I love feats at first level. I already offered them in my 5e games. I think they are great to add customization options for characters and really make them unique. I am happy with most of the way these feats appeared in the first UA. My only major complaint is that there aren't enough of them. With only 11 total feats available at 1st level, it won't be long before you see the same ones over and over in games. That kind of detracts from the uniqueness of the whole thing.
I think we need more, and I think I know where to get them. There are a handful of 4th level feats that are kind of suboptimal, and don't really fit the theme as much. These are feats that, like the 1st level ones, really show more of who a character IS, rather than skills that would require more adventuring experience. I would like to see them move these feats to first level, and remove the stat bonuses and requirements. Just transfer only the abilities they give you and make them available from the start.
If you disagree with this whole basic premise, you can probably save some time and quit here. That's totally okay. If not, I'll try to explain my thinking. I apologize for the formatting. It's not easy on a phone.
Current 1DnD UA 1st Level Feats -
These all tend to show natural talents of a character, skills they might have picked up from their backgrounds, or dabbling in minor training outside of their class. They are generally really solid to get across the feel of who a character was before adventuring. And their power level is appropriate to the level. There are currently only 11 of them, including the armor one from the new UA:
Alert
Crafter
Healer
Lightly Armored
Lucky
Magic Initiate
Musician
Savage Attacker
Skilled
Tavern Brawler
Tough
Feats I would like to see moved from 4th level to 1st -
I am excluding any that have big combat bonuses, or seem to require more extensive training. I'm only looking at ones that reflect natural talents a person might have before adventuring, a previous career, or basic training. It seems strange that someone at 1st level could be a Tavern Brawler, but not an Athlete or Observant for example. There are 6 of these, which would bring the total to 17. Again, this would mean removing the +1 to a stat, and removing the minimum stat restrictions.
Actor
Athlete
Keen Mind
Observant
Ritual Caster (without the book option, this is basically just a variant on MI)
Weapon Training
Other feats not yet represented -
These are some from other 5e sources that haven't appeared yet, but seem suitable for 1st level. Remove any prerequisites and stat bonuses. These 3 would bring the total to 21. Anything around 20 would be a nice variety I think.
Chef (could give temp HP and remove an exhaustion level on a short rest to PB number of party members)
Linguist (pick 3 languages)
Prodigy (pick one language, one skill, and one tool)
That's about it. With these additions to first level, we would have a lot more variety. We could cover many more backgrounds, and reflect special talents better. And they would become more appealing options than they are now at 4th level. They could even build on them for more advanced versions later at higher levels.
I love feats at first level. I already offered them in my 5e games. I think they are great to add customization options for characters and really make them unique. I am happy with most of the way these feats appeared in the first UA. My only major complaint is that there aren't enough of them. With only 11 total feats available at 1st level, it won't be long before you see the same ones over and over in games. That kind of detracts from the uniqueness of the whole thing.
I think we need more, and I think I know where to get them. There are a handful of 4th level feats that are kind of suboptimal, and don't really fit the theme as much. These are feats that, like the 1st level ones, really show more of who a character IS, rather than skills that would require more adventuring experience. I would like to see them move these feats to first level, and remove the stat bonuses and requirements. Just transfer only the abilities they give you and make them available from the start.
If you disagree with this whole basic premise, you can probably save some time and quit here. That's totally okay. If not, I'll try to explain my thinking. I apologize for the formatting. It's not easy on a phone.
Current 1DnD UA 1st Level Feats -
These all tend to show natural talents of a character, skills they might have picked up from their backgrounds, or dabbling in minor training outside of their class. They are generally really solid to get across the feel of who a character was before adventuring. And their power level is appropriate to the level. There are currently only 11 of them, including the armor one from the new UA:
Alert
Crafter
Healer
Lightly Armored
Lucky
Magic Initiate
Musician
Savage Attacker
Skilled
Tavern Brawler
Tough
Feats I would like to see moved from 4th level to 1st -
I am excluding any that have big combat bonuses, or seem to require more extensive training. I'm only looking at ones that reflect natural talents a person might have before adventuring, a previous career, or basic training. It seems strange that someone at 1st level could be a Tavern Brawler, but not an Athlete or Observant for example. There are 6 of these, which would bring the total to 17. Again, this would mean removing the +1 to a stat, and removing the minimum stat restrictions.
Actor
Athlete
Keen Mind
Observant
Ritual Caster (without the book option, this is basically just a variant on MI)
Weapon Training
Other feats not yet represented -
These are some from other 5e sources that haven't appeared yet, but seem suitable for 1st level. Remove any prerequisites and stat bonuses. These 3 would bring the total to 21. Anything around 20 would be a nice variety I think.
