D&D 5E Reduced standard array in exchange for a bonus feat at 1st.

[clearstream]

You know, now that I think about it, the “reduce your two highest ability scores each by 1” rule could be applied as-written to all three methods, and it’s much cleaner and easier to explain than “If you use an array, pick from standard or reduced array and a feat. If you use point buy, spend 4 points on up to one Feat. If you roll use this special dice code.” It’s a very Gordian sort of solution, and that appeals to me quite a lot.

I was thinking through scenarios where a feat might feel costless (or undercosted) i.e. favoured from an optimisation perspective. This by no means is intended to dissuade you, as the mechanic seems reasonable overall to me. Some exemplary scenarios include

a. My two high rolls are odd numbers that I don't intend to increase through Race or an early ASI.
b. I use the 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 array. A feat can be taken to make that 16, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8... which can be a better array mechanically.
c. I use the 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12 array. Taking a feat can make that 13, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 which can be functionally just as good mechanically.
d. I use the 14, 14, 13, 11, 11, 10 array. Taking a feat can make that 13, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10. Playing human makes that 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11 which would be strong for any MAD choice.

It seems to me that players will likely opt into the feat when it feels undercosted. There are array + race choices that are mechanically identical even after reducing your two highest scores by one, and can be mechanically better if that is then turned into +1 onto an equal-high score. There are many fringe cases - like the human monk - that are mechanically identical even after reducing the two highest scores, and will be much stronger for having the feat.

So the predicted behaviour is that mechanically savvy players, or those who just stumble onto the right combination, will pick up the feat uncosted (from a mechanical perspective). One might suppose that they are really deferring the cost to the later ASI they take to make up for the lost points, yet such an ASI will likely funnel two points into the key ability, putting them in a better place anyway.

 

[TwoSix]

I was thinking through scenarios where a feat might feel costless (or undercosted) i.e. favoured from an optimisation perspective. This by no means is intended to dissuade you, as the mechanic seems reasonable overall to me. Some exemplary scenarios include

a. My two high rolls are odd numbers that I don't intend to increase through Race or an early ASI.
b. I use the 15, 15, 15, 8, 8, 8 array. A feat can be taken to make that 16, 14, 14, 8, 8, 8... which can be a better array mechanically.
c. I use the 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12 array. Taking a feat can make that 13, 12, 12, 12, 12, 12 which can be functionally just as good mechanically.
d. I use the 14, 14, 13, 11, 11, 10 array. Taking a feat can make that 13, 13, 13, 11, 11, 10. Playing human makes that 14, 14, 14, 12, 12, 11 which would be strong for any MAD choice.

It seems to me that players will likely opt into the feat when it feels undercosted. There are array + race choices that are mechanically identical even after reducing your two highest scores by one, and can be mechanically better if that is then turned into +1 onto an equal-high score. There are many fringe cases - like the human monk - that are mechanically identical even after reducing the two highest scores, and will be much stronger for having the feat.

So the predicted behaviour is that mechanically savvy players, or those who just stumble onto the right combination, will pick up the feat uncosted (from a mechanical perspective). One might suppose that they are really deferring the cost to the later ASI they take to make up for the lost points, yet such an ASI will likely funnel two points into the key ability, putting them in a better place anyway.

Yea, I was looking into some scenarios like that, I do think that -1/-1 might be slightly undercosted. The other scenarios I was think of were:

1) -2/-0
2) -2/-1
3) -1/-2

Of those three scenarios, I think I'm partial to -1/-2 (-1 is highest stat, -2 is secondary). They can fix their primary by taking a half stat, but their second stat (which will normally be their spellcasting stat or their Con, depending on class) takes a hit for pretty much the whole game, since you normally won't raise your secondary till near end game.

 

[clearstream]

Yea, I was looking into some scenarios like that, I do think that -1/-1 might be slightly undercosted. The other scenarios I was think of were:

1) -2/-0
2) -2/-1
3) -1/-2

Of those three scenarios, I think I'm partial to -1/-2 (-1 is highest stat, -2 is secondary). They can fix their primary by taking a half stat, but their second stat (which will normally be their spellcasting stat or their Con, depending on class) takes a hit for pretty much the whole game, since you normally won't raise your secondary till near end game.

