D&D 5E More time to play with feats

Most of the campaigns I've been in have gone only up through 10, 11 or 12th. With how important raising your attack/dc ability score is, I very often see 4th and 8th levels go towards getting that to 20, and only after that is there room for a feat - if the game goes high enough to even give another one.

I occasionally see feats in the 4th or 8th slots, but they are usually the damage-focused ones, like Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Polearm Master or Crossbow Expert. (When those aren't taken at 1st by a variant human.)

Thinking about how much design space to make characters more interesting we're leaving on the floor because of the mechanical pressures, I was thinking about how to resolve it. What do you think of this:

The first two feats granted by class levels, if they grant a bonus to an ability score, grant +2 instead of +1.

Yes, this means that you would always take a half-feat instead of an ASI for those because it's better. But the half-feats are interesting and, at least at my tables, get much less play then either ASIs or damage-based (and Concentration save) feats at those levels.

Basically it will increase the power of the PCs, but bring them more interesting options. And there's a greater opportunity cost to taking a full feat at those levels.

(BTW, my first write up was "levels 4 thru 8" to allow fighters some extra love, and then I changed it to "4, 8, 10" to allow rogues AND fighters some extra love plus give a place where fighters could take a non-half-feat without paying an opportunity cost. But I wasn't sure that's not too much for those classes, and it paid merry heck with multiclassing and I just cleaned it up the the first two.)

As a side note: Again, this is aimed at a table who only gets to play to levels 10-11, 12 AT MOST. Also I haven't read through XgtE and so I don't know if they would imbalance it by adding better half-feats.

Biggest issue is that this will make PCs more powerful, which would need to be taken into consideration for the challenges they would face.

Thoughts?

I disagree with the premise that there's significant 'mechanical pressure' to reach a 20 primary stat.

I'm not strictly opposed to playing in a game with even more powerful PCs, as long as the DM can keep things fresh. I wouldn't want to DM a table using this rule, though.

Well, my experience doesn't agree with your basic premise - my table takes feats at 4th level (and we start with the standard array)

But we're talking about your table.

I think you ought to just give them all a feat and and ASI at 4th and 8th. Oh, and make it so the ASI must be the "+1 to two ability scores" option so they can't increase an ability by 3 with a half feat.

I'll admit I find it hard to identify with the problem. Like you, I tend only to play in low-to-mid-levels (never had a character above level 13, I don't think, and that was for a one-off. But at the same time, I have never had a character who hasn't taken a feat as one of the first two ASIs. Feats are just too much fun, and my experience of play (and, from observation, those I have played with, under multiple DMs) is such that that rush to 20 really isn't that important.

I'm not saying that it's not important to some players, but in no way is it necessary that a good player can't make a viable character using stunts.

That being said, your change makes taking the half-stunts a no-brainer. I don't see that as an improvement: having a range of viable choices is where the fun's at.

I think you need perhaps to articulate where the mechanical pressures are coming from, that players at your table consistently feel that they cannot take feats. Maybe they're just risk-averse? Character death is pretty rare in 5e, by most accounts.

Edit: as other answers have emerged while I was typing that: Satyrn's solution seems sensible.

Making PC's stronger is fine, as you can always add more monsters.

Though IMO, a better solution is just to cap the stats at 18.

Could it also be that most feats just don't fit their character concept that well?

Nevvur said:

I disagree with the premise that there's significant 'mechanical pressure' to reach a 20 primary stat.

Click to expand...

I find it's not a significant 'mechanical pressure' but a significant 'player pressure.' Mechanically, you don't need more than a 16 in an attack score to be effective. Yes and 18 or 20 will make it better, but you should still be fine. The good combat feats are equal to (or more than) +1 Attack/Damage (and potential saves and checks), which is why they're taken at the first opportunity by many players. Some players, however, feel that if you don't have the highest possible combat ability score, then you are a bad player. I think they're missing out, but hey, whatever they want (so long as they leave me alone).

The only part of the equation I somewhat agree with is primary casters. Most spellcaster feats just aren't worth +5% chance of a spell being saved against. This leaves many spellcasters to avoid feats until they have a 20 in their spellcasting ability.

In my games, I've determined that all PCs get a bonus feat at first level. It has not affected the power of the PCs much if at all and they get to refine their character concepts better at first level.

Although honestly the players don't value getting to 20 that highly, most of them have taken a feat when possible and only used the ASI to increase their main stat when they had no feats left that they wanted to take.

I remain quite tempted to allow everyone to take a racial (XGtE) or Skill (UA) feat upon character creation

Mechanically I think you'd be better off giving a feat and a +1 stat at 4th to everyone instead of buffing some feats and not others.

Like Mellored, my preference would be to just cap stats at 18 and lower the 'pressure' for maxing a notch plus it reduces the math to help add challenge at the higher levels.