Extra feat for all at level 1

[acemcjack]

I love feats. I can't get enough of them.
Particularly, I like feats that give you abilities outside of combat, such as Dungeon Delver, Skulker, Alert and so on.
How imbalanced would a house rule that allows all characters (Human or not) to take one of those feats (excluding combat feats and / or Magic Initiate) at level 1?
Humans would, of course, need to be compensated somewhat. but seeing as how they are already considered the best race to play anyway (power-wise, at least. Personally, I prefer Dwarves. :smallsmile:), maybe something small like an extra skill or an extra ability point would suffice?
Maybe another way to do this, would be to limit available feats at 1st level to half feats only without the added ability bonus, while Humans can still take any feat they wish (provided they meet the required prerequisites).
What do you think?

[Coffee_Dragon]

I wouldn't worry about having to give variant humans something extra on top. Most people who give out a free feat at level 1 simply disallow them.

[CTurbo]

I think a free feat at level one could be the single most popular houserule.

I say go for it, ban variant human, and give the regular human a free skill of choice.

[acemcjack]

Thing is, I want to keep it fairly limited.
I assume that, granted a free feat with no limits, most players will choose GWF, PAM, Sharpshooter, or Magic Initiate.
I'd like to see other feats getting some airtime earlier in the game.
Also, I don't like the regular Human variant. I think it's really boring.

[GreyBlack]

Thing is, I want to keep it fairly limited.
I assume that, granted a free feat with no limits, most players will choose GWF, PAM, Sharpshooter, or Magic Initiate.
I'd like to see other feats getting some airtime earlier in the game.
Also, I don't like the regular Human variant. I think it's really boring.

If that's what you want.... have you considered just banning those feats? Those feats do tend to be the problem feats for everyone, so make them less of an auto pick for everyone and their lizardfolk.

[CTurbo]

Ironically most of the 1st level feats I've ever chosen were +1 half feats like Resilient, Tavern Brawler, Heavy Armor Master, and Moderately Armored.


But yeah just ban the ones you don't want them to take early. I could see banning GWM, SS, PAM, and Warcaster. Those are probably the 4 strongest feats to have at level 1.

[DrKerosene]

This is one of my houserules. I’m DMing for two PCs, the Aasimar Sword Bard took Tavern Brawler, and the Human Tree Druid took Keen Mind.

[LuccMa]

As a player taking a feat like GWM or Sharpshooter at level one feels great. If you want to play an archer, you want that feat and getting it early makes them already feel like a top tier archer.
I dont think you should ban those, just make them available at lvl 4 if you dont want them at level 1. A feat like Warcaster is, unfortunately, a must for some builds.

Another option is just gifting them feats at some point. They dont know they get a feat and instead of picking one at level 1 you chose which feats to give. My players really liked it because it felt like a gift and the feats i gifted weren't any they would have picked themselves but made sense for their characters.

[CTurbo]

As a player taking a feat like GWM or Sharpshooter at level one feels great. If you want to play an archer, you want that feat and getting it early makes them already feel like a top tier archer.
I dont think you should ban those, just make them available at lvl 4 if you dont want them at level 1. A feat like Warcaster is, unfortunately, a must for some builds.

Another option is just gifting them feats at some point. They dont know they get a feat and instead of picking one at level 1 you chose which feats to give. My players really liked it because it felt like a gift and the feats i gifted weren't any they would have picked themselves but made sense for their characters.


I wasn't suggesting he ban those feats completely, just ban them from being a level 1 option.

[Zhorn]

I also offer a bonus level 1 feat to all players, but it is from a restricted list, with what you have access to select from being dictated by class.

Magic Initiate, Spell Sniper and Ritual Caster are all available for Bards, Druids, Sorcs, Warlocks and Wizards, but spell selection is limited to their own class.

Martial Adept and Savage Attacker are available for Barbarians, Fighters, Monks and Paladins.

Inspiring Leader is an option for Bards and Paladins.

Grappler for Barbarians and Monks.

Dungeon Delver and Skulker for Rogues and Rangers.

Or the Healer feat available for all classes.

Alternatively, racial feats are also a nice flavor addition.

[LuccMa]

I would advise against restricting them by class. The feats taken by players will be an addition to their character or represent a part of their backstory. There is no need to say: "No, you cant be an experienced grappler. Youre not a Monk or Barb." - "But my fighter fought 2 years in an arena barehanded?!" - "Not a Monk or Barb."

