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

[Guest 6801328]

Feats instead of ASIs, and just higher stats (a more generous array) could work.

A more generous array because it would be weird to have an 18 be unattainable? Or more generous because the current stats just aren't good enough all around?

 

[Tony Vargas]

A more generous array because it would be weird to have an 18 be unattainable? Or more generous because the current stats just aren't good enough all around?

Just throwing out some ideas, but yes. It would be weird to have no 18s. And the array probably isn't 'good enough' to see you through to higher levels considering the default game adds 10-14 stat points to it. The slightly better results from random generation might be adequate, though.

Some feats do give you a +1, though, so even with the standard array, you could get a 17 post-racial and one of those feats to touch 18.

Have any ideas resonated with you so far?

 

[Jackal_]

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?

Everyone at our table completely agrees with this. Most character concepts based on feats started to late in a character's career when competing with ASI's. So we decided to give every character a feat at first and 4th level along with the ASI's.

 

[Sunseeker]

Just throwing out some ideas, but yes. It would be weird to have no 18s. And the array probably isn't 'good enough' to see you through to higher levels considering the default game adds 10-14 stat points to it. The slightly better results from random generation might be adequate, though.

Some feats do give you a +1, though, so even with the standard array, you could get a 17 post-racial and one of those feats to touch 18.

Have any ideas resonated with you so far?

Out of curiosity, has anyone tried Feats and ASIs?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

Just throwing out some ideas, but yes. It would be weird to have no 18s. And the array probably isn't 'good enough' to see you through to higher levels considering the default game adds 10-14 stat points to it. The slightly better results from random generation might be adequate, though.

Some feats do give you a +1, though, so even with the standard array, you could get a 17 post-racial and one of those feats to touch 18.

Have any ideas resonated with you so far?

I agree about the premise then: it would be strange if an 18 were impossible.

As for the 10-14 stat points, though, if Feats really are equal to ASIs then getting 5-7 Feats should be as useful/powerful as getting 10-14 stat points.

In reality many of them are worse, of course, which is a problem.

If we're actually redesigning the system I think I would:
- Tweak the feats to make them more in line with each other
- Excise all stat bonuses from Feats
- Grant 1 point ASIs on some levels, and Feats on other levels
- Continue to vary the number of Feats by class, but keep the ASIs consistent across all Classes, e.g. 4/8/12/16/20

Of course that breaks the design goal of making Feats optional but I always thought that was a lame design goal anyway.

Another reason a truly great online character sheet repository would be useful is that we (where "we" would probably mean WotC and never us) would have data on frequency of Feat selection. Would be illuminating I bet.

*My other, unrelated idea on the ASIs, which goes the opposite direction from the above and makes them more powerful, is to grant 2 points to one stat or 3 points to 3 different stats: create an incentive to spread the points around instead of just taking your prime stat to 20.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure about starting with higher abilities. One of the differences between old school and more modern editions is tying your stats into, for example, saving throws. Back in the day (five miles uphill, in the snow) that was ability-independent, but tied to level.

There were some stats that gave bonuses to some saves, but yes, it was mostly about level. In 5e it's all about stats for 4 out of 6 saves for most classes. If you're using feats, though, you can expand that. :shrug:

Now, while there are weaknesses in certain areas (those stats you do not improve) there is a built-in assumption that mid- to high-level characters should save better, don't you think? Because of the ASIs?

Not really, a +1 higher mod with one stat, every 4 levels or so doesn't seem that significant compared to bounded accuracy. I think the assumption should be there, but that proficiency or something with a comparable progression would make a more logical vehicle for it.

Instead of providing those enhanced stats at the beginning, I think your other suggestions (get feats and ASIs) is a better solution for people that do not enjoy the tradeoff contemplated in the rules.

In essence making the trade-off for them, sure. Certain levels get a feat, others an ASI.

I agree about the premise then: it would be strange if an 18 were impossible.

As for the 10-14 stat points, though, if Feats really are equal to ASIs then getting 5-7 Feats should be as useful/powerful as getting 10-14 stat points.

That's intuitive. But I'm not sure it works taken to the extreme of all-feats, no ASIs. (Obviously, it had better be working with all ASIs as that's the default).

In reality many of them are worse, of course, which is a problem.

If we're actually redesigning the system I think I would:
- Tweak the feats to make them more in line with each other
- Excise all stat bonuses from Feats
- Grant 1 point ASIs on some levels, and Feats on other levels
- Continue to vary the number of Feats by class, but keep the ASIs consistent across all Classes, e.g. 4/8/12/16/20

Removing stat bonuses from feats would make it harder to keep them all in-line with eachother, but aside from that it sounds solid.