Chef (could give temp HP and remove an exhaustion level on a short rest to PB number of party members)
Linguist (pick 3 languages)
Prodigy (pick one language, one skill, and one tool)
That's about it. With these additions to first level, we would have a lot more variety. We could cover many more backgrounds, and reflect special talents better. And they would become more appealing options than they are now at 4th level. They could even build on them for more advanced versions later at higher levels.
Completely absolutely agree, In addition I would love to removal of the +1's from the 4th level feats and just make it +1 ASI AND a feat, with the ASI feat being another +1. This would make taking another first level feat at level 4 less punishing and 4th level feats would outright be "power" abilities like all the "expert/ master" abilities.
That's a fantastic idea, Aquilontune. It makes total sense, and it solves a problem that I felt in the back of my mind, but couldn't answer. I'm going to definitely put that in my feedback, thank you.
I would also add that 1st level feats need an ability score increase for them to be viable past 1st level. Just take 1 ability score point from character creation and add it into feats to equalize them.
The entire idea from Wizards is that certain feats are too good to be available at all levels of play. I'm surprised we saw as many feats as we did at level 4, I was expecting the Big Fighty feats to be level 8, but the idea still stands - certain feats are allowed to be better than other feats, and that betterness is gated by level.
The ideas people posit of stripping all feats of their ASI and just making each ASI stage "+1 to any stat and a random feat" gets away from the idea that feats should be allowed to be better than other feats and tries to go back to "you can take literally any feat at literally any time." I don't think that's good for the game. I think there's a lot of value in allowing there to be different tiers of feat you can only take at higher levels. On top of providing some mild incentive to actually play past level 5 and for DMs to run games outside of Tier 1 play, it allows a lot more design space for feats to exist in. We could potentially get some really cool humdingers, but only if we allow level gating of feats. And that's gonna mean that "lesser" feats often don't end up taken at higher levels. That's fine. If someone desperately wants one they can take it regardless, as they always could, and in the meantime we get a broader pool of really cool things to play with.
I'm all for level restricted feats. I like the idea of most of the level 4 feats requiring an adventurer to actual have experience... adventuring. And higher level feats that build onto them are exciting too. I don't want to remove level limits to feats.
I think what Aquilontune and kamchatmonk are pointing out is that all 4th level feats we have seen have a +1 stat bonus. So mechanically, it is the same thing as saying that everyone gets a +1 and a feat, or just a +2.
My initial post was just saying that some of the 4th level feats feel more suitable as 1st level feats. They tell you who the character is: Observant, athletic, smart, etc. It's weird that a 1st level character can't be those things. They are good feats at 1st level, but kind of weak in comparison at 4th. They make sense at level 1 and give more character creation options.
All of the other level 4 feats should remained locked at that level, and we should get level 8 versions, etc. Kamchatmonk is just saying that a player is disincentivized to take 1st level feats at any point later in play because they lose the +1 stat. That's sad if you want to pick up Musician or something later.
Since you already get a +2 and +1 (or three +1s) at first level, and you get at least a +1 at fourth level, there is no mechanical difference if one of the +1s is applied by feats rather than background. By moving the bonus there, then even 1st level feats are still compelling choices at higher levels too, and nothing is lost at character creation.
The entire idea from Wizards is that certain feats are too good to be available at all levels of play. I'm surprised we saw as many feats as we did at level 4, I was expecting the Big Fighty feats to be level 8, but the idea still stands - certain feats are allowed to be better than other feats, and that betterness is gated by level.
The ideas people posit of stripping all feats of their ASI and just making each ASI stage "+1 to any stat and a random feat" gets away from the idea that feats should be allowed to be better than other feats and tries to go back to "you can take literally any feat at literally any time." I don't think that's good for the game. I think there's a lot of value in allowing there to be different tiers of feat you can only take at higher levels. On top of providing some mild incentive to actually play past level 5 and for DMs to run games outside of Tier 1 play, it allows a lot more design space for feats to exist in. We could potentially get some really cool humdingers, but only if we allow level gating of feats. And that's gonna mean that "lesser" feats often don't end up taken at higher levels. That's fine. If someone desperately wants one they can take it regardless, as they always could, and in the meantime we get a broader pool of really cool things to play with.