A Wizard who has nothing to to with grappling wont take such a feat. Classes in itself restrict the abilities a player gets - he gets those of his class. Feats are the perfect way to expand on that. A fighter with ritual casting at level 1 or magic initiate already feels like the Warmage (Eldritch Knight) he wants to play, without having to wait for level 3 and searching for reasons why he cant cast until that point in his career.

[Wuzza]

Go for it.

Depending on what feats your players choose, you can either adjust mobs by using their max HP, for example (I've started doing this as I front-loaded my group with magic weapons), or for non-combat feats, introduce situations that give them the chance to use them and shine.

It's only overpowered if the DM allows it to be. :smallwink:

[Agent-KI7KO]

I made my own variation:

I give an extra ASI at Character Level 4 and 12.

It must be an ASI, however but they are free to use their class level ASIs for feats.

[Dr. Cliché]

I've taken to doing this for all my games.

I don't ban or restrict the feats they can take, though. I trust my players to pick something appropriate to their character/backstory.

[acemcjack]

I also offer a bonus level 1 feat to all players, but it is from a restricted list, with what you have access to select from being dictated by class.

Magic Initiate, Spell Sniper and Ritual Caster are all available for Bards, Druids, Sorcs, Warlocks and Wizards, but spell selection is limited to their own class.

Martial Adept and Savage Attacker are available for Barbarians, Fighters, Monks and Paladins.

Inspiring Leader is an option for Bards and Paladins.

Grappler for Barbarians and Monks.

Dungeon Delver and Skulker for Rogues and Rangers.

Or the Healer feat available for all classes.

Alternatively, racial feats are also a nice flavor addition.


I would advise against restricting them by class. The feats taken by players will be an addition to their character or represent a part of their backstory. There is no need to say: "No, you cant be an experienced grappler. Youre not a Monk or Barb." - "But my fighter fought 2 years in an arena barehanded?!" - "Not a Monk or Barb."

A Wizard who has nothing to to with grappling wont take such a feat. Classes in itself restrict the abilities a player gets - he gets those of his class. Feats are the perfect way to expand on that. A fighter with ritual casting at level 1 or magic initiate already feels like the Warmage (Eldritch Knight) he wants to play, without having to wait for level 3 and searching for reasons why he cant cast until that point in his career.

Yeah, same here. Part of what appeals to me with feats is the ability to "multiclass without multiclassing". It lets you do stuff that otherwise, you might really suck at, because your class already limits you to certain abilities.

As for banning feats, I would only do so for level 1, or rather, give some of the stronger feats level prerequisites.

[Hytheter]

Magic Initiate ... and Ritual Caster are all available for Bards, Druids, Sorcs, Warlocks and Wizards, but spell selection is limited to their own class.

Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of those feats? If I'm taking Magic Initiate it's probably to give someone a martial character a little magical flair without fully leaning into it. Meanwhile, the last thing a Sorcerer needs is more Sorcerer cantrips.

[napoleon_in_rag]

I love feats. I can't get enough of them.
Particularly, I like feats that give you abilities outside of combat, such as Dungeon Delver, Skulker, Alert and so on.
How imbalanced would a house rule that allows all characters (Human or not) to take one of those feats (excluding combat feats and / or Magic Initiate) at level 1?
Humans would, of course, need to be compensated somewhat. but seeing as how they are already considered the best race to play anyway (power-wise, at least. Personally, I prefer Dwarves. :smallsmile:), maybe something small like an extra skill or an extra ability point would suffice?
Maybe another way to do this, would be to limit available feats at 1st level to half feats only without the added ability bonus, while Humans can still take any feat they wish (provided they meet the required prerequisites).
What do you think?

It's fine as long as you don't allow variant human. Two overlapping feats means your character is a superhero at first level.

[2D8HP]

Thing is, I want to keep it fairly limited.
I assume that, granted a free feat with no limits, most players will choose GWF, PAM, Sharpshooter, or Magic Initiate.
I'd like to see other feats getting some airtime earlier in the game....



If that's what you want.... have you considered just banning those feats? Those feats do tend to be the problem feats for everyone, so make them less of an auto pick for everyone and their lizardfolk.



Ironically most of the 1st level feats I've ever chosen were +1 half feats like Resilient, Tavern Brawler, Heavy Armor Master, and Moderately Armored.


But yeah just ban the ones you don't want them to take early. I could see banning GWM, SS, PAM, and Warcaster. Those are probably the 4 strongest feats to have at level 1.


