feeling Feat starved? Play a Fighter. Or a Rogue. Or a Fighter 8/Rogue 12. Add some V.Human while you're at it.

I will walk away from a table that gives away too many goodies; having all the toys makes the challenge dull and choice meaningless.

[Vaz]

Feeling Feat starved? Play a Fighter. Or a Rogue. Or a Fighter 8/Rogue 12. Add some V.Human while you're at it.

I will walk away from a table that gives away too many goodies; having all the toys makes the challenge dull and choice meaningless.

How does having additional things to choose from rather than mindlessly increasing stats equate to choice is meaninless? Do you take Magic Initiate or do you take Great Weapon Master? Do you take Shield Master or War Caster? Resilient Con or War Caster?

You"ve still got to wait a decent amount of time between L4 and L8.

And "giving you all the toys" simply means you can advance to more dangerous fights quicker without having to 'XP farm' or trudge through boring fights. Why is having more
feats (or to mirror another argument, better magic items) removing challenge from the game, when that challenge is set by the DM? Certain characters having certain abilities doesn't change that others cannot achieve the same thing. It doesn't matter if you can achieve DC25 Athletic Checks without rolling if the rest of your party haven't got Prof Athletics.

That sounds more akin to a DM unable to properly balance a fight for the new options, or a DM lacking in imagination.

[qube]

Personally I like it the way it is. the 'feat starvation' is what makes humans a desireable option.

[Zalabim]

Overkill compared to what, and too powerful for what? To run alongside PCs built using a more by-the-book method? Absolutely for both. To play with in a campaign where everyone (PCs or PC analogues) has the same benefit? Go right ahead. The worst that happens is that you have to raise the difficulty of the challenges. It might end up a very strange campaign, though, although I can't quite predict how.

The biggest danger with giving out extra feats is making them not feel special or important. You don't want to give the players a feeling of "Well, I don't see anything else I want, so I guess I'll take Resilient/Lucky/Tough/Durable/other" or putting someone in the position of picking a flavor they don't want. So it's important to have different compelling options (like adding in good skill or racial feats) and a bland but useful option (like ASIs themselves).

Basically, if everyone is a resilient, tough, lucky, sharpshooter, or resilient, tough, lucky, warcaster, or resilient, tough, lucky, polearm master, the feats can lose some of their meaning.

[Vaz]

As opposed to people who are already those anyway?

[Grod_The_Giant]

As opposed to people who are already those anyway?
Some people will, sure, but there's a difference between "I'm taking Tough because I want to be a gish and survive in melee" and "I guess I'm taking Tough because I don't want anything else out there." Feats are big enough and specific enough that it CAN feel like you run out of stuff you really want.

I strongly suggest not going overboard. A free feat at 1st (or 2nd/3rd; I like granting one at whatever level you don't get your subclass) means that any combo (say, Sentinel/Polearm Master) you want can be online by 4. If you really want, bonus feats at 2 and 6, maybe, would give a nice even flow of three feats. I don't think I'd go much above that or CHARACTER CONCEPTS would start being strained.

[Sirdar]

Consider a new dummy class which gives an ASI/Feat at every level. Any character can multiclass into this new class without stat requirements (from level 2).

You want an ASI or a Feat? You can get it any time you level up. But it will delay your advancement in your primary class just as any dip in a secondary class does.

Would it work? Should there be limit to the amount of levels you can take in this dummy class?

[BurgerBeast]

Okay, so after thinking about it a bit more, here's where I'm at:

* I don't want to flood the game with feats, but I want to get a few feats "online" earlier
* I don't want to just dump them all into level 1, because each feat added to level 1 reduces the appeal of Vuman
* I don't want to divorce the entire feat progression from class levels (and attach it to character level) because then it may change multiclassing in unpredictable (to me) ways

So I'm going to go with either:

1. Bonus feats at character levels 1 & 2.
2. Bonus feats at character levels 1, 2, & 3, which have choices restricted by race and class

Another thought has occurred to me as well: I've always felt that race was never enough of an influencing factor on characters, to the point that I have considered building races like classes, with new goodies every level (you wouldn't need to multi-class between race and class - you'd just advance in both). So, what if I dropped all of the previous ideas and added in an independent, character-level-based feat progression: 1st, 2nd, 6th, 10th; which are "racial" feats, with choices limited by race? (This is a previously mentioned progression that I quite like.)

[Spacehamster]

We usually lets players get both and ASI and a feat at 4th level, that way even classes like monks that needs every ASI it can get can get at the very least one feat. :)

[BurgerBeast]

Yeah, one other (potential) problem (albeit a relatively minor one) with using feats and ASIs (as opposed to allowing them to be interchangeable) is that players may select half-feats solely in order to receive the +1.

You could "fix" this by forcing players to select half-feats in pairs, receiving the feat-half and not receiving the ability-score-half.

[DeAnno]

Consider a new dummy class which gives an ASI/Feat at every level. Any character can multiclass into this new class without stat requirements (from level 2).

I suspect it was my comment that triggered all this, and I really like that idea. It's elegant and in theory doesn't step on any balance issues against canon rules, since 1 ASI is often 1 level or even not a complete level (in the case of casters who get an ASI + spells.) There are a lot of times in multiclass builds I leave ASIs hanging, and I think by the same token it's an authentic hard call to take the ASI class or not each level. ASIs are definitely better than some levels, but the more you get the weaker they are, and there's no ASI or feat that's as good as Extra Attack, for example.

[Willie the Duck]

The biggest danger with giving out extra feats is making them not feel special or important. You don't want to give the players a feeling of "Well, I don't see anything else I want, so I guess I'll take Resilient/Lucky/Tough/Durable/other" or putting someone in the position of picking a flavor they don't want. So it's important to have different compelling options (like adding in good skill or racial feats) and a bland but useful option (like ASIs themselves).

Basically, if everyone is a resilient, tough, lucky, sharpshooter, or resilient, tough, lucky, warcaster, or resilient, tough, lucky, polearm master, the feats can lose some of their meaning.


I think that's why they dumped the 3e automatic 1+1/3 level + feat chains approach and went with a much more contained system. I think a feat-saturated 5e variant would be an interesting experiment, but probably just once.