I disagree with the sentiment that getting rid of the +1 from all the feats and rolling it into what you get when you get a feat naturally means we cant have feats of different power levels. Most of the level 4 feats that we want to see at level 1 add more flavor than they do power. While the rest of the level 4 feats all add raw power, GWM, SS, CBE, Spell Sniper, war caster, Resilient, all add more direct power and should be the purvue of 4th level and higher feats while keen mind, actor and even athlete add a little more flavor.
You dont need the feat to have a +1 to be a more powerful feat.
I do disagree with the idea that low-level feats should inherently be as desirable as high-level feats, which is what the whole proposal I've seen pop up half a dozen times now seems to want. A situation where every single feat needs to be balanced against every single other feat to maintain a wide pool of equally desirable feats is exactly what we have now, and frankly it sucks. Let certain feats be there for earlier levels, and more potent or evocative options become available later. It'll be better for the game in the long run.
I do disagree with the idea that low-level feats should inherently be as desirable as high-level feats, which is what the whole proposal I've seen pop up half a dozen times now seems to want. A situation where every single feat needs to be balanced against every single other feat to maintain a wide pool of equally desirable feats is exactly what we have now, and frankly it sucks. Let certain feats be there for earlier levels, and more potent or evocative options become available later. It'll be better for the game in the long run.
I personally want it to just be SLIGHTLY less punishing for taking "flavor feats". I think if you want some extra flavor instead of a feat that provides a little extra combat power you should be able to do it without also sacrificing the +1, but ya pretty much on the same wave length higher level feats being stronger is what it means to be a higher level feat, and if you want to take a lower level feat it is there, but that should be very character flavor specific and probably come at the cost of a little bit of power, but the cost of a +1 just doesn't seem like a good cost to me.
I do disagree with the idea that low-level feats should inherently be as desirable as high-level feats, which is what the whole proposal I've seen pop up half a dozen times now seems to want. A situation where every single feat needs to be balanced against every single other feat to maintain a wide pool of equally desirable feats is exactly what we have now, and frankly it sucks. Let certain feats be there for earlier levels, and more potent or evocative options become available later. It'll be better for the game in the long run.
I personally want it to just be SLIGHTLY less punishing for taking "flavor feats". I think if you want some extra flavor instead of a feat that provides a little extra combat power you should be able to do it without also sacrificing the +1, but ya pretty much on the same wave length higher level feats being stronger is what it means to be a higher level feat, and if you want to take a lower level feat it is there, but that should be very character flavor specific and probably come at the cost of a little bit of power, but the cost of a +1 just doesn't seem like a good cost to me.
Yeah I think we are all pretty close in feelings on this overall. We want more options, and want higher level powers. I just agree with Aquilontune that losing the +1 would make people avoid level 1 feats later in game altogether. Which in turn means losing some options for customization and making the character that feels right. If you wanted your character to be Tough, but also a Tavern Brawler (and not human), you'd be hard pressed to choose one of those at level 4 and sacrifice both the stat bonus AND a more powerful feat. The 4th level feats at already stronger overall. So they are still the more enticing option. Presumably 8th level and higher feats will make the gap even larger. Removing the stat bonus from the decision would just make it not hurt as much to get what you want.
I still think the 6 feats I mentioned at 4th level should be turned down to 1st level feats. They fit the theme better, and aren't as strong as the other 4th level options. Whether they adjust the stat bonus issue isn't make-or-break for me. It might be fine either way. And it's easy to fix with a house rule. It would be nice though
Overall I like the direction of feats, but just want more of them.
I do disagree with the idea that low-level feats should inherently be as desirable as high-level feats, which is what the whole proposal I've seen pop up half a dozen times now seems to want. A situation where every single feat needs to be balanced against every single other feat to maintain a wide pool of equally desirable feats is exactly what we have now, and frankly it sucks. Let certain feats be there for earlier levels, and more potent or evocative options become available later. It'll be better for the game in the long run.
I'm fine with the idea of level-gated feats. If anything, having Great Weapon Master at level 1 felt like overkill. I'd even say that [weapon type] Master feats and stuff like War Caster gotta be level 8. But at the same time, if someone really, really wants a pack of 1st level stuff, like if one wants both Durable and Resilient, they shouldn't feel ****** by not getting that +1 stat. That's all I want. BTW I really love it that feats offer +1 to stats. It used to be a no-brainer race to 20 in the main stat, now smooth growth while getting the cool stuff along the way looks like a better option.
Personally I think first level feats should be closer to the background: features. However they would need to be revamped to mechanically interact with the game better.
I like the idea choosing First level feats representing the pillars of Play you want to focus on and tailor your character. The first level means it's a transition point that separated you as a "adventurer" from common folk. The choice should reflect that.
