Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Free level one feat

I mean, Larian would decide which to give freely. And just because you can't perfectly limit something doesn't mean limitations shouldn't be put in place. You can't perfectly stop people from shoplifting, but that doesn't mean stores should just let people walk out with products taken straight off the shelves.

Also your point about there being no definitive pick between which of the above choices is stronger feels like an endorsement of the suggested approach honestly. If an argument can be made for all of those, then there won't be any real harm ultimately. Players always find some kind of ideal meta in games, because they collectively spend more time with the game than the devs will, so they'll pick up on patterns and such and be able to find ways to manipulate them. That doesn't mean trying to mitigate it isn't a worthwhile endeavor.

And I would be all for more cosmetic feats that make flavor changes, but I can't imagine what those would be and do. Wild Wasteland (I did play new vegas, the only Fallout game I've played actually) was one option, not multiple.

We already have backgrounds for character distinction at the start. IMO, leave lvl 1 feats for variant humans. Giving a full feat to everyone at the start would make VH weaker in comparison.

It's not really about removing feat choices that people like. They would still get those feat choices at the same point they used to get them during their character growth.

Instead, it's about offering the players the chance to get something different, as well. And if that creates new fan favorites, then great. There's nothing wrong with that.


I just don't see how it would be overpowered.

*

And regarding the variant human:

1. it's not even in the game, and

2. it's completely unnecessary if the regular human gets an extra feat at level one.

3. unless you just want the human to be stronger in comparison to the other races, in which case just give the "variant" human something extra. Personally, I'm not convinced the variant human is necessary if everyone gets a free feat at first level. That's the real draw of the variant in the first place.

if we have to choose which traits we want to discuss. I am going to list some that could be home brewed into 5.0 fairly easily from 3.5. Most of the 'arche-type feats' could be offered to players as a choice of feat for lvl 1, as they only effect how NPCs treat you in the get go. These could be enough to create an illusion of choice without causing someone to panic.


1) Anti-hero: Your posture gives of a frightening aura, you get -1 roll with scholars, nobles, and lawful checks. Gain +1 in intimidation, survival, and acrobatics

2) doctor: Your posture radiates a calming aura: -1 with deception, sleight of hand, and intimidation checks. Gain +1 with religion, persuasion, and Arcana

3) Magician: you gain +1 in insight, performance, and investigation checks. -1 for persuasion, athletics, and acrobatics.

4) Outcast: you gain +1 in animal handling, medicine and slight of hand. -1 for history, religion, and persuasion.

5) Pretty Boy / Girl: +1 in stealth, +1 in insight, +1 in persuasion. -1 for history, investigation, and athletics.



In addition Larian can add the following feats at lvl 1 from Racials, if the player chooses them over a stat increase:

1) Dragonborn: enhanced scent: you are able to see anyone invisible if they are within 4 cells

2) dwarf: extended burst: able to use a bonus action after using dash

3) elf: Elven Archery: roll a 1d20 to avoid 1 arrow per long rest

4) Gnome / half-ling: Nut Cracker: [bonus action] roll a 1d4 to knock an enemy prone if male, a 1d20 against females

5) half elf: gain +1 with bow and daggers

6) tiefling: tail slam: use your tail to attempt to unbalance [roll a 1d20] [[bonus action]

7) Drow: spellweb: create difficult terrain in a 1 by 1 cell cone



The above is just me spit-balling, but its an idea to keep the discussion moving forward.

It would be overpowered because some feats give a stat increase besides their feat effect and therefore come with a price... losing your general stat increase for that level. And if you take the racial abilities of some races into account, it should be pretty clear why I consider it overpowered if combined with a feat at level 1.
If it would be implemented as presented in "Tasha's Cauldron of Everything" it might be ok, but otherwise it's not.

The draw of the variant human is the feat at level 1, true. But it comes with a price, you get less stat increases than a standard human. That makes it a choice... do I take the feat at level 1 or do want better stats overall?

You can either have a cake or eat it... not both.

You're just saying what it does. Not why it would be overpowered. Then you say it should be clear why it would be overpowered.

This actually is something that Variant Humans get in the official rules.

Variant humans get +1 to two attributes of their choice, proficiency in any skill of their choice and a free feat at level 1. In my opinion it should be the default human option. All the other races get so many other bonuses that default humans kind of lag behind.

Sorry slightly off the main topic.

Seriously Shovel still despawns(haven't played this patch)? Well good thing I'm modding it anyway.

Let m give you an example:

Shield Dwarves get +2 CON, free armor proficiency with medium armor, free weapon proficiencies, Darkvision and a few minor boni (not entirely sure whether they get all of it in BG3).

And on top of all of that you want to give them a free feat at level 1.

Now consider what you can do with feats and tell me again it's not overpowered without a price to pay for it.

