D&D 5E What To Do With Racial ASIs?

[Parmandur]

Fair enough. I'm under no obligation to agree with WotC, however. I just have to accept their choices.

I get that: personally, if I could wave a wand and remove Feats entirely, I would, but I am impressed with the stable balance WotC ended up designing.

 

[Guest 6801328]

If you want to believe everything corporations tell you...

Because “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” and “the majority of D&D players don’t use feats” are two sides of the same coin.

Viva la revolucion, Max.

 

[Maxperson]

Because “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” and “the majority of D&D players don’t use feats” are two sides of the same coin.

Because False Equivalences, Strawmen and Reducto ad Absurdem are your go to arguments.

There are a whole heck of a lot of corporate lies ranging the entire spectrum.

 

[Parmandur]

Because “smoking doesn’t cause cancer” and “the majority of D&D players don’t use feats” are two sides of the same coin.

Viva la revolucion, Max.

The big thing is, Crawford & Co. have nothing to gain by conspiring to be deceitful about Feat usage. A much more plausible explanation is that they discovered Feats were contentious, and designed a compromise system in response. Squared that circle.

 

[Charlaquin]

I mean, based on what they said, they needed to balance a significant number of people (probably not the majority) who didn't want Feats at all, and the significant number who loved Feats, and those in the middle. Making them an optional rule, with characters working fine with or without Feats, is a major design triumph.

It’s also one of the few examples of them actually coming through on the promise of modularity. There was a lot of talk during the playtest of class design being able to satisfy players who prefer different levels of complexity by offering options at level up, where you might choose a simple option that just boosts your damage or something, or an option that gives you a cool maneuver. Feats are really the only place that idea bore out in the end.

 

[Maxperson]

The big thing is, Crawford & Co. have nothing to gain by conspiring to be deceitful about Feat usage.

Sure they do. If they don't want the game to go in the direction of more feats and stronger feats, they need people to think that feats aren't really used that much. Every corporation has an agenda for how they want their company to go, and if they start telling us how most people want more feats, but that they aren't going to go that way, they'll cause a lot of frustration and ill will towards their products. If they get people believing that most people don't even use them, they can go the way that they want without as much frustration and ill will.

They have plenty to gain.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

How the feats are currently handled encourage you to pick ASIs first and then maybe feats later on higher levels (if ever.) To me other way around would make more sense thematically. People first learn their signature tricks and techniques, and then later on higher levels get get superheroic stats that allow them to surpass normal people.

 

[Charlaquin]

I actually think they’ve done a pretty good job balancing Feats with ASIs. Like, yeah, taking the ASI in your primary ability is usually the better option, and some Feats are duds (I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone take Linguist, for example,) but many of them are strong enough to be tempting, and for folks like me who would rather take the option that gives a new cool thing you can do over the option that lets you keep doing the same stuff with higher numbers, they often do feel worth the tradeoff. Bounded accuracy helps a lot with this, as as long as I can pull a 16 in my primary ability, I don’t feel like I’m gimped by taking a Feat over getting up to an 18. I also think “half-feats” really shine, because they don’t force you to choose between a stat increase and a new ability. You can get that starting 17 up to an 18 and get a nifty new ability at the same time.

 

[Maxperson]

How the feats are currently handled encourage you to pick ASIs first and then maybe feats later on higher levels (if ever.) To me other way around would make more sense thematically. People first learn their signature tricks and techniques, and then later on higher levels get get superheroic stats that allow them to surpass normal people.

Personally, I'll use ASI's anywhere from 0 to 1 time, depending on what my stats are and what feats I'm looking at. There are a lot of feats that are better than ASI's. Look at War Caster, Sentinal, GWM and the bow version, etc. What you get from those feats is much better than +2 to a stat or two +1's.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure they do. If they don't want the game to go in the direction of more feats and stronger feats, they need people to think that feats aren't really used that much. Every corporation has an agenda for how they want their company to go, and if they start telling us how most people want more feats, but that they aren't going to go that way, they'll cause a lot of frustration and ill will towards their products. If they get people believing that most people don't even use them, they can go the way that they want without as much frustration and ill will.

They have plenty to gain.

Max, corporations want to make money.

DnD makes money by selling books to people, books which include new rules

Feats make an excellent source of new rules that are easily plugged into the game.

Therefore, the corporate pressure would be towards feats. If Crawford doesn't like them... so what? If they lie and tell everyone feats aren't popular, but they secretly are, then they are preventing themselves from making money, which makes no sense from a company that wants to make money.

Lies have a purpose. A Lie that hurts the company is not a good lie for the company to tell.