Frankly alot of backgrounds provided feat level abilities (with the average dm) but some were less valuable in scope than others. Balance and mecanical cleanup would make them better feats than any newly written ones.
I like the idea, though I would remove lightly armored from 1st and move it to 4th or 8th. Easy access to medium armor and shields for casters is no good.
I do disagree with the idea that low-level feats should inherently be as desirable as high-level feats, which is what the whole proposal I've seen pop up half a dozen times now seems to want. A situation where every single feat needs to be balanced against every single other feat to maintain a wide pool of equally desirable feats is exactly what we have now, and frankly it sucks. Let certain feats be there for earlier levels, and more potent or evocative options become available later. It'll be better for the game in the long run.
I personally want it to just be SLIGHTLY less punishing for taking "flavor feats". I think if you want some extra flavor instead of a feat that provides a little extra combat power you should be able to do it without also sacrificing the +1, but ya pretty much on the same wave length higher level feats being stronger is what it means to be a higher level feat, and if you want to take a lower level feat it is there, but that should be very character flavor specific and probably come at the cost of a little bit of power, but the cost of a +1 just doesn't seem like a good cost to me.
Yeah I think we are all pretty close in feelings on this overall. We want more options, and want higher level powers. I just agree with Aquilontune that losing the +1 would make people avoid level 1 feats later in game altogether. Which in turn means losing some options for customization and making the character that feels right. If you wanted your character to be Tough, but also a Tavern Brawler (and not human), you'd be hard pressed to choose one of those at level 4 and sacrifice both the stat bonus AND a more powerful feat. The 4th level feats at already stronger overall. So they are still the more enticing option. Presumably 8th level and higher feats will make the gap even larger. Removing the stat bonus from the decision would just make it not hurt as much to get what you want.
I still think the 6 feats I mentioned at 4th level should be turned down to 1st level feats. They fit the theme better, and aren't as strong as the other 4th level options. Whether they adjust the stat bonus issue isn't make-or-break for me. It might be fine either way. And it's easy to fix with a house rule. It would be nice though
Overall I like the direction of feats, but just want more of them.
To the bolded, isn’t that the whole point of them being 1st level feats to begin with? They are the options you can choose when you finally get yourself off the street (urchin background) or leave your soldiering life (soldier background) and started adventuring. There is a somewhat big jump from normal person and a 1st level character. It’s why you could spend your early life as a gladiator (gladiator background) yet still get your butt handed to you by a 1st level fighter or other chart.
So if you want that 1st level feat you take it at 1st level. If you want more than one 1st level feat then you have some decisions to make. And I think that’s good.
I get the point but I also like the fact that sometimes you have to make hard choices and a 1st level character should not get a +1 on a stat. I would be fine if, post-1st level, they changed it back to get +2 to stats or +1 and a leveled feat of your level or lower, so you could pick up a level 1 feat at 4th+ level and not lose the +1. But I don’t think that’s the route they are liking to go.
I do disagree with the idea that low-level feats should inherently be as desirable as high-level feats, which is what the whole proposal I've seen pop up half a dozen times now seems to want. A situation where every single feat needs to be balanced against every single other feat to maintain a wide pool of equally desirable feats is exactly what we have now, and frankly it sucks. Let certain feats be there for earlier levels, and more potent or evocative options become available later. It'll be better for the game in the long run.
I personally want it to just be SLIGHTLY less punishing for taking "flavor feats". I think if you want some extra flavor instead of a feat that provides a little extra combat power you should be able to do it without also sacrificing the +1, but ya pretty much on the same wave length higher level feats being stronger is what it means to be a higher level feat, and if you want to take a lower level feat it is there, but that should be very character flavor specific and probably come at the cost of a little bit of power, but the cost of a +1 just doesn't seem like a good cost to me.
Yeah I think we are all pretty close in feelings on this overall. We want more options, and want higher level powers. I just agree with Aquilontune that losing the +1 would make people avoid level 1 feats later in game altogether. Which in turn means losing some options for customization and making the character that feels right. If you wanted your character to be Tough, but also a Tavern Brawler (and not human), you'd be hard pressed to choose one of those at level 4 and sacrifice both the stat bonus AND a more powerful feat. The 4th level feats at already stronger overall. So they are still the more enticing option. Presumably 8th level and higher feats will make the gap even larger. Removing the stat bonus from the decision would just make it not hurt as much to get what you want.
