I'm a new Dm and one of my players asked if it was possible for him to receive feats instead of his ability scores changes for his race and I wasn't too sure whether or not to say yes so I'm curious as to what you guys think I should allow
Racial features are not balanced in an exact enough fashion for trading out their ability score modifications for feats, because not all ability score modifications have quite the same breadth of effect upon a character - especially since the player is likely looking at giving up a bonus to an ability score that they don't really plan on their character relying upon, and would no doubt be looking to grab a feat they do intend the character to rely upon in trade.
And beyond that, ability scores are not actually tightly balanced against feats and vice-versa, despite that when utilizing the optional feat rules you make a direct trade of +2 to one ability or +1 to two abilities for a feat - the balance point is the character overall, not each possible option against each other possible option (i.e. Great Weapon Master and Linguist aren't meant to be considered equal - one is clearly more useful to a particular character for a particular campaign, and the other is balanced by your later options all being of less use to your particular character than your first option was, whether they are more feats or ability improvements)
Or, to phrase all my rambling a lot more succinctly; your poll is missing the "It's not a great idea to say yes to this - unless you want your game to be wildly unbalanced, in which case don't bother asking us, just do what sounds cool to you and your players."
Ability Score increases aren't exactly even across the board either. Some get 3 some get 4. Letting someone start with 3 or 4 extra feats (even one or two if it's not human variant) may be a touch unwise if you're a new DM. Feats in 5e read as pretty simple bullet point lists of new abilities a character gets / but they're suites of game function changing abilities. If anything I think what I'd offer if the person insisted they'd need an extra feat to make the game fun for them I'd probably offer the same option to the rest of the players as well. But my advice would be to play per rules as written for awhile before upping the game level that much.
As a new player who is totally taking advantage of feats, I would say to some degree if I were a DM my NPC's and monsters would have feats as well to balance the advantage of a character having feats. I joined a campaign at lvl 3. My DM is using house rules with experience points. Meaning I made it to level 5 after two short campaigns. Only about 15 hours of playing time. Naturally I was interested in feats and chose Luck as a feat. I really needed to balance some of my lower abilities but the Luck feat was too enticing. It proved already to be a good choice, and if I was my DM I would ban them...but that seems to be the cool thing about feats. In my very limited 5e experience but many years of 1980's playing, my 1980's DM friend would totally have me up against an NPC who had Luck as well, just to show how things would be done...
Feats in 5E are powerful, they're effectively 3-5 Feats from 3.xE wrapped up into one. Getting a Feat at 1st level is the benefit humans may have over the other races, and only if your DM allows the Variant Human! So trading out racial bonuses to stats for a Feat should be a resounding "no". Feats take the logic of a character having done the aspects of the Feat long enough to master it. Thus, most PCs have their first Feat opportunity at 4th level. Humans (Variant) apparently are OCD enough to master a Feat at 1st level. Yeah humans! *self-high-five* The balance of the game design has worked well thus far aside from most of my PC groups are now 75% human just for that Feat. But that now means I get to have a lot more fun with darkness issues!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm a new Dm and one of my players asked if it was possible for him to receive feats instead of his ability scores changes for his race and I wasn't too sure whether or not to say yes so I'm curious as to what you guys think I should allow
Racial features are not balanced in an exact enough fashion for trading out their ability score modifications for feats, because not all ability score modifications have quite the same breadth of effect upon a character - especially since the player is likely looking at giving up a bonus to an ability score that they don't really plan on their character relying upon, and would no doubt be looking to grab a feat they do intend the character to rely upon in trade.
And beyond that, ability scores are not actually tightly balanced against feats and vice-versa, despite that when utilizing the optional feat rules you make a direct trade of +2 to one ability or +1 to two abilities for a feat - the balance point is the character overall, not each possible option against each other possible option (i.e. Great Weapon Master and Linguist aren't meant to be considered equal - one is clearly more useful to a particular character for a particular campaign, and the other is balanced by your later options all being of less use to your particular character than your first option was, whether they are more feats or ability improvements)
Or, to phrase all my rambling a lot more succinctly; your poll is missing the "It's not a great idea to say yes to this - unless you want your game to be wildly unbalanced, in which case don't bother asking us, just do what sounds cool to you and your players."
Ability Score increases aren't exactly even across the board either. Some get 3 some get 4. Letting someone start with 3 or 4 extra feats (even one or two if it's not human variant) may be a touch unwise if you're a new DM. Feats in 5e read as pretty simple bullet point lists of new abilities a character gets / but they're suites of game function changing abilities.
If anything I think what I'd offer if the person insisted they'd need an extra feat to make the game fun for them I'd probably offer the same option to the rest of the players as well. But my advice would be to play per rules as written for awhile before upping the game level that much.
Yeah, I'm leading towards the don't allow them to trade ability scores for feats at all. Especially if you are allowing them to roll for the scores.
Site Rules & Guidelines || How to Tooltip || Contact Support || Changelog || Pricing FAQ || Homebrew FAQ
If you have questions/concerns, please Private Message me or another moderator.
Wary the wizard who focuses on homebrew, for he can create nightmares that you wouldn't even dream of
I usually allow for very minor changes in the racial traits, but changing ability scores for feats is over-overpowered, imho.
As a new player who is totally taking advantage of feats, I would say to some degree if I were a DM my NPC's and monsters would have feats as well to balance the advantage of a character having feats. I joined a campaign at lvl 3. My DM is using house rules with experience points. Meaning I made it to level 5 after two short campaigns. Only about 15 hours of playing time. Naturally I was interested in feats and chose Luck as a feat. I really needed to balance some of my lower abilities but the Luck feat was too enticing. It proved already to be a good choice, and if I was my DM I would ban them...but that seems to be the cool thing about feats. In my very limited 5e experience but many years of 1980's playing, my 1980's DM friend would totally have me up against an NPC who had Luck as well, just to show how things would be done...
Feats in 5E are powerful, they're effectively 3-5 Feats from 3.xE wrapped up into one. Getting a Feat at 1st level is the benefit humans may have over the other races, and only if your DM allows the Variant Human! So trading out racial bonuses to stats for a Feat should be a resounding "no". Feats take the logic of a character having done the aspects of the Feat long enough to master it. Thus, most PCs have their first Feat opportunity at 4th level. Humans (Variant) apparently are OCD enough to master a Feat at 1st level. Yeah humans! *self-high-five* The balance of the game design has worked well thus far aside from most of my PC groups are now 75% human just for that Feat. But that now means I get to have a lot more fun with darkness issues!
We all leave footprints in the sands of time.