Of course that breaks the design goal of making Feats optional but I always thought that was a lame design goal anyway.

Great thing about a house rule, it's already exercising an option, so it's a non-issue. You're choosing to use feats, modify them, and allow them in this specific way. Perfectly fine.

*My other, unrelated idea on the ASIs, which goes the opposite direction from the above and makes them more powerful, is to grant 2 points to one stat or 3 points to 3 different stats: create an incentive to spread the points around instead of just taking your prime stat to 20.

That is a nice idea. I get the impression 5e tried to make all-'round characters more practical, but didn't quite pull it off. That'd be another step in that direction.

 

[firstkyne]

This would be my system for PCs getting both feats and stats(note that feats are required in this system)

(Note #2: this is for a higher powered game, like what I would tend to run)

1. Split feats into two groups
2. Group A would be resilient, healer, War Caster, and all of the flavor, noncombat, and underpowered feats
3. Group B would be the powerful combat feats
4. At level 1, PCs choose any 1 feat from either group
5. Variant Human still exists, but it's free feat must be from group A
6. At levels 4, 12, and 19(total character level), pick a feat from group A
7. At levels 8 and 16(total character level), choose any feat
8. Fighters and Rogues get extra feats at odd levels(not 4, 8, 12, 16, 19). At those levels in those specific classes, choose any feat
9. At total character levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19, add +1 to all 6 stats(they all advance, but slower)

I would charge for ASIs. Either an amount of gold chosen to give pause for thought, to ' cover training costs', or XP, or some other resource.

Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk

 

[Ath'kethin]

Here I am, wandering in late to the party.

Also, old-school gamers might be more comfortable with "low" scores like Int 16, because AD&D didn't let you change your stats at all (hardly ever). The roleplayer in me actually hates the thought of every fighter always winding up the strongest man in the world and every rogue the quickest and every wizard the smartest. It's bland. Feats are more interesting and less homogenizing.

It would be interesting to see whether old-school gamers, as a group, lean toward feats or ASIs. I'm hypothesizing that they'd lean toward feats.

I'm not as "Old School" as some (I started playing in 1994 with 2nd Edition, integrated 1e stuff into my game for a long time before I even realized there was a difference, and later played BECMI), but I am very much on the "Feats are way cooler" bandwagon. My favorite 3e innovations were feats and prestige classes initially, though I later (after years of half-assed bloat from splatbooks) considered both to be the worst parts of the edition.

It was interesting to me that when the PCs in my current campaign reached 4th level one chose an ASI and the other chose a feat. The guy who chose a feat went with Resilient (CON) because he has an 8 CON and CON saves were kicking his butt. He felt (and correctly, I believe) that proficiency in the save would be worth more than just a +2 to the stat. His wife went with an ASI to boost her Dexterity because for a good chunk of the previous adventure they had been sneaking around and she was very lucky on her Stealth rolls (as a cleric in scale mail, sneaking around was definitely not her forte) and she decided that the experience had taught her a great deal about nimbleness.

Though I guess that this really just illustrates that the ASI/Feat dichotomy can be a false one, and that both can be used to further character development.

 

[Bigkahuna]

Here I am, wandering in late to the party.



I'm not as "Old School" as some (I started playing in 1994 with 2nd Edition, integrated 1e stuff into my game for a long time before I even realized there was a difference, and later played BECMI), but I am very much on the "Feats are way cooler" bandwagon. My favorite 3e innovations were feats and prestige classes initially, though I later (after years of half-assed bloat from splatbooks) considered both to be the worst parts of the edition.

It was interesting to me that when the PCs in my current campaign reached 4th level one chose an ASI and the other chose a feat. The guy who chose a feat went with Resilient (CON) because he has an 8 CON and CON saves were kicking his butt. He felt (and correctly, I believe) that proficiency in the save would be worth more than just a +2 to the stat. His wife went with an ASI to boost her Dexterity because for a good chunk of the previous adventure they had been sneaking around and she was very lucky on her Stealth rolls (as a cleric in scale mail, sneaking around was definitely not her forte) and she decided that the experience had taught her a great deal about nimbleness.

Though I guess that this really just illustrates that the ASI/Feat dichotomy can be a false one, and that both can be used to further character development.

I wrote a post, then realized, you pretty much laid it out exactly as I see. it.

5e has a great for tat system, it frustrates players to have to make tough choices, but tough choices in character development are part of the fun. This sort of "I want to have both cause its cool", my GM universal translator converts that to "I want more power and stuff". I understand it from a player perspective, but I think sometimes players forget that the game IS about character development. Once you get everything you want, the game is over.

Aka, the game is about the journey not the destination.