I still think the 6 feats I mentioned at 4th level should be turned down to 1st level feats. They fit the theme better, and aren't as strong as the other 4th level options. Whether they adjust the stat bonus issue isn't make-or-break for me. It might be fine either way. And it's easy to fix with a house rule. It would be nice though
Overall I like the direction of feats, but just want more of them.
To the bolded, isn’t that the whole point of them being 1st level feats to begin with? They are the options you can choose when you finally get yourself off the street (urchin background) or leave your soldiering life (soldier background) and started adventuring. There is a somewhat big jump from normal person and a 1st level character. It’s why you could spend your early life as a gladiator (gladiator background) yet still get your butt handed to you by a 1st level fighter or other chart.
So if you want that 1st level feat you take it at 1st level. If you want more than one 1st level feat then you have some decisions to make. And I think that’s good.
I get the point but I also like the fact that sometimes you have to make hard choices and a 1st level character should not get a +1 on a stat. I would be fine if, post-1st level, they changed it back to get +2 to stats or +1 and a leveled feat of your level or lower, so you could pick up a level 1 feat at 4th+ level and not lose the +1. But I don’t think that’s the route they are liking to go.
A first level character already gets +1 to a stat, three times. We were just suggesting coupling one of those stat bonuses with the feat and having the same results.
But your last suggestion is probably a cleaner solution. I can see that working even better. It's easier to write and removes the problem of humans getting two feats at level 1.
Leave character creation the same as it is now. At level 4 (and higher) say that you can take +2 to stats, or +1 and a feat from any tier you have unlocked. Higher tier feats are still stronger, but it's not entirely punishing to take a lower tier one.
Like I said, it's not a deal breaker for me with the new rules. But I think it would be nice simply because I like more options. I don't want to keep seeing the same builds over and over due to restrictions in the rules. If higher tier feats are always the far more optimal choice, I can see patterns forming where every rogue goes down the same tree, for example. And with only 10-11 feats at 1st level, we are already going to see every adventuring party have the 'Lucky' guy and the one that dropped out of Druid school with a few cantrips.
I do still very much believe that the six feats from level 4 that I mentioned above should be level 1 feats instead: Actor, Athlete, Keen Mind, Observant, Ritual Caster, Weapon Training. They fit the level 1 background theme much better, and are closer to a level 1 feat power level.
This is always the issue: Balance. Balance between feats of the same level. It will always be "punishing" to take a lower level feat than you have access to. Right now, if you have access to 9th level spells, but choose not to prepare/know a 9th level spell, and instead take a 6th or 8th level spell, because if fits your character better, you get "punished" for it. But that's ok, if it fits what you are trying to achieve with your character.
If a higher level feat is not more powerful then why is it a higher level feat? If you think there are 4th level feats that should be 1st level (and I kind of agree with you), say so in the survey. They can take out the +1 and fit it right in. But they need to be balanced with the other feats of the same level.
I get your concern about seeing the same builds over and over again, but that's typically because there are choices that are far better than others. They are not balanced. They've tried to bring some balance to feats with changes to GWM, SS, CBX, etc. I like the idea of leveled feats, but the choices in the tiers need to be comparable, or you will get the results you fear.
Will the fighter still get their "ASI/Feat" at level 6? Will there be 6th level feats? Or will fighters have to choose a lower level feat? We will have to wait and see, but will it be more punishing to have to use your 6th level ASI/Feat to take a level 4 or lower feat, or your +2 to stats? Or is that one of those choices each player will have to face?
All fair points, ThriKreenWarrior. I'm also curious how the additional feats fighters and rogues get will be handled.
Balance is what I'm trying to preserve with these suggestions. I was honestly surprised that every feat ended up with +1 to a stat now. I would have to think really hard before taking just a +2 as it stands, especially for SAD classes. The road to a 20 stat just isn't that far, even with standard array, and feats offer much more than a +1 bonus.
The feats I mentioned like Actor and Observant used to be 'half feats' because they weren't as good as the full feats. Now all feats get a bonus. The stat bonus was supposed to help balance the weaker ones out. They have all changed, but those 6 mostly haven't gotten any better, mechanically speaking. (Ritual Caster didn't have a bonus in 5e but it got worse, and Weapon Training/Mastery had one but got a little better.) That's why I think they are all still balanced out to be 1st level feats as long as they don't come with a stat bonus. They fit there better thematically anyway.
It's just at higher levels where they would really start to fall behind. Maybe that's okay. Most of them aren't the kinds of things a lot of people double up on, and if they are there is always the human option. No matter what, taking a feat from a lower tier will always be mechanically weaker. The abilities that come with an 8th level feat are very likely to be stronger than a 4th level one. The stat bonus applying to any feat at levels 4 and up would just help take some of the sting out.