As a player taking a feat like GWM or Sharpshooter at level one feels great. If you want to play an archer, you want that feat and getting it early makes them already feel like a top tier archer.
I dont think you should ban those, just make them available at lvl 4 if you dont want them at level 1. A feat like Warcaster is, unfortunately, a must for some builds....


I can't speak on the Great Weapon Master, Pole Arm Master, or Warcaster Feats as I've never seen them in play, but I'm underwhelmed by 'Sharpshooter'.

When the foes have a low AC it's alright, but in the games I've played lately, even combined with the Extra Attack Class feature and a 20 DEX my PC would have done more damage by not using the Feat, the "to hit" penalty incurred to do the extra damage makes it a wash at best in most of the combats my PC has been in.

This is supposed to be "OP"?

I waited to max out DEX first before getting the Feat, but I'm thinking a different use for the ASI slot would've been better.

Unless the foes has a really low AC I just don't see the utility at First Level, maybe if you roll a high DEX and have a racial bonus to it as well, but the "To Hit" penalty is just too great.

If the choice is Sharpshooter or a higher DEX until the Proficiency Bonus is high, DEX looks like a better choice to me.

[FrancisBean]

I assume that, granted a free feat with no limits, most players will choose GWF, PAM, Sharpshooter, or Magic Initiate.

I've found that power-gaming tends to be fairly rare at my tables. E.g., my current character got an unrestricted 1st-level feat. I took Squat Nimbleness. I'm sure tables vary, but it's not something I find I need to worry about most of the time. Usually, when my crew gets free stuff, they want something to flesh out a role-play concept. The optimized selections are usually only when they find a mechanical weakness they want to shore up.

[Pharaon]

It's fine as long as you don't allow variant human. Two overlapping feats means your character is a superhero at first level.

Everyone (including variant humans) gets a free feat at level 1 at my table, but one of the two feats for v. humans has to be Prodigy.

Related house rule: anyone can take Prodigy, regardless of race.

[Tanarii]

It's overpowered. There's a reason that Variant Humans are extremely popular in games that allow them. They're overpowered.

If you're runni a home game you can compensate by increasing difficulty of encounter, but don't forget to balance that by decreasing XP earned, or you'll have greatly accelerated 5e's already lightning fast XP pace.



When the foes have a low AC it's alright, but in the games I've played lately, even combined with the Extra Attack Class feature and a 20 DEX my PC would have done more damage by not using the Feat, the "to hit" penalty incurred to do the extra damage makes it a wash at best in most of the combats my PC has been in.

This is supposed to be "OP"?Then you either got very unlucky rolls, or aren't calculating the math right. IIRC Sharpshooter is a DPR upgrade against AC 18 or less for most builds, before Archery Fighting Style is considered.

[mephnick]

Then you either got very unlucky rolls, or aren't calculating the math right. IIRC Sharpshooter is a DPR upgrade against AC 18 or less for most builds, before Archery Fighting Style is considered.

Yeah he must be using it wrong. In my games you use it against everything and it almost always works. Very few 5e monsters have a 17+ AC and ignoring cover/distance makes it pretty much a win button in every situation. It's easily the strongest feat in the game and blows GWM out of the water when the Fighting Style is added.

[stoutstien]

If I could get a free 1st lv feat I'd look HaM, inspiring leader, healer, ritual, observant,or res X.
Sulker and medium armor master are honorable mentions

[Coffee_Dragon]

Everyone (including variant humans) gets a free feat at level 1 at my table, but one of the two feats for v. humans has to be Prodigy.

Related house rule: anyone can take Prodigy, regardless of race.

I hope you've considered that the relative value of the human feat decreases as everyone gets another feat, so whatever the original power gap between variant human and the rest, it can only have diminished (and not everyone thinks variant human is the most powerful). So the reason for doing this should only be that starting with two feats is itself game-breaking somehow. I'm not sure about that.

I would accept this option if the alternative was banning variant human though. Would you also accept the UA version of Prodigy, or Human Determination?

[Coffee_Dragon]

Sulker and medium armor master are honorable mentions

Sulker is OP on edgelords

[stoutstien]

Sulker is OP on edgelords
I think it's one of the most underrated feats but strangely is never mentioned in the same contacts as SS, GWM, or XBow

[Pharaon]

I hope you've considered that the relative value of the human feat decreases as everyone gets another feat, so whatever the original power gap between variant human and the rest, it can only have diminished (and not everyone thinks variant human is the most powerful). So the reason for doing this should only be that starting with two feats is itself game-breaking somehow. I'm not sure about that.

