D&D 5E Feats *and* aibility increases

[txshusker]

As has been said previously in other wording... If it ain't broke, don't fix. I don't see anything wrong with the RAW, honestly. We all have to make choices. Sounds like a GenX problem. When I was a kid it was : the new MM2 or baseball cards? Dieties and Demigods or a Xmas present for my girlfriend. But after saving my paperboy money for a while, I got it all, baby. Patience reaps rewards. (Especially from my girlfriend).

 

[the Jester]

So my players are nearing 4th level and they want to take a feat and gain the ability increase. Any reason why I shouldn't let them?

Because removing interesting choices in favor of "have it all" isn't as fun as it sounds?

Interesting choices, IMHO, are usually more fun than "have it all" situations, but YMMV.

 

[SilverfireSage]

So my players are nearing 4th level and they want to take a feat and gain the ability increase. Any reason why I shouldn't let them?

If you give a character a feat, he'll want an ABI to go with it. If you give him an ABI, he'll want a magic item to go with it. If you give him a magic item, he'll want to multiclass for free to go with it. If you let him multiclass for free...

 

[Joe Liker]

It's not as bad as all that. While the list of feats that benefit casters is not nearly as long as those that benefit martial characters and skill monkeys, there are plenty of "generic goodstuff" feats that casters can benefit from. Resilient targeting Con is huge for any caster who uses concentration spells. Toughness is always great for folks with smallish Hit Dice. If you find your AC is lacking, pick up a dagger and get Defensive Duelist; who needs the shield spell?

I did not say there were no options at all. I said it was unfair.

Martial classes have tons of options that specifically enhance their play style, but they can also choose the more general feats if they want to. The warlock can only choose from the general list for the most part. That is unfair.

 

[Joe Liker]

Why? His feat choices will just be more defensive in nature.

Extra good Saving Throw or More HPs first come to mind.

Which are options that can benefit any class. If the warlock is forced to take only defensive options while the others can choose from a much more extensive list, it's unfair.

 

[Nebulous]

So my players are nearing 4th level and they want to take a feat and gain the ability increase. Any reason why I shouldn't let them?

Did they say WHY? I mean, it's not unreasonable, just a little odd they unanimously came up with that idea.

 

[Dausuul]

I did not say there were no options at all. I said it was unfair.

Martial classes have tons of options that specifically enhance their play style, but they can also choose the more general feats if they want to. The warlock can only choose from the general list for the most part. That is unfair.

In principle, it's a bit unfair, but it's very far from "royally screwed." If I were playing a warlock in a campaign with this house rule, I would not consider it an imposition worth complaining about. I'd be too busy using Mask of a Thousand Faces, the Actor feat, and my 20 Charisma to impersonate the king and make the royal court dance on puppet strings for my amusement.

 

[MoutonRustique]

Meh. I say go for it.

The only thing major it does is increase their power - which is something only the DM needs to worry about. It doesn't change the game (aside from such situations with the warlock and such - but 5e is already a relatively "un-balanced" game as is*) and the CR system is not all that precise.

Since the DM will always need to assess each encounter with regards to his players, that you now have more powerful characters than they "should" be changes... well, nothing.

Case in point : magical items are not assumed.

The point about character building choice being a part of the game is true only insofar as the players like that part of the game (to a certain extent, of course.) I see little value in trying to "educate" these players into the "correct" way of looking at character progression rules - if they already feel as if choosing a feat would "rob" them of something, that feeling isn't going to just go away. The effort required to change perceptions can be immense - it might not be, but if it is, I'd say this is not a battle worth picking.





*I say "un-balanced" with quotes to mean that to have what could be called IMO strict balance requires a very specific game (a fairly set number of encounters between rests -both short and long-, a mix of encounter types tailored to the PCs, a mix of combat encounter types tailored to the PCs, etc, etc.) If these pretty narrow margins are not obeyed, the relative balance between the characters will not be equal. This, in no way, shape, or form, equates to the game being broken or some such. It simply means that specific character classes and builds would have a variance of impact on the game. A simple and exagereted example could be a party with multiple clerics in a political campaign centered around different faith's power plays and massive undead presence. The clerics could easily hog the spotlight.

 

[vecna00]

I say go for it if you like and see how it works for your game. Nevermind the "why's," it's your game, no one else's. You are the one that's empowered to do as you will in your game. See how it goes and enjoy it! If things don't turn out well, you know for next time.

 

[guachi]

In a game with lower power to the magic items, giving out something like a feat and ability point increase is the new Monty Hall. Players will look for every way to get ahead. If they can't get a +5 weapon, they'll just get two extra ability point increases to get the extra +2 to boost a +3 weapon to a +5 weapon.