Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 DemoMonkey Aug 18, 2014 10:26:39	Disclaimer: My players want to start from Level 1. Replies of "well just start them at 4th", while well meaning, aren't  really helpful.   So I'm considering giving all characters an extra free feat at 1st level.   Pros: Higher degree of out-of-the-gate customization, less waiting for the characters '"one special thing" to be realized.   Cons: significant power increase especially at 1st and 2nd level, may make level appropriate monsters a walkover.   Thoughts? Any other implications I'm missing?If I use this rule, should I ban the variant human option so the humans don't start with 2 feats?
#2 mellored Aug 18, 2014 10:35:49	Level 1 and 2 are pretty dangerous, so i woudln't worry about them being walkovers.   The only one i would consider not allowing is Heavy Armor Master.   Which should wait till level 4.   Since 1d4-3 damage, makes you fairly invulerable, and creatures don't have magic attacks yet.     But beyond the obvious (somehwat more powerful PC's), i don't see any issue. Nor would i ban the human variant.
#3 Polaris Aug 18, 2014 10:39:49	mellored wrote:
#4 bawylie Aug 18, 2014 10:43:33	I will be granting 2 backgrounds and a feat at first level. I'll also move every level 20 capstone ability to level 11.    The pros are being able to play your concept character ASAP & coming into your Big power for more of the life of the campaign.    The cons (for me) are beneath consideration. Mostly all they do is bend the XPB upward. But since I was ignoring XPB mostly, this is beneath consideration.
#5 Lawolf Aug 18, 2014 10:46:12	It makes humans significantly less good. Having a 2 feats when everyone else has one is much less impactful than having 1 feat when everyone else has none.   It makes Barbarians ridiculously poweful. Great Weapon Master + Polearm Master Barbarians can put out 30 DPR from level 2+, jumping up to about 50 DPR by level 5. Of course, they can easily do this by level 8 (or 4 as a human). So, it is only pushing the possibility earlier.   Heavy Armor mastery at level 1 can make some PCs nearly invinvible. Of course, the human can already do this at level 1.   Aside from those three issues, it really doesn't do a whole lot balance wise. Aside from a few outliers, feats are not all that potent.
#6 mellored Aug 18, 2014 10:47:44	Polaris wrote:
#7 Polaris Aug 18, 2014 10:51:17	mellored wrote:
#8 Dunther_the_Great Aug 18, 2014 11:04:15	bawylie wrote:
#9 vodokar Aug 18, 2014 11:34:01	Just playing devil's advocate here.  If the group wants to play first level, then they should play first level.  Modifying things like when you get your first feat or granting other bonuses isn't playing at 1st level.   Look.  Having the first couple of levels seeming extra deadly isn't really that bad.  As a DM, it presents you with opportunities.  If they lose a character, offer them a ressurection at the local temple, which they can't affored to pay for with money yet, so exact a quest out of them as compensation --- that is fodder for new adventure ideas for the creative DM and getting them tied up in associations and debts they might rather not have.   Or start at a higher level.  But, I'm not advocating that.  I think it's important to start at 1st level and play it as it was designed.  That doesn't mean you have to play it with Bob version 1, 2, 3, 4 ....  What it means is that the DM may have to get a little creative in assisting the group to get through those levels in ways that can make the campaign grow.  The other thing is that you don't have to play the monster's to thier greatest tactical extent.  For example, for the first few encounters, don't use the features of the goblins or kobolds to hide, do sneaky things or pack tactics or bugbears hiding in shadows doing sneak attacks.  Bring that in later.  The party is green, but so is the creatures they are facing -- new recruits just brought in.  They'll face the veteran goblins, kobolds and bugbears later.  That is all I did, just ignored some of that stuff for a level or so, and my party didn't have too many problems getting thru first and 2nd level.  After that, throw the kitchen sink at them.   I get what your tryiing to do about bringing character distinction earlier, but I think it has ramifications that would be problematic.  At the very least, I would dissallow certain feats from being chosen, if you went that route.   All I'm trying to say here is: if you haven't actually DM'ed a group thru first level yet, don't just take other people's words for how they had bad experiences, try it yourself and just go a little easy on sneaky monster tactics, and I think you'll find it isn't really that rough.  And even if it is, and there are one or two character deaths early, well, this is D&D and death doesn't have to be permanent.  As long as there are enough left standing to carry the bodies out, there are possibilities.
#10 DemoMonkey Aug 18, 2014 11:36:17	Vodokar   First, thank you for the feedback.   Second, a little clarification: Giving the characters an extra feat to improve survivability in the early levels is not even the smallest part of my motivation. In fact, it's the opposite I'm more concerened about; I don't want this to improve their survivability too much!
#11 vodokar Aug 18, 2014 11:36:59	DemoMonkey wrote:
#12 The_Jester Aug 18, 2014 11:39:24	I considered doing something simmilar, lowering the ability scores for point buy (to 23 or so) but giving everyone a Ability Score Boost at level 1, so they can opt for stats or go straight to a feat. That way it's optional and maintains the power level slightly.
#13 Brock_Landers Aug 18, 2014 11:45:46	How about letting the non-human races give up all of their racial ability increases for a feat at 1st level?