Either way I'm pretty happy, but I'll definitely ask for those 6 to become 1st level feats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We need more first level Feats
I love feats at first level. I already offered them in my 5e games. I think they are great to add customization options for characters and really make them unique. I am happy with most of the way these feats appeared in the first UA. My only major complaint is that there aren't enough of them. With only 11 total feats available at 1st level, it won't be long before you see the same ones over and over in games. That kind of detracts from the uniqueness of the whole thing.
I think we need more, and I think I know where to get them. There are a handful of 4th level feats that are kind of suboptimal, and don't really fit the theme as much. These are feats that, like the 1st level ones, really show more of who a character IS, rather than skills that would require more adventuring experience. I would like to see them move these feats to first level, and remove the stat bonuses and requirements. Just transfer only the abilities they give you and make them available from the start.
If you disagree with this whole basic premise, you can probably save some time and quit here. That's totally okay. If not, I'll try to explain my thinking. I apologize for the formatting. It's not easy on a phone.
Current 1DnD UA 1st Level Feats -
These all tend to show natural talents of a character, skills they might have picked up from their backgrounds, or dabbling in minor training outside of their class. They are generally really solid to get across the feel of who a character was before adventuring. And their power level is appropriate to the level. There are currently only 11 of them, including the armor one from the new UA:
Alert
Crafter
Healer
Lightly Armored
Lucky
Magic Initiate
Musician
Savage Attacker
Skilled
Tavern Brawler
Tough
Feats I would like to see moved from 4th level to 1st -
I am excluding any that have big combat bonuses, or seem to require more extensive training. I'm only looking at ones that reflect natural talents a person might have before adventuring, a previous career, or basic training. It seems strange that someone at 1st level could be a Tavern Brawler, but not an Athlete or Observant for example. There are 6 of these, which would bring the total to 17. Again, this would mean removing the +1 to a stat, and removing the minimum stat restrictions.
Actor
Athlete
Keen Mind
Observant
Ritual Caster (without the book option, this is basically just a variant on MI)
Weapon Training
Other feats not yet represented -
These are some from other 5e sources that haven't appeared yet, but seem suitable for 1st level. Remove any prerequisites and stat bonuses. These 3 would bring the total to 21. Anything around 20 would be a nice variety I think.
Chef (could give temp HP and remove an exhaustion level on a short rest to PB number of party members)
Linguist (pick 3 languages)
Prodigy (pick one language, one skill, and one tool)
That's about it. With these additions to first level, we would have a lot more variety. We could cover many more backgrounds, and reflect special talents better. And they would become more appealing options than they are now at 4th level. They could even build on them for more advanced versions later at higher levels.
Completely absolutely agree, In addition I would love to removal of the +1's from the 4th level feats and just make it +1 ASI AND a feat, with the ASI feat being another +1. This would make taking another first level feat at level 4 less punishing and 4th level feats would outright be "power" abilities like all the "expert/ master" abilities.
That's a fantastic idea, Aquilontune. It makes total sense, and it solves a problem that I felt in the back of my mind, but couldn't answer. I'm going to definitely put that in my feedback, thank you.
I would also add that 1st level feats need an ability score increase for them to be viable past 1st level. Just take 1 ability score point from character creation and add it into feats to equalize them.
Unsure if I concur.
The entire idea from Wizards is that certain feats are too good to be available at all levels of play. I'm surprised we saw as many feats as we did at level 4, I was expecting the Big Fighty feats to be level 8, but the idea still stands - certain feats are allowed to be better than other feats, and that betterness is gated by level.
The ideas people posit of stripping all feats of their ASI and just making each ASI stage "+1 to any stat and a random feat" gets away from the idea that feats should be allowed to be better than other feats and tries to go back to "you can take literally any feat at literally any time." I don't think that's good for the game. I think there's a lot of value in allowing there to be different tiers of feat you can only take at higher levels. On top of providing some mild incentive to actually play past level 5 and for DMs to run games outside of Tier 1 play, it allows a lot more design space for feats to exist in. We could potentially get some really cool humdingers, but only if we allow level gating of feats. And that's gonna mean that "lesser" feats often don't end up taken at higher levels. That's fine. If someone desperately wants one they can take it regardless, as they always could, and in the meantime we get a broader pool of really cool things to play with.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'm all for level restricted feats. I like the idea of most of the level 4 feats requiring an adventurer to actual have experience... adventuring. And higher level feats that build onto them are exciting too. I don't want to remove level limits to feats.
