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

[GX.Sigma]

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.

This statement in a vacuum sounds more like a killer DM problem than a character customization problem. What DM throws mummies against 1st-level characters? Also, what players don't heal their friend who got knocked down in the first round?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This made me laugh. How about height? Not many 5' wide corridors are going to be high enough, and at 5' width the rider on the squeezed horse is going to be squeezed too unless you've succeeded on a high DC Intimidate check against your poor DM.

Edit: Also, corners.

How high do you think the average 5' wide corridor actually is? In real life, my 3' wide hallway is about 7'6"' tall. A D&D-style 5' wide corridor should be at least that tall, no? Incidentally, why do you think the rider is incapable of getting off the horse to get it through a tight space? (As a DM, I would rule a rider on a Large horse in a tight space to suffer the same penalties that the horse does.)

A quick Internet search tells me that standard dimensions for a horse trailer is about 10' long, 6' wide, and 7'6" tall. A 5' corridor is slightly smaller than that, enough so to more than justify the combat penalties, but not enough to make it remotely implausible for the horse to fit through.

 

[Iry]

Solution 1? Everyone gets both ASI and a Feat at 4th Level. After that, back to normal.
Solution 2? No Variant Human, but everyone gets a free Feat at 1st Level.

I find that the amount of discomfort a player experiences after they get their first feat is muuuuch less.

 

[Rhenny]

This is exactly what I was referring to.

I fully admit I tend towards feats over stat bumps. Full disclosure. Its just that, having played a great deal of 5e, with characters I sometimes never bothered to increase their primary stat above 16, I find I still succeed at plenty of stuff. Thank you bounded accuracy. But same said characters had lots of additional "fun flavor points" thanks to the feats I chose. So did I succeed at having fun adventuring?

I would say, categorically yes.

Arguably more so because I took choices I thought were more fun to play. Might I have succeeded a bit more often in discrete instances? Probably. But even then, my choice (to take feats instead) only affected the outcome in the rare moments when I miss a roll by only exactly 1 or 2 points. Missing by any more than that (likewise all the successes in excess of 3 or more) and even a 20 stat would have made no difference. Which, statistically, is much more often.

So did I choose poorly? It's hard for me to argue that I did.

Me too. I'm playing a Human Variant tempest cleric in Hoard of Dragon Queen who has 18 dex and 16 wis. (We rolled 4d6 drop in order to make characters). He started with Defensive Duelist (because he was raised by Elves), and at 4th level he took Healer Feat. Those feats are paying off more and more so I don't even miss augmenting my PCs wisdom.

Far and away, taking feats is much more interesting, and you can make of them what you will. Attribute bonus is boring.

 

[Xeviat]

I like the choice between ASI and feat, but I only find that choice to be a balanced one when it's a choice between an attacking stat and an offensive feat. The fluffy feats really need to be siloed into a place with skills, and have skill growth exist as well.

Since the beginning, I've been looking at spitting the big feats into two and removing the ability score increases from the half feats, then I could feel better about baking feats into the basic progression of the game. I like feats. I like the ability to customize characters. I find level 1 characters (except 1-9 casters) to be boring because they don't get to choose feats.

 

[Eubani]

I like the choice between ASI and feat, but I only find that choice to be a balanced one when it's a choice between an attacking stat and an offensive feat. The fluffy feats really need to be siloed into a place with skills, and have skill growth exist as well.

Since the beginning, I've been looking at spitting the big feats into two and removing the ability score increases from the half feats, then I could feel better about baking feats into the basic progression of the game. I like feats. I like the ability to customize characters. I find level 1 characters (except 1-9 casters) to be boring because they don't get to choose feats.

I was thinking at level 3, 9 & 15 let the players pick a skill (including tools or languages) and a non combat feat. I think that if more non combat choices are added into characters than players wil invest more into the non combat parts of the game.

 

[TwoSix]

Solution 1? Everyone gets both ASI and a Feat at 4th Level. After that, back to normal.
Solution 2? No Variant Human, but everyone gets a free Feat at 1st Level.

I find that the amount of discomfort a player experiences after they get their first feat is muuuuch less.

I like this, particularly applying them both. 2 feats seems to really be the sweet spot where most concepts are pretty much ready to play.

 

[Raith5]

Agree. For me 5e takes a bit too long to create the character concept I am looking for (so a feat at first level seems to be a good idea). Feats are also so uneven and few in number/type. But the deeper issue for me is one of character progression (for martial classes especially): sometimes I just want to see my attack bonus creep up a bit. As much as I appreciate bounded accuracy I also want to see some sense of character progression (other than my hp!).

 

[Guest 6801328]

RAW does no such thing. Your DM puts you in the position of making that choice by by allowing feats in the campaign.

I mostly play Adventurer's League. So...no, that's incorrect.

 

[Guest 6801328]

What I'm hearing is that your optimizing side and your flavor-loving side are at war. The optimizing side pretty much always wins, but the flavor-loving side is unhappy because it feels neglected. If you switched it around and went the other way, then your optimizing side would be unhappy because then it would be neglected.

Sounds to me like a problem that is best solved by you figuring out how to balance your priorities, rather than by changing the rules.

I also wonder if the fact that you're playing AL is contributing to this dilemma. At a friendly home table, you might feel less pressure to "keep up" through optimization.

The first two paragraphs are spot on.

The third paragraph, though, is off base: my experience with AL is that most of the other players aren't optimizing, so there is no such pressure.

EDIT: And to clarify, I'm not looking for a good house rule or other "solution"; just discussing my feelings about the game.