Sure, variant human isn't getting as much as others, especially restricted to Prodigy as their new feat. However, we look at as if the variant human feat is Prodigy. If the PHB came out today, I actually think it might be set up that way.

Anyway, my tables don't see a ton of variant humans, even before everyone got bonus feats. We seem to gravitate to half elf as the powerful choice.


I would accept this option if the alternative was banning variant human though. Would you also accept the UA version of Prodigy, or Human Determination?

I would be open to either, but I don't know if anyone would take it (I probably wouldn't). Between the tables I play at and DM, there are several old 3.P players that put a lot of value on expertise. People really want to be the master of that one skill - whatever it may be. That's one reason Prodigy is open for anybody to take; it is a very popular feat at our table.

[Coffee_Dragon]

People really want to be the master of that one skill - whatever it may be. That's one reason Prodigy is open for anybody to take; it is a very popular feat at our table.

It certainly works a lot better as a general expertise feat than the mess that was the UA skill feats.

[Pharaon]

It certainly works a lot better as a general expertise feat than the mess that was the UA skill feats.

The UA skill feats is where we started with bonus feats for everyone. We were just starting a campaign as it came out and we each picked one. They (and the UA race feats) are so wildly imbalanced that, while we had fun, we would never use them again.

[Hruken]

I ran a campaign with free level 1 feats, no restrictions, and variant human allowed (they would get 2 feats at first level). No one even tried the variant human (did have a normal human) and my players picked mobile, observant, alert, tavern brawler, heavy armor master, and skulker.

It does make the characters more powerful, but it also allows more variety in their builds. You might have to tune things a little higher to challenge your players, but that isn't really a problem in my eyes. Go for it!

[mephnick]

I think it's one of the most underrated feats but strangely is never mentioned in the same contacts as SS, GWM, or XBow

It's absolutely amazing on CBE rogues. Basically a free miss on your ambush. I'm always confused why people rate it so low

[Rebonack]

We've been doing this with games at our table for a number of years now. With the very important rule that you can't start with more than 17 in any one stat.

We ended up just totally remaking human. +1 in any two stats, +1 skill prof of choice, advantage on saves against exhaustion, +Prof on Hit Dice healing, and the ability to spend a Hit Die if they succeed on a Death saving throw. Humans aren't as durable as dwarves and they can't shrug off hits like orcs, but their resolve and determination means that they're going to stand back up and keep fighting so long as they can still hold their sword.

[Kane0]

Just say 'free feat at level 1, subject to approval'

[Keravath]

I think a free feat at level one could be the single most popular houserule.

I say go for it, ban variant human, and give the regular human a free skill of choice.

If you are banning variant human and allowing everyone else to take a feat at first level I don't see why you wouldn't just allow the regular human to also take a feat at first level. Keep in mind that the OP was excluding combat related feats.

Also, keep in mind that allowing a feat for non-human races allows folks whose race gives a +2 to a stat to take a 1/2 feat boosting the starting stat to 18 and then the level 4 ASI can raise it to 20. This would put these characters ahead of other options in terms of to hit and spell DC and is a reasonable balance consideration. Free feats at level 1 for non-human races is a BIG boost ... more so than for human or variant human who only receive a +1 to any stat. (I am looking at this from a point buy rather than rolled stats perspective).

[CTurbo]

If you are banning variant human and allowing everyone else to take a feat at first level I don't see why you wouldn't just allow the regular human to also take a feat at first level. Keep in mind that the OP was excluding combat related feats.

Also, keep in mind that allowing a feat for non-human races allows folks whose race gives a +2 to a stat to take a 1/2 feat boosting the starting stat to 18 and then the level 4 ASI can raise it to 20. This would put these characters ahead of other options in terms of to hit and spell DC and is a reasonable balance consideration. Free feats at level 1 for non-human races is a BIG boost ... more so than for human or variant human who only receive a +1 to any stat. (I am looking at this from a point buy rather than rolled stats perspective).

Yes the regular human would still get a free feat but also a free skill.

[acemcjack]

We've been doing this with games at our table for a number of years now. With the very important rule that you can't start with more than 17 in any one stat.