#14 vodokar Aug 18, 2014 11:49:36	I'll give you an idea what I did.  As I said, playing the gobliins, kobolds and bugbears a little green during 1st level, in my experience, having now DM'ed two 1st level groups thru that level, was enough to keep things challenging, but not extra deadly.  We actually didn't have our first death until 3rd level, when they tried to face off against the green dragon for the first time.  Thief ended up dead as a door nail.  The group extracted him from Thundertree and marched to Neverwinter.  First Temple they saw was one to Ogma, a neutral god.  They weren't too happy about that, but checking out some other temples, the best offer they got was to go in debt with that temple.  All the rest of the group knows is that they were offered a ressurection at the dirt cheap price of 500 gp, which they had to pool thier money to afford even that.  The thief was given orders, however, to steal some special jewelry and bring it to the temple -- he is not to tell anyone, not even his friends and he must do this or else his life will become forfeit.  He only knows that he will be contacted later regarding the details.  This will lead him on a thiefly type solo adventure during which he must steal the jewels right off of a princeses neck and escape the royal ball at the palace.  He'll be able to use some of his shadowy contacts to help him with this.
#15 Lawolf Aug 18, 2014 11:49:50	The_Jester wrote:
#16 FFSAA Aug 18, 2014 13:58:35	DemoMonkey wrote:
#17 DemoMonkey Aug 18, 2014 14:05:14	Yes FFSA, that is a completely accurate assessment of the printed rules.   What I am looking for is feedback on the pros and cons of houseruling an extra feat to all characters at first level.
#18 Polaris Aug 18, 2014 14:09:21	DemoMonkey wrote:
#19 Sword_of_Spirit Aug 18, 2014 14:34:54	I will be giving out a free 1st level feat in one of my planned campaigns. It's the campaign where everyone is intended to be a super-character. I'll also use a higher point buy and allow them to have a "special something" (such as wealth, an inherited magic item, or some other campaign consideration). For that campaign, the pro is the it demonstrates that they are special and a cut above an average adventurer.   In pretty much any other campaign I wouldn't grant them a feat at 1st level. While I'll allow humans to use the variant trait with the feat, I still feel like a feat at first level is contrary to the design of the game. The human variant was tacked on last minute and kind of clashes with the design in general. Feats are supposed to be big deals you can't get until you've already progressed for a while. So those are the cons I see--it throws off the design and might add unintended results.
#20 Orethalion Aug 18, 2014 14:40:02	Polaris wrote:
#21 masterfat78 Aug 18, 2014 14:41:42	Ive thought about doing this for awhile now, but honestly I dont know how much it would affect gameplay. I do think you would have to ban varient humans though. Maybe toughen some of the monsters a little. Give some of them a couple extra HP.
#22 Veleria Aug 18, 2014 14:41:49	mellored wrote:
#23 Veleria Aug 18, 2014 14:48:38	For the OP, D&D is a game of heroics. If you want the players to be a bunch of snowflakes each with a unique ability it won't ruin the game. I would suggest you add an element of it like Each player must have a different feat in order to mark these as unique and special tasks the players picked up from their special origins. They are what separate them from the rest of the world. You may require the feat to match the characters background in some way like if someone wants heavy armor mastery then only allow it if they have the Soldier background ect.   One feat will not break the game and will add some variety. As the DM you will learn to conpensate for any imbalance.
#24 JohnLynch Aug 19, 2014 4:13:20	You could lower the max stat they can buy to 13 (and reduce the number of points they have as well) and then give them a free +2 or a feat. Those who crunch the numbers may opt for the +2, those who want an interesting ability will opt for the feat.   I have no idea if a character with 14 in their primary stat is a viable concept. I don't think any of us know. The math crunchers might be able to speculate, but no-one really knows until you do it. I'd say go for it and report back how it works.
#25 FFSAA Aug 19, 2014 6:18:49	DemoMonkey wrote:
#26 mellored Aug 19, 2014 6:44:12	Veleria wrote:
#27 seti Aug 19, 2014 6:46:35	Anything to improve PC customization out of the gate is good, IMO. I'd say do it.    An extra feat at level 1 is a nice idea. Although, I'd then be tempted to not allow the variant human then. (As I wouldn't necessarily want a human PC with 2 feats at level 1.)   I'm also looking at building beefier backgrounds, custom backgrounds, and backgrounds and racial abilites that scale with level, or open up new options at certain levels. Picking a BG and a race right away, and then not getting any new stuff out of that choice as the game progresses is...kind of weak. Some backgrounds should allow you to grow it in meaningful ways, and all the races should have at least one thing that gets better, and/or can be chosen as an upgrade...Say at level 3, 7, and 14...Dunno, that'd take more thought, but you get the idea. The tiefling gets a spell at level 1, 3, and 5 as I recall...but nothing after that? And why do tieflings get a few free low level spells, anyway?   I also like the idea someone upthread had about giving 'capstone' abilites out earlier. Getting something awesome you cannot use until level 20 is also weak, IMO.   I don't think it'd make the game badwrongfun or horribly unbalanced, either. Especially considering that level 1 PC's (RAW) never have more than16 HP, and even that's just a barbarian with an 18 con.   I didn't like it when the designers themselves said "Well, just start at level 3" either.   It's funny, I get that this is a new game, and I don't want all the bloat that 2e, 3e, and 4e suffered from in varying degrees...But I want more out of 5e. So do most of the people I play with.