No ASIs, only feats

[Quartz]

I feel like this would be difficult for fighter, since they have so many ASIs that they generally would get a few feats they need and some ASIs, now they might have to take some weak/unnecessary feats

I disagree: they only get 2 more feats over 20 levels - at levels 6 and 14 - than most classes. Further, while I found that in 3E the game came alive in the low teen levels, others - most even - stopped playing by that point, so really, they only get 1 feat over other classes.

 

[BookBarbarian]

I'd like it. but I'd rather play a Fighter with no stat higher than 14 and have interesting feats, than have a 20 in main stat anyway.

I'm probably not statistically significant in that regard though.

 

[5ekyu]

I kind of think the idea of replacing +2 ASI or feat with +1 ASI **and** feat would be interesting.

Everybody still gets ability dcore increases. If you want faster advance you have to take the feats that give you +1 and themed features which serms appropriate.

Might ve a decent compromise between the RAW and no ASI that reaches a happy middleground.

 

[CubicsRube]

I feel like this would be difficult for fighter, since they have so many ASIs that they generally would get a few feats they need and some ASIs, now they might have to take some weak/unnecessary feats

There's always good choices like resilient (i think thats the one that gives you prof in another saving throw). And martial adept is amazing for a battlemaster, giving an extra superiority die.
I variant human can have 7 superiority die at level 6

 

[Blue]

Since it is theoretically possible and legit by RAW, when using feats, to create a character who never takes an ASI but only feats - this by Definition cannot be unbalanced because RAW would be unbalanced then.

I don't think that stands up to further examination. If I said "You can use point buy, but not increase DEX", it's not balanced across all characters just because someone could chose not to increase DEX for some builds.

Same here - just because feat-only is one way to build a character, that doesn't address if eliminating the ASI option has the same impact on the various classes and builds of them.

 

[Blue]

This is a funny sentence to me, since the vast majority of "balance" problems I've seen are due to multiclassing. Ban multiclassing, allow feats only with no ASIs, bask in the sudden variety of character development you see.

I agree, most of the balance problems I've seen is multiclassing - it's so much easier to shoot yourself in the foot and create an accidentally bad character with multiclassing then it is with single classes.

Quite the opposite of 3.x and 4e where multiclassing was the path to power. Even with the AL optimizers at my FLGS it's rare to see multiclassing except for a few occasional picks like fighter 2 or 3 since they are front loaded or cleric 1 for domain based proficiencies and features that aren't given out until level 3 in other classes.

 

[ro]

I kind of think the idea of replacing +2 ASI or feat with +1 ASI **and** feat would be interesting.

Everybody still gets ability dcore increases. If you want faster advance you have to take the feats that give you +1 and themed features which serms appropriate.

Might ve a decent compromise between the RAW and no ASI that reaches a happy middleground.

But would this make characters too powerful? What about this:

When you gain the Ability Score Improvement feature, you instead gain a Feat. In addition, you may decrease of one your ability scores by 1, to a number no less than 8, and increase another by 1, to a number no greater than 20.

 

[Coroc]

I don't think that stands up to further examination. If I said "You can use point buy, but not increase DEX", it's not balanced across all characters just because someone could chose not to increase DEX for some builds.

Same here - just because feat-only is one way to build a character, that doesn't address if eliminating the ASI option has the same impact on the various classes and builds of them.

Please do not intermix optimizing a character with building a character which his not optimized but yet playable. The latter is balanced versus the game mechanics even if you only use feats.


There is always a random element staying in the game as long as you and the dm use dice.

Your str 20 char can miss 10 times in a row but your str 16 feat only fighter crits 5 out of these 10 times and hits the other 5 times.

It is not very likely but still possible.

With building a character to the optimum you try to improve your odds, still you can have bad dice luck.

With building a character in a nonsensical way like e.g. a standard (not EK) fighter with putting all asi in int you worsen your chances but you can still survive anything (balanced for your level) your DM throws at you.

I would even dare to say that your chances for survival are far more dependant on your play skill and your dm than on your attributes, with a good dm that is. But I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[Blue]

Please do not intermix optimizing a character with building a character which his not optimized but yet playable. The latter is balanced versus the game mechanics even if you only use feats.

I wasn't. I gave a clearer example of why just because you can not use something for a build doesn't mean banning it is not balanced across all builds.

Please don't mix up "possible to build" with "remains balanced". You focused too much on a specific example and totally missed the point I was making.

Let's try try to explain it again - I can build a viable wizard without using any spells on the sorcerer spell list. Does this mean all wizards remain equally balanced against other characters if I remove all sorcerer spells from their list? No, it does not.

You have a logical fallacy that because the rules allow you to do without a default part if you choose an optional rule, that removing that default part for everyone keeps the balance between classes. There is no logical connection that being allowed to do something for a build is the same as forcing that choice on all builds.

 

[5ekyu]

But would this make characters too powerful? What about this:

When you gain the Ability Score Improvement feature, you instead gain a Feat. In addition, you may decrease of one your ability scores by 1, to a number no less than 8, and increase another by 1, to a number no greater than 20.

Since it applies to all pcs unless certain ones are benefitted more than others - cannot be too powerful since as a house rule we are already off the RAW baseline.