I think what Aquilontune and kamchatmonk are pointing out is that all 4th level feats we have seen have a +1 stat bonus. So mechanically, it is the same thing as saying that everyone gets a +1 and a feat, or just a +2.
My initial post was just saying that some of the 4th level feats feel more suitable as 1st level feats. They tell you who the character is: Observant, athletic, smart, etc. It's weird that a 1st level character can't be those things. They are good feats at 1st level, but kind of weak in comparison at 4th. They make sense at level 1 and give more character creation options.
All of the other level 4 feats should remained locked at that level, and we should get level 8 versions, etc. Kamchatmonk is just saying that a player is disincentivized to take 1st level feats at any point later in play because they lose the +1 stat. That's sad if you want to pick up Musician or something later.
Since you already get a +2 and +1 (or three +1s) at first level, and you get at least a +1 at fourth level, there is no mechanical difference if one of the +1s is applied by feats rather than background. By moving the bonus there, then even 1st level feats are still compelling choices at higher levels too, and nothing is lost at character creation.
I disagree with the sentiment that getting rid of the +1 from all the feats and rolling it into what you get when you get a feat naturally means we cant have feats of different power levels. Most of the level 4 feats that we want to see at level 1 add more flavor than they do power. While the rest of the level 4 feats all add raw power, GWM, SS, CBE, Spell Sniper, war caster, Resilient, all add more direct power and should be the purvue of 4th level and higher feats while keen mind, actor and even athlete add a little more flavor.
You dont need the feat to have a +1 to be a more powerful feat.
I don't necessarily disagree.
I do disagree with the idea that low-level feats should inherently be as desirable as high-level feats, which is what the whole proposal I've seen pop up half a dozen times now seems to want. A situation where every single feat needs to be balanced against every single other feat to maintain a wide pool of equally desirable feats is exactly what we have now, and frankly it sucks. Let certain feats be there for earlier levels, and more potent or evocative options become available later. It'll be better for the game in the long run.
Please do not contact or message me.
I personally want it to just be SLIGHTLY less punishing for taking "flavor feats". I think if you want some extra flavor instead of a feat that provides a little extra combat power you should be able to do it without also sacrificing the +1, but ya pretty much on the same wave length higher level feats being stronger is what it means to be a higher level feat, and if you want to take a lower level feat it is there, but that should be very character flavor specific and probably come at the cost of a little bit of power, but the cost of a +1 just doesn't seem like a good cost to me.
Yeah I think we are all pretty close in feelings on this overall. We want more options, and want higher level powers. I just agree with Aquilontune that losing the +1 would make people avoid level 1 feats later in game altogether. Which in turn means losing some options for customization and making the character that feels right. If you wanted your character to be Tough, but also a Tavern Brawler (and not human), you'd be hard pressed to choose one of those at level 4 and sacrifice both the stat bonus AND a more powerful feat. The 4th level feats at already stronger overall. So they are still the more enticing option. Presumably 8th level and higher feats will make the gap even larger. Removing the stat bonus from the decision would just make it not hurt as much to get what you want.
I still think the 6 feats I mentioned at 4th level should be turned down to 1st level feats. They fit the theme better, and aren't as strong as the other 4th level options. Whether they adjust the stat bonus issue isn't make-or-break for me. It might be fine either way. And it's easy to fix with a house rule. It would be nice though
Overall I like the direction of feats, but just want more of them.
I'm fine with the idea of level-gated feats. If anything, having Great Weapon Master at level 1 felt like overkill. I'd even say that [weapon type] Master feats and stuff like War Caster gotta be level 8. But at the same time, if someone really, really wants a pack of 1st level stuff, like if one wants both Durable and Resilient, they shouldn't feel ****** by not getting that +1 stat. That's all I want. BTW I really love it that feats offer +1 to stats. It used to be a no-brainer race to 20 in the main stat, now smooth growth while getting the cool stuff along the way looks like a better option.
Personally I think first level feats should be closer to the background: features. However they would need to be revamped to mechanically interact with the game better.
I like the idea choosing First level feats representing the pillars of Play you want to focus on and tailor your character. The first level means it's a transition point that separated you as a "adventurer" from common folk. The choice should reflect that.
Frankly alot of backgrounds provided feat level abilities (with the average dm) but some were less valuable in scope than others. Balance and mecanical cleanup would make them better feats than any newly written ones.
I like the idea, though I would remove lightly armored from 1st and move it to 4th or 8th. Easy access to medium armor and shields for casters is no good.
