How important to you is maxing your primary stat?

Henry

Autoexreginated

• May 13, 2018

• #41

Also, I’ll fully admit I’m not saying ASI is never worth it, it’s an extremely powerful draw, but I personally think the designers struck the right balance between feat and ASI. There might be outliers (the ever-debated Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter) but the majority of Core Book feats are truly enticing alternatives that make me think hard before I pick every four levels.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yaarel

He Mage

• May 13, 2018

• #42

I am impressed how the preferences for ability improvement versus feat choice are reasonably well distributed.

Some finetuning of feats remains necessary. Some feats are too good while most feats are less than equal to an ability score improvement. Even so, the poll suggests that feats versus improvements are reasonably comparable in value.

The feats need better design, but the approach of choosing between the two seems reasonable.



Personally, I want more feat choices at lower tiers to customize and/or specialize the character concept sooner.

Further, I want separate pools for combat versus noncombat. (Dual-use feats count as combat.) Or possibly the combat feats can split up into separate pools for: offense/defense, mobility/immobilization, stealth/detection, and social/luck/fate.

Let each heritage (race) have several feats to choose from. If you want an elf with sword-and-bow, great, and if not, great, pick a different appropriate feat. Likewise, give class a feat choice, and background a feat choice.



So even when I like a feat being comparable to an ability score improvement, I want more opportunities to gain feats for the sake of customization.

 

S

Sleepy Walker

First Post

• May 13, 2018

• #43

It depends on the character concept, but 85% of the time I prefer a feat. An ability score of 16 or 14 is plenty for me.

I've played characters with high ability scores, high primary scores only, and low-ish scores but have feats. Feats are by far the option I have the most fun with. I do draw the line at 14 for the ability which determines my attack modifier, since any less and things start getting ugly when heavy armor pops up.

 

5

5ekyu

Hero

• May 13, 2018

• #44

ccs said:

Not if doing so doesn't help me better represent the character I've made.

Click to expand...

While i can agree with this, i have never had a *character* whose best or better representation depended on maxing an ability at a certain level or at all.

On the other hand, i have had lots of characters where a feat was an essential element of their representation from early on- certainly by the begining of "serious" or "non-intro" play, tier 2.

 

Hussar

Legend

• May 13, 2018

• #45

Realistically, for full casters, there's no feat that will come even close to bumping your casting stat. No feat will give you the bonuses to your save DC, PLUS an extra spell to use. At 8th level, you're getting up to a 4th level spell known per day. Considering, by that point, you only know 2 (or can ready 2 if you're a cleric or druid), that's a HUGE bump in versatility. No feat will come even close to that.

OTOH, for fighting types, it's a lot less necessary. If you're an archer type, Sharpshooter+ your inherent +2 fighting style makes an extra +1/hit and damage pretty redundant. Even if you're not taking the -5, the fact that you almost never have the -2 from cover means that you've essentially got that +2 all the time. Going from a +8 (3 for proficiency, 2 for fighting style and 3 for stat) to +9 is essentially gilding the lily. It's not all that necessary at 4th level, and your proficiency bumps will generally keep up with the Joneses after that.

Even a melee type fighter isn't really all that put out by not taking the stat bump. A 16 Str will generally keep you pretty competitive. Particularly in a campaign featuring magic weapons and the like. Jacking up a melee attack isn't exactly difficult - gaining Advantage, Bless spells, bonuses from this or that. Unlike a save DC which is pretty much static no matter what.

 

Sacrosanct

Legend

• May 13, 2018

• #46

The flavor of a feat, and what it adds to the concept, generally but not always is my preferred choice over an additional +1 bonus.

 

Eis

Explorer

• May 13, 2018

• #47

I keep looking at the posting dates on this thread because it feels like I read this exact same thread three years ago here

 

Yaarel

He Mage

• May 13, 2018

• #48

I hate missing on my turn. In previous editions I often picked feats that improved accuracy. In 5e, improving ability score is pretty much that.

I love and need customization.

I hate missing.

For me, swapping out less desirable features for more desirable features is the ideal way to customize. At the same time, I can invest resources to miss less often.

 

L

Lucas Blackstone

Explorer

• May 13, 2018

• #49

For me it's a toss up depending on the character but I ended up voting for max stat to 20 first, only because it's usually a good thing for a caster and generally good for most characters. But it really depends on how you envision any given character.

 

ccs

41st lv DM

• May 13, 2018

• #50

5ekyu said:

While i can agree with this, i have never had a *character* whose best or better representation depended on maxing an ability at a certain level or at all.

On the other hand, i have had lots of characters where a feat was an essential element of their representation from early on- certainly by the begining of "serious" or "non-intro" play, tier 2.

Click to expand...

And it's not limited to the choice of bump primary stat/choose a feat. In our last PF game my Wizard started off with a poor Cha. As the campaign progressed they developed a stronger & stronger personality/force of will. Every stat increase I got went into Cha.