I'm with you on that. From a balance perspective it's right to marginally over-cost the feat so that in play it comes out nearer the intended cost.

If arrays with three equally high numbers are to be addressed at all, then that rules out -2/-0 and -1/-1. Such arrays come out the same whether its -1/-2 or -2/-1, and the latter seems too penalising on fair arrays. So I land where you have, on -1/-2.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

In two different campaigns I've offered a bonus feat at 1st level. It has very little impact on overall character power. Mostly it just allows certain character concepts to come online more quickly.

 

[clearstream]

In two different campaigns I've offered a bonus feat at 1st level. It has very little impact on overall character power. Mostly it just allows certain character concepts to come online more quickly.

I've found the exact opposite. Perhaps our different experiences are in part explained by my players being quite mechanically-minded: they opt into strong feat picks. For example, our human-variant paladin with polearm mastery overshadowed other characters greatly at combat in early levels.

 

[Haldrik]

I'm thinking about reducing the Standard array to 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 8 and granting all races a bonus feat at 1st level.
Up
That leaves room for a 16 in your main stat and a 14 in your secondary stat for all races (accounting for a half feat for Humans) and a 12 in a tertiary stat (two tertiary stats for Humans on account of the +1 to all scores).

Thoughts? Would you change any of the numbers?

I am in the mood to go further.

Redesign all races as feat choices. Get two feat choices at level 1.

One can use the feats any way one wishes, whether boosting two ability scores by 2, or four abilities by 1, or selecting two feats, or selecting four half feats, or any combination.

I like how this approach maintains vivid race flavor, while also reducing problems relating to racist essentialism.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I've found the exact opposite. Perhaps our different experiences are in part explained by my players being quite mechanically-minded: they opt into strong feat picks. For example, our human-variant paladin with polearm mastery overshadowed other characters greatly at combat in early levels.

Paladin plus PAM is a double whammy. Literally. I have a vengeance paladin in one of my campaigns (currently level 15) and that class is quite powerful, perhaps even overpowered. And PAM is known to be one of the most potent feats. I think a combination of the two are going to overshadow most characters at almost any level. Especially in campaigns that have fewer encounters per long rest. I have to pit my paladin against a series of mini-bosses and burn through some of those smites in order to make him sweat.

 

[Flamestrike]

Paladin plus PAM is a double whammy. Literally. I have a vengeance paladin in one of my campaigns (currently level 15) and that class is quite powerful, perhaps even overpowered. And PAM is known to be one of the most potent feats. I think a combination of the two are going to overshadow most characters at almost any level. Especially in campaigns that have fewer encounters per long rest. I have to pit my paladin against a series of mini-bosses and burn through some of those smites in order to make him sweat.

Or use the gritty realism rest variant.

As long as you stick to roughly 6 encounters and 2 short rest resource recharges between long rest resource recharges, balance is fine.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've found the exact opposite. Perhaps our different experiences are in part explained by my players being quite mechanically-minded: they opt into strong feat picks. For example, our human-variant paladin with polearm mastery overshadowed other characters greatly at combat in early levels.

I probably wouldn’t allow variant human if everyone got a Feat at 1st level. Two Feats at 1st level would be a lot.

 

[Hriston]

I think you could allow a variant on any race with this approach, even variant human because it balances at ability score generation which is the same for all PCs. My thinking is that, in accordance with variant human and the Skilled feat, a feat is worth three points in point-buy or in non-primary abilities and a skill proficiency is worth one.

If I was to implement it for my table, this option would replace your normal ability score generation method and would include your choice of feat, one skill proficiency of your choice, and one of the following ability score generation methods:

• 23 point point-buy using the normal rules (I don't see any need for a cap below 15. The variant human doesn't have one.),
• (Non)standard array of 15, 13, 12, 11, 10, 8,
• or roll 6d6 and discard the two lowest dice and the highest die (average 11.78) six times.