D&D (2024) 75 Feats -- not nearly enough

[Justice and Rule]

I don't like your idea. I think it makes things worse.
MAD classes actually benefit from not increasing main stats all the time as they don't fall behind.

Uh, who are they falling behind? The enemy? Everyone getting more is fine. MAD classes have problems because they don't have enough stats to go around and get hamstrung by lacking something; giving them more helps them out. Who cares if a fighter gets another boost, the Monk can get a feat as well as a Wisdom upgrade.

I see that you don't care for the impact of your change.

The impact of everyone getting a 20 in their main stat is basically negligible, so I guess so? Unless you are really concerned with the worldbuilding of what a 20 means for a stat, I don't really see much of a problem with it.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It feels bad to me because it's just an unnecessary limit: why do I have to choose between the two when I could simply have both? In a game where there are very limited choices outside of the class ones, allowing more options to customize them beyond the class structure would seem good.



I don't think it's necessarily a hard one, I think it's just a bad one. It's unnecessary to force someone to choose between the two when giving them both would just be a better option to allow more customization.




I was largely responding to this



By saying that, for martials, there are a decent amount of feats that are probably better than a simple +1 to hit/damage. Those feats are largely known and talked about, though.



Warcaster is something I liked choosing for variant human clerics if the GM wasn't allowing a free feat in general. Lucky is a good take given its universality.

As it stands, the biggest problem with the current edition (not the new one coming out) is that Feats are very much broken down into two sides: "Useful" and "Incredibly Niche". There are some feats that are particularly necessary for Martials, while there are some things that are just incredibly niche and would be fine to fill out a character but not against an ASI. Moving away from those two being in competition with one another, as well as trying to gate feats by their effectiveness, will hopefully balance things out a bit. But even still, making it a choice rather than just getting both is the big mistake here.



I would much rather move away from plussed weapons as a concept in general and just move towards more interesting magical effects. That's just my view of it.

But personally I like the idea of having ASIs, especially given the stat array we are given. I just don't like them competing with Feats because I think they shouldn't be in competition with one another; you should just get both: you get both an ASI and a Feat at certain levels. There's nothing really gained from it, and right now it seems to section off people from engaging with certain parts of the game (as you describe).

I think we mostly agree but could quibble about the details. I just want to add, that I am not particularly a fan of plussed weapons either.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Before adding more feats, how about they balance the ones they've already got?

They were working on that in the playtest.

In my opinion, apart from a very small number of exceptions in the current game, it is not clear that any feat is worth more than a +2 to an ability.

That would be why all the feats in the playtest had a +1 ASI to go with them.

We don't know how well they'll succeed, but rebalancing the feats is entirely a part of what we should be expecting here.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

My biggest issue with the Feats vs ASI choice is that IMO, the inclination is backwards to the ideal choice.

What I mean is, we are all inclined to use ASIs at lower levels (to get that stat up to max, baby!) and maybe go to feats later (assuming there IS a later) when I think that the game is better off with feats at low level, when your character has less options, and simple "math" bumps at higher levels, when your character is already complicated enough.

 

[Dyson Logos]

I'm on the other side of the line. 75 Feats is way too many.

 

[Remathilis]

Why is it flavorless?

It's flavor is that you are better spellcaster, or natural born spellcaster, just as you are with Shadow touched and Feytouched.

Sharpshooters flavor is that you are better archer than without it.

Same as skilled, you are more skilled.

The way it's written, it basically is a goodstuff feat that is a must take for every caster regardless of your build. FT and ST only are useful in certain builds and concepts. This feat basically said "pick the best first and second level spells in the game. You get two additional spell slots as well." What character in their right mind isn't taking shield or silvery barbs at first level and healing spirit or misty step at second. Further, you are giving spell slots rather than free casts which is far more useful to a paladin (free smites) sorcerer (free spell points) and warlocks (which refresh on a SR). There isn't a build that doesn't benefit from this feat, and that includes champion fighters. That is generic, flavorless and overpowered.

 

[dave2008]

It feels bad to me because it's just an unnecessary limit: why do I have to choose between the two when I could simply have both? In a game where there are very limited choices outside of the class ones, allowing more options to customize them beyond the class structure would seem good.

It feels bad and boring to me to have an ASI automatic. I personally believe (for 5e) why have them at all. Just make all of those choices feats IMO. So if it was about choices, allow them 14 feat choices instead of 7 ASI and 7 feat choices. Why keep the ASI at all, it is not really an interesting way to customize your character.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Let's compromise and have no more ASI and replace all of the wizard spells with feats.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It feels bad and boring to me to have an ASI automatic. I personally believe (for 5e) why have them at all. Just make all of those choices feats IMO. So if it was about choices, allow them 14 feat choices instead of 7 ASI and 7 feat choices. Why keep the ASI at all, it is not really an interesting way to customize your character.

Because, largely speaking, there are so few ways to do it already? I mean, I know 5E is a low numbers game, but that's kind of what you get when you make it like that. I don't think ASIs are necessarily the most interesting thing in the world, but they also let you overcome the basic limitations of the stat array and allow me to build out a character in different ways over time.

 

[dave2008]

Because, largely speaking, there are so few ways to do it already? I mean, I know 5E is a low numbers game, but that's kind of what you get when you make it like that. I don't think ASIs are necessarily the most interesting thing in the world, but they also let you overcome the basic limitations of the stat array and allow me to build out a character in different ways over time.

Inflated numbers are really an uninteresting way to do that IMO. If you feel you need them, pick up a feat that has a +1 and something else. If you are really worried about the numbers, having 2x feats would allow you to get all the numbers upgrades plus a lot of interesting extras. But it makes it a choice.

IME, you don't need stat progression in 5e. But if you do, no skin off my back. Give'm ASIs and Feats.