D&D 5E I hate choosing between ASIs and Feats

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm completely with you on this. It's an annoyance I'd rather not have to deal with, but which has no simple solutions either. Fanaelialae's idea helps, but only a bit, and simply going "every ASI *also* gives you a feat" is probably broken (especially since you can take one of those half-feats and get three stat points.)

To make things even worse for me I find is the fact that combat and non combat feats are drawn from the same limited pool which often finds the choice of combat viability vs colour/concept forced upon a player.

That too.

 

[Guest 6801328]

However, I can see how someone could say "Yeah, I'd prefer getting both instead of having to choose."

I don't actually even need both. I'd probably enjoy it more if it were only Feats and true ASI's weren't an option. Or if it alternated between ASIs and Feats. It's putting them both on the same resource and then making me choose that irks me.

 

[CapnZapp]

There, I said it.

Yes, I *know* Feats are "optional" and therefore they need to be interchangeable for balance.

What irks me is that in many/most cases ASIs are the optimal choice, so I'm put in the position of choosing statistical optimization or fun. I really want to choose the fun option, but almost always end up going with the optimal.

This is partly true because the Feats I want aren't the handful of OP Feats (Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, Resilient: CON). I want Dungeon Delver, Mage Slayer, Shield Master, Alert, and other fun things that aren't as powerful overall. But I just can't bring myself to sacrifice that constant +1.

And, yes, I *know* that's my choice and I could choose to do otherwise. TYVM.

Sure, I could in theory pick up Feats with my final ASIs...if I ever actually played a campaign that long. (My impression is that my experience isn't unique, that most of us don't spend much time above level 10-12.)

I'm just saying that I would be having more fun if ASIs and Feats were two separate choices. What I hear around the tables (AL at FLGS) is a similar sentiment.

Anybody else wish this had been designed differently?

I hear your pain.

This isn't an area where I could see them doing it differently, however. I am personally convinced the choice is a superb design decision, simply because of the existence of your "OP Feats".

But that doesn't mean I don't understand your point of view.

My best suggestion: identify a list of "fun things that aren't as powerful" and simply allow each player to pick one at character creation.

At least, that's what I did Here's my list of "background feats":

The first player rolls 1d12 three times and chooses one of the feats indicated as a bonus feat. Then the second player rolls, and so on.
1. Actor
2. Dungeon Delver
3. Healer
4. Inspiring Leader
5. Keen Mind & Linguist
6. Lucky
7. Magic Initiate
8. Martial Adept
9. Ritual Caster
10.Skilled
11.Tavern Brawler
12.Tough
​

Some of these choices aren't all that bad. In fact some are very powerful and impact the campaign on a daily basis (Healer, Inspiring Leader). So the list isn't purely built from a power perspective; some feats make too much sense as starting feats not to be in there.

Perhaps the best example is Lucky. Yes, it's a desirable feat. But it's perhaps the most appropriate feat to start out with since "you were born lucky". So it had to be on the list.

 

[Leugren]

As a DM, I wrestled with the same conundrum, which I chose to somewhat alleviate by giving characters a more generous set of starting attributes.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But it is easy to be overwhelmed by the choices. So much goodness...

That's more than true just using Feats....

 

[ccs]

I'm not suggesting that you should be able to take one of each for each ASI. Not for that matter am I proposing any particular fix, or even that there exists a fix that wouldn't unbalance something.

Just saying that I wish RAW didn't put me in the position of making this particular choice.

So you're like the Lion in the Wizard of Oz wishing for courage?

Make the character you WANT. It'll work. Trust me, I do it all the time.
If it helps? Think of it like playing AD&D - where there were no ASIs, just aditional Weapon & Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I'm not suggesting that you should be able to take one of each for each ASI. Not for that matter am I proposing any particular fix, or even that there exists a fix that wouldn't unbalance something.

Just saying that I wish RAW didn't put me in the position of making this particular choice.

looking at the characters in the campaigns I recently been a part of feats only seem to come in after characters have maxed their mian (to hit) stat with the exeption of the variant human.
With classes that are more dependent on multiple stats like the monk ( dex/wis ) you almost see no feats at all unless it is a human character.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So you're like the Lion in the Wizard of Oz wishing for courage?

Make the character you WANT. It'll work. Trust me, I do it all the time.
If it helps? Think of it like playing AD&D - where there were no ASIs, just aditional Weapon & Non-Weapon Proficiencies.

Yeah, I tried that. I died. At second level, after one round of combat (well, and three death saves). After already *nearly* dying to a mummy's curse at first level.

"Just do whatever you want, it'll be fine" hasn't exactly described my experience of 5e, and I actually did put some thought into optimization, too.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

It's putting them both on the same resource and then making me choose that irks me.

I can get that too.

My wife has a different sort of "I don't want to choose" problem, but it is one that is actually fixed by 5th edition's system of never saying "You must choose a feat." Because she hates feats, and always has, because there are so many and they don't interest her because they are primarily mechanical in nature and she is satisfied mechanically without feats.

 

[Gnarl45]

@OP:

Some people want feats and others don't. Having to choose between ability score increases and a feat isn't a bad solution.

You probably could solve your problem by lowering the cap on ability scores and having it increase with level. For example, at levels 1-6 the cap is 16, at levels 7-12, the cap is 18, and at levels 13 and higher, the cap is 20.