Hmm, I'm torn about it. On one hand I can see the allure for it among players that come from years of 5e TT and, knowing that Larian limiting themselves to the PHB mostly, sees BG3's lack of later implemented subclasses/races with dread.
On the other hand, an extra feat will be yet another thing for a player new to DnD to choose straight away without knowing how it will affect their gameplay. But, that can be eased with good tutorial and infoboxes.

Is it really needed though? Personally I feel that if the current subclasses get implented in a good way, there is enough diversity. And it would be yet another thing Larian had to take into account when balancing the game, and let's be honest here, game balance is not really their strong suite.

This plus if you give out a feat at level 1 there is even a less chance people will take a feat at level 4 as opposed to ASI.

Take my Half Drow Cleric, Kaedyn. At level 4, I give him the Weapon Master feat so he can use the Sword of Justice. Fits with his Tyrite character. If I got a free feat, I'd have him welding Long swords, Heavy Crossbows, Greatswords, etc., right at level 1. Then, at level 4, ASI. No other feat appeals to me for him, and he'd be a WAY tougher Cleric throughout the entire EA.

Yeah. No. It's unbalanced to hand out free feats. A cleric should not be tougher than a fighter at level 1 in regards to dealing damage. Ya gotta leave some room for characters to grow and learn new things.

Not going to lie, I actually really enjoyed having those minor character-creation perks that you could take at first level, in 3.5 - little things that give very minor benefits, but a wealth of character flavour and rp potential that even a video game can hook into.

They can be little things like +1 benefits to a couple of specific things, or moderately situational advantages paired with mirror disadvantages, but more importantly for a video game, it would be a flag about your character that the game now has and can use for rp and flavour; it's an excellent tool in that regard, and I'd love to see more of it.

==

As a little clarifier, for information purposes: Technically, there are no such thing as "Skill Checks" in 5e - there are ability checks, and they are written by reference to the ability score that controls them, and if appropriate, a specific skill that assists - so "Wisdom (Perception)" or "Charisma (Intimidation)". Sometimes an ability check doesn't have an associated skill, which is where it is simply written with the ability score, so "Strength check" or "Dexterity check". If you are rolling a d20 and adding the modifier from one of your ability scores (but it isn't an attack roll or a saving throw), then it is an ability check and anything that affects ability checks, affects this. This means that rolling for initiatve (it is a dexterity check), or rolling to attempt a high level counterspell or dispel magic (ability checks using your spellcasting ability score) are also ability checks, and they are also affected by things like luckstones, or for example, Jack of all trades - since they are ability checks that you are not proficient with.

I didnt say that, did i?
What i was talking about was: In my opinion, there is no way to pick wich feats would make your character too strong ... any of them would, in some aspect.
And that is *the* problem.

When i look at JandK list, and once again yes im aware it was just an example ... he mentions there that he would like to have Initiate feats ...
Maybe this is just bcs i dont know rules too well, so i may miss some really cool combinations but:
I honestly cant imagine why would anyone pick anything else than Initiate Druid for Cleric, in order to get your hands on Shillelagh ...
I also cant really imagine why would any Sorcerer/Bard/maybe Wizard/maybe even Paladin pick anything else than Initiate Warlock, in order to get Hex and Eldrich Blast ...

That is what im talking about ...
If you keep removing things that would make us "much" stronger ... you either end up with irellevant, aka boring feats ... OR you leave there one or two options that will be picked every single time, bcs they are the only interesting choices.

Therefore logicaly such system have in my eyes only two ways to work:
A) Allow ALL feats to be picked, ballance be screwed.
B) Create special starting feats, that would add required favour but dont upset ballance too much.

And this:
Is PERFECT. :3
Even tho im not quite sure why "pretty boy" should get bonus for Stealth ... that one dont really fit in my opinion.

But the premise, is just ideal ...
You get some extra bonuses, that adds necesary flavour ... but dont upset ballance in any way, since you also get some drawback ...

So, such feats would receive +100 from me.

(Just for the record i didnt like those racial suggestions even a little bit, thats why i left them out. )

I think that chance is fairly low allready ...
I mean, feel free to corect me but if im not wrong ... chances that we get up to level 16 are basicaly none ... meaning (presuming we get at least level 12) we will get 3 ASI (4for Rogues and Fighters, unless we get up to level 14 in the end) ...

Meaning basicaly +6 to ability scores ...
Presuming Larian will keep their word and will provide us Rolled Stats ... and presuming that we will be stubborn enough to roll until we get 3x18 (Happened to me at second atempt on Roll20 btw ) ... and with taking under concideration racial bonuses ...