To the bolded, isn’t that the whole point of them being 1st level feats to begin with? They are the options you can choose when you finally get yourself off the street (urchin background) or leave your soldiering life (soldier background) and started adventuring. There is a somewhat big jump from normal person and a 1st level character. It’s why you could spend your early life as a gladiator (gladiator background) yet still get your butt handed to you by a 1st level fighter or other chart.
So if you want that 1st level feat you take it at 1st level. If you want more than one 1st level feat then you have some decisions to make. And I think that’s good.
I get the point but I also like the fact that sometimes you have to make hard choices and a 1st level character should not get a +1 on a stat. I would be fine if, post-1st level, they changed it back to get +2 to stats or +1 and a leveled feat of your level or lower, so you could pick up a level 1 feat at 4th+ level and not lose the +1. But I don’t think that’s the route they are liking to go.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A first level character already gets +1 to a stat, three times. We were just suggesting coupling one of those stat bonuses with the feat and having the same results.
But your last suggestion is probably a cleaner solution. I can see that working even better. It's easier to write and removes the problem of humans getting two feats at level 1.
Leave character creation the same as it is now. At level 4 (and higher) say that you can take +2 to stats, or +1 and a feat from any tier you have unlocked. Higher tier feats are still stronger, but it's not entirely punishing to take a lower tier one.
Like I said, it's not a deal breaker for me with the new rules. But I think it would be nice simply because I like more options. I don't want to keep seeing the same builds over and over due to restrictions in the rules. If higher tier feats are always the far more optimal choice, I can see patterns forming where every rogue goes down the same tree, for example. And with only 10-11 feats at 1st level, we are already going to see every adventuring party have the 'Lucky' guy and the one that dropped out of Druid school with a few cantrips.
I do still very much believe that the six feats from level 4 that I mentioned above should be level 1 feats instead: Actor, Athlete, Keen Mind, Observant, Ritual Caster, Weapon Training. They fit the level 1 background theme much better, and are closer to a level 1 feat power level.
This is always the issue: Balance. Balance between feats of the same level. It will always be "punishing" to take a lower level feat than you have access to. Right now, if you have access to 9th level spells, but choose not to prepare/know a 9th level spell, and instead take a 6th or 8th level spell, because if fits your character better, you get "punished" for it. But that's ok, if it fits what you are trying to achieve with your character.
If a higher level feat is not more powerful then why is it a higher level feat? If you think there are 4th level feats that should be 1st level (and I kind of agree with you), say so in the survey. They can take out the +1 and fit it right in. But they need to be balanced with the other feats of the same level.
I get your concern about seeing the same builds over and over again, but that's typically because there are choices that are far better than others. They are not balanced. They've tried to bring some balance to feats with changes to GWM, SS, CBX, etc. I like the idea of leveled feats, but the choices in the tiers need to be comparable, or you will get the results you fear.
Will the fighter still get their "ASI/Feat" at level 6? Will there be 6th level feats? Or will fighters have to choose a lower level feat? We will have to wait and see, but will it be more punishing to have to use your 6th level ASI/Feat to take a level 4 or lower feat, or your +2 to stats? Or is that one of those choices each player will have to face?
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
All fair points, ThriKreenWarrior. I'm also curious how the additional feats fighters and rogues get will be handled.
Balance is what I'm trying to preserve with these suggestions. I was honestly surprised that every feat ended up with +1 to a stat now. I would have to think really hard before taking just a +2 as it stands, especially for SAD classes. The road to a 20 stat just isn't that far, even with standard array, and feats offer much more than a +1 bonus.
The feats I mentioned like Actor and Observant used to be 'half feats' because they weren't as good as the full feats. Now all feats get a bonus. The stat bonus was supposed to help balance the weaker ones out. They have all changed, but those 6 mostly haven't gotten any better, mechanically speaking. (Ritual Caster didn't have a bonus in 5e but it got worse, and Weapon Training/Mastery had one but got a little better.) That's why I think they are all still balanced out to be 1st level feats as long as they don't come with a stat bonus. They fit there better thematically anyway.
It's just at higher levels where they would really start to fall behind. Maybe that's okay. Most of them aren't the kinds of things a lot of people double up on, and if they are there is always the human option. No matter what, taking a feat from a lower tier will always be mechanically weaker. The abilities that come with an 8th level feat are very likely to be stronger than a 4th level one. The stat bonus applying to any feat at levels 4 and up would just help take some of the sting out.
Either way I'm pretty happy, but I'll definitely ask for those 6 to become 1st level feats.