D&D 5E A change that improves half-feats

[clearstream]

I was thinking about what feats matter to which characters, and I noticed that some feats that could appeal to some are non-picks on mechanical grounds because they give the wrong stat-bumps. For players who feel resistance to taking feats that bump stats that are irrelevant to their character, this is what I want to suggest.

Half-feats​

When taking a feat that increases an ability score by 1, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 1 instead.

A good example is Lightly Armored, which increases strength or dexterity. For me, a character who would need lightly armored and more strength or dexterity is very likely to have the proficiency already from their class. On the other hand, characters that might very well want lightly armored - like a sorcerer - would almost certainly prefer a bump to intelligence, charisma or constitution. Were one fluff-focused, one might argue that it doesn't matter - take the feats that feel right to you - but in this case how could it matter to allow more freedom as to what ability gets the bump?

Again, would welcome your thoughts? Does this break anything? Any feats become too good? Can the tweak be improved on?

 

[Oofta]

I was thinking about what feats matter to which characters, and I noticed that some feats that could appeal to some are non-picks on mechanical grounds because they give the wrong stat-bumps. For players who feel resistance to taking feats that bump stats that are irrelevant to their character, this is what I want to suggest.

Half-feats​

When taking a feat that increases an ability score by 1, you may increase any ability score by 1 instead.

A good example is Lightly Armored, which increases strength or dexterity. For me, a character who would need lightly armored and more strength or dexterity is very likely to have the proficiency already from their class. On the other hand, characters that might very well want lightly armored - like a sorcerer - would almost certainly prefer a bump to intelligence, charisma or constitution. Were one fluff-focused, one might argue that it doesn't matter - take the feats that feel right to you - but in this case how could it matter to allow more freedom as to what ability gets the bump?

Again, would welcome your thoughts? Does this break anything? Any feats become too good? Can the tweak be improved on?

Makes sense to me. I get that they tried to tie them together thematically but from a game perspective you're just taking a less powerful feat so it's compensation.

 

[Bolares]

I think the Tasha's half feats already do something similar to this. Most (if not all of them) give you more than one option of ability to increase

 

[clearstream]

I think the Tasha's half feats already do something similar to this. Most (if not all of them) give you more than one option of ability to increase

They seem to be going in that direction. Some in TCoE are choice of two, some choice of three.

For me the thought came out of thinking about racial ASIs. I was thinking, why narrow a player's concept in this way at all? Do I as DM really care if a wizard takes Lightly Armored or a fighter takes Fey Touched? In fact, I'd prefer they had more mechanically valid choices this way!

 

[Bolares]

I was thinking, why narrow a player's concept in this way at all? Do I as DM really care if a wizard takes Lightly Armored or a fighter takes Fey Touched? In fact, I'd prefer they had more mechanically valid choices this way!

I agree with you 100%. I think your rulling is on the right track. I'd also add that after a few campaigns my players started getting bored of the lower levels mechanically, so I started giving them a free feat at level one. I was surprised when they chose, more often than not, those fringe feats like actor, keen mind and such intead of the big combo pieces in the game.

 

[Yaarel]

I view a Feat as worth about 8 skill proficiencies (albeit some skills are better than others).

8 ≈ Feat
• 2 ≈ Shield
• 2 ≈ Light Armor
• 1 ≈ Medium Armor (prereq Light Armor)
• 3 ≈ Heavy Armor (prereq Medium Armor)

In other words, proficiency with all armors and shields is worth about a single feat.

Alternatively, someone could gain Shield and Light Armor along with Ability Score +1, or upgrade from Light to Heavy with Ability Score +1.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This hits upon something that I've always found to be rather uninspiring about feats... which is a lot of them are giving abilities that merely changes how a specific class plays but doesn't actually make them any better. At least not compared to other options freely available that don't cost an ASI/feat slot.

What wizard is going to take Lightly Armored? It gives them something that they can already acquire multiple different ways. They can take a subclass to get the same thing, and they get that earlier. They can multiclass for a one level poach and get not only the same thing, but a whole bunch of other abilities alongside it. Or, they can just do what all normal wizards do and use Mage Armor and get just the same AC out of the deal. So what does the feat actually do? It just changes the fluff of this wizard's defenses from being magical force to actual metal. Yeah. Great. Wonderful reason to lose +2 to their INT. That's something their DM should have already handwaved and allowed in the first place because it means nothing mechanically.

It'd be like making a feat that allows a Rogue to make Sneak Attacks with non-finesse Simple weapons. What exactly are you gaining from a feat like that? Your damage doesn't change... all the new weapons you can SA with do the exact same damage as the ones you already can SA with... you just now get to say you can Sneak Attack with a club or a handaxe. A complete waste that would be merely added so that dwarven rogue players could play to their archetype via the "rules". But it's useless. Feats should never be used to grant merely changes to the fluff. It's never worth it.

For my money... feats should always grant new abilities that classes can't already acquire through normal gameplay means. Especially if those means are via subclasses, because those show up 1 to 3 levels earlier than your first attempt at getting the feat, which means your fluff desires to make your character your own have come online that much earlier.

 

[Yaarel]

I like 5e feats. It is the right amount of design space to customize a character.

My difficulty with feats is, some improve or vary combat, some improve or vary noncombat, and some are dual-use for both combat and noncombat. It is difficult to expand noncombat abilities, when it feels like sacrificing combat abilties.

 

[Horwath]

I view a Feat as worth about 8 skill proficiencies (albeit some skills are better than others).

8 ≈ Feat
• 2 ≈ Shield
• 2 ≈ Light Armor
• 1 ≈ Medium Armor (prereq Light Armor)
• 3 ≈ Heavy Armor (prereq Medium Armor)

In other words, proficiency with all armors and shields is worth about a single feat.

Alternatively, someone could gain Shield and Light Armor along with Ability Score +1, or upgrade from Light to Heavy with Ability Score +1.

I rank 1 feat at 4 skill proficiencies and armor category as a skill proficiency.
So Skilled, Lightly, Moderately and Heavy armored are more or less bad feats. I never saw anyone take those.

As for OP, I have no problem that all half-feats have +1 to any ability.
Having fixed ability boost just promotes too much planning at character creation with ability scores(bad thing IMO).

 

[clearstream]

I agree with you 100%. I think your rulling is on the right track. I'd also add that after a few campaigns my players started getting bored of the lower levels mechanically, so I started giving them a free feat at level one. I was surprised when they chose, more often than not, those fringe feats like actor, keen mind and such intead of the big combo pieces in the game.

That is exactly what I would like to see, also: more fringe feats being picked. Awhile back we did a survey of how often feats were taken and as you might predict a few - GWM, Lucky etc - are taken all the time, and others scarcely ever.