We ended up just totally remaking human. +1 in any two stats, +1 skill prof of choice, advantage on saves against exhaustion, +Prof on Hit Dice healing, and the ability to spend a Hit Die if they succeed on a Death saving throw. Humans aren't as durable as dwarves and they can't shrug off hits like orcs, but their resolve and determination means that they're going to stand back up and keep fighting so long as they can still hold their sword.

I like the idea of giving humans some ability that reflects their determination, but it should be rather simple, I think. Maybe a free proficiency in WIS or CON saves (choose one). If that's OP, perhaps a proficiency or advantage in Death Saves?

[Zhorn]

I would advise against restricting them by class. The feats taken by players will be an addition to their character or represent a part of their backstory. There is no need to say: "No, you cant be an experienced grappler. Youre not a Monk or Barb." - "But my fighter fought 2 years in an arena barehanded?!" - "Not a Monk or Barb."

A Wizard who has nothing to to with grappling wont take such a feat. Classes in itself restrict the abilities a player gets - he gets those of his class. Feats are the perfect way to expand on that. A fighter with ritual casting at level 1 or magic initiate already feels like the Warmage (Eldritch Knight) he wants to play, without having to wait for level 3 and searching for reasons why he cant cast until that point in his career.

Doesn't that completely defeat the purpose of those feats? If I'm taking Magic Initiate it's probably to give someone a martial character a little magical flair without fully leaning into it. Meanwhile, the last thing a Sorcerer needs is more Sorcerer cantrips.

I can fully respect those points of view. But it comes down to what the goal of the bonus feats you are giving out are meant to represent.
For what I am doing is looking to expand on the players chosen class/race identity (I've a huge list of racial feats, but I figured that was too long to post).
For the caster specific feats (Magic Initiate, Spell Sniper and Ritual Caster) there's a few reasons why I restrict it to the character's chosen class.

Identity. If the player was intending to go another class, chances are they would have picked that class from the get-go.
Bonuses, not shortcuts. Some builds will have dips into other classes specifically for some low level spells/cantrips. if they want them, they can do that the normal way.
Low level utility. Sorcerer's may be rich in cantrips at higher levels, but all casters can benefit from having a few extra choices at low levels. With these you can grab that extra utility pick instead of choosing between one or the other
Secondary effects. Ritual Casting, extended range, a free 1st level spell cast. If you don't already get those with your class, then it's a nice perk to have.


For things like grappler, if it was a focus of their backstory, I'd most probably make an exception, but overall I don't give out these bonus feats in my game to fulfill a shortcut or major power boost. They are a small perk, something to free up choices or supply minor utility. Full unrestricted choice in feats is the Variant Human's niche, and as Coffee_Dragon says, V-Human's value decreases when more races have unrestricted access to 1st level feats

[CTurbo]

Oooo l like the idea of giving the human a free floating save proficiency instead of a feat. It's weaker than Resilient because you wouldn't get the extra +1 to whatever stat you chose.

I don't like the free feat at level 1 thing, but humans do need SOMETHING.

I actually may adopt that from now own. I guess the only issue is the player could still take Res and be proficient with 4 saves. Maybe I'll just make it so the free feat MUST be Resilient.

[Black Jester]

The solution is simple:
Have each player prepare the background, interests and goals of their character. Then, tell that background to the player on their left on session 0 and let that player decide which feat they would pck for the character based on the back story. With the explicit opportunity to grant no feat if the story is unconvincing or boring.
That way, you

motivate the player to come up with an interesting and engaging background for their chracters
create cross-interest between the players a<nd their characters because each player gets involved in a relevant step of the character creation
prevent blantant abuse of additional options, focussing more on interesting than powerful features
and offer an antidote against the toxic and self-entitled notion that each player is thirs alone and utterly untouchable.


This is fair treatment, were everybody gets what they deserve and not what they feel entitled to. And if anybody comes up with only a rudimentary or cookie-cutterish background, they get exactly what they deserve: nothing.


A few years back, we did something similar with gestalt rules: Each player chose one branch of their character and the other one was dictated by another player or the GM. The result were extremely beloved and endearing characters, because their development mirrored the events they went through ( I think everybody ended up with a level in Ranger after a series of long stasy in the deep wilderness) and granted levels of depth and verisimilitude to the characters unusual for D&D characters.

[Coffee_Dragon]

And if anybody comes up with only a rudimentary or cookie-cutterish background, they get exactly what they deserve: nothing.

Nah, they get resentment.