Most of our characters will probably have at least one free (read as: Will not feel any urge to pick ASI since his most important stats will be allready maxed) feat to pick ...
Question is ... is that *really* enough? O_o

I don't like the idea personally. I think the game offers enough interesting options for lvl 1 already. Also the feats the OP mentioned are kinda lackluster for your main character, but are very good for companions. Weapon Master is one of the strongest options in the game now, for both Wyll and Gale, because you can get 14 DEX and a proficiency with an almost OP hand crossbows and several other light finesse weapons. You'll never worry about how to use your bonus action again. Shadowheart can benefit from Mobile, because all of her attributes are EVEN, and lacks mobility as a cleric. She can also go for the magic initiate cleric or druid to use shillelah and thorn whip effectively. Skilled is very good on a skill monkey human/wood-elf PC. Those feats are very often overlooked just for the sake of +1 on rolls you can get from ability improvement.

A fallout-esque traits system (with benefits and drawbacks) could be a fun homebrew and nice alternative to a free feat. Adds some build diversity and characteristics. Especially when it has actual tag/world implications. But it can be a lot of work.

And I can totally see some people disliking it strictly because it's homebrewed.

Presently, there are only a few feats that I even kinda sorta consider. Most, I do not because Larian hasn't given us a real reason to. Gale getting light armor, or Astarion getting medium armor, doesn't do much good because, well, it does them no good. It's a waste. Even Great Weapon Mastery for Lae'zel doesn't really appeal as much as ASI on Strength/Dex.

So, I agree with you that there isn't much appeal for feats to begin with, but that's kinda my point. Allowing for feats at level 1 makes it even LESS likely that people will pick feats at levels 4, 8 or 12. My opinion is that they need to add more interesting feats to fix this. I don't think the answer is to make it worse by providing free feats at level 1.

That said, I agree with Niara that some maybe newly created feats could add flavor to characters, but they'd have to be minor feats - something like, "Honest Looking" adds +2 to Persuasion/Deception checks but -2 to Intimidation. People tend to trust you because you just look trustworthy, but this also means they don't feel threatened by you."

Astarion getting medium armor also comes with a shield proficiency which gives him 2 extra AC and also he can wear some unique items he otherwise couldn't like speedy lightfeet, metal helmet, metal gauntlets etc. Lightly armored for Gale opens up the ability to wear Spidersilk armor which is insanely good for preventing the concentration breaks. Try playing with those feats, you might find a lot of interesting opportunities beneath the surface.

I have to say that I don't really see why people being less likely to take a feat at level 4 is a problem in itself? It seems like the real problem is that there aren't enough good feats to entice players. I'm mostly neutral to the subject, leaning towards being in favor of it, but to me if giving a free feat at level one means there aren't attractive feats down the line, then the problem is with feats, not when you get them.

I don't think I've ever taken a feat in the game, mostly because I don't think I understand the game well enough to know the value of feats. It never seems worth it in exchange for the stat increases. If I got a free one at level one, then I'd at least take one feat, as opposed to none like I usually do.

Like I said, a minor feat that maybe provides a slight situational bonus or even a bonus and a flaw at the same time is fine. However, what I don't want to see is a free feat like Weapon Master. It completely offsets the balance, allowing classes that are not martial classes to start with martial weapons. You could have a druid with Greatswords and Longswords and such, making them much tougher than they should be at lower levels. You could have a wizard able to use a shield.

Feats you can get at level 4 are supposed to show character growth and maturity. It shows that after a bit of experience and training, your character was able to train themselves how to use 4 new weapons (Weapon Mastery) or a shield, or better armor, or whatever. Provide characters with a starter feat, if not limiting to very minor feats, would again leave characters with even less room to grow than the game already has. All you have left is ASI because the maybe 1 feat you might consider taking at level 4 you can get at level 1.

Yes. New feats and better feats are MUCH needed in BG3. They should really entice players to take them as opposed to an ASI.

Nah, that was not my point.
I mean yes i said it ... and yes i meaned it that way ... so im glad we agree.

But i was primarly trying to point out not that there isnt much appeal ... more like there isnt much opportunities to do that even if you want to.
I mean from what i read (and i may misunderstand something, it wouldnt be the first time, as im sure you know ) the more i read about 5e (and i admit im still a newbie) the more it seems like the system works the best if you have it whole (meaning up to level 20) ... once you put cap somewhere in the middle, flaws starts to show up. :-/

From what i have heared, there are classes like Monk who are HEAVILY dependent on having corect Ability Scores ... and even if you would like to have some feats, waiting for them to the endgame, or spending most of the game conciderable weaker for it ... i dunno, it seems like something that sucks. :-/

For that reason i would probably not be strictly against alowing any Feat at lvl 1 ... so we have "at least one" for sure, bcs not everyone of us would have such luck as i had in Roll20 ... :-/

Yup!

Have you seen this?
Purrfect, isnt it?