D&D 5E Houseruled: Feats, Rolled Stats, MCing Pick One

[Li Shenron]

As the title says.

DM says the player can use feats, multiclassing or roll for stats. BUT you can only pick one your choice.

Thoughts?

Feats anytime. They have never been problematic for me. Sure some of them are pretty powerful but it's a small bunch (I'd say 5). I rather regret that some other feats are not powerful enough to keep up with the better ones and tend not to be chosen for player characters. But I think feats in general are a simple but one of the most effective tool to create diversity among PCs so I would definitely pick this.

Multiclassing, I've never been a fan. I did of course play a few multiclassed PCs sometimes but I much prefer a single class, and then variate abilities in other ways. Also, I find multiclassing particularly attractive to kinds of playstyles that I don't like seeing at the gaming table, so the less multiclassing the safer.

Roll for stats, I don't care. After almost 3 decades of D&D I've come to the conclusion that stat generation methods are overrated. Just give me some numbers and I'll play with what I have. At group level, I actually prefer everyone has the same numbers so there won't be whining from players who rolled poorly.

 

[dave2008]

Ah, okay. That seems cool. My players like the cap at 20, so probably I'd keep it, but you make me think it 'd be cool to let them get ASIs and a feat instead of choosing between them. Or stop using ASIs at 4th level (and subsequent levels) and choose a point to increase their main stat.

We just don't really see a need to increase stats in 5e. The game math doesn't require it in our opinion. But some people do like there 20s! I'm old school from the days when 18 was the highest and nearly impossible to get. It still works very well for 5e.

 

[Bolares]

We just don't really see a need to increase stats in 5e. The game math doesn't require it in our opinion. But some people do like there 20s! I'm old school from the days when 18 was the highest and nearly impossible to get. It still works very well for 5e.

The game certainly doesn't require it. We started at 3e, so my players really enjoy higher stats.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I didn't say you were stuck with them forever. There are feats that provide a +1 to a stat (and even more in the UA feats we allow). However, we also cap stats at 18.

EDIT: Also 5e allows for stats in the 14-16 range to be completely playable so there is little reason to bust stats in 5e. I actually think the math of the game works better if you max out at around +3 instead of +5.

EDIT 2: Narrowing down statlines is opposite of what I mean by "in play." I mean when you are actually playing the game, not character creation / advancement. An additional +1 to a stat is boring in play, but being able to do cool things (like some feats allow) is not.

Narrowing down statlines directly impacts play. This isn't theory. I've literally seen it happen. When every single PC has essentially the same statline but with their primary stat in a different place it makes things somewhat predictable/dull in my experience.

Your claim though was that it made things actively more interesting, which was what I was skeptical about, but I think re-reading I see what you're saying - that replacing ASIs with only Feats - even the +1 stat and some stuff Feats - makes the game more interesting than just ASIs, and actually that may well be true.

I'm old school from the days when 18 was the highest and nearly impossible to get.

When was that though? Like, I started in 1989, and people were figuring out ways to get 19s and stuff by 1990. Hell, I had a Lizardman with 19 STR somehow in 1990 myself.

And hilariously the couple of 1E players I played with were the most hell-for-leather "19 or bust" dudes I've ever met. I remember one kid giving me basically an entire presentation on how his Elf was allowed to have 19 DEX.

 

[Dausuul]

When I worked out my "build" for my current Druid I was sure I'd be grabbing Warcaster by 4th, but... nah mate. Despite basically continually running a Concentration spell, and losing a couple, it really hasn't been that huge a deal. Like big whoop, all it really does is give me a reason to cast another, more situation-appropriate Concentration spell. Or just work around the issue by not using Concentration spells in a specific encounter - not like I don't have other good spells!

In my experience, the biggest benefit of War Caster is actually the ability to swap in a spell for an opportunity attack. Normally only about half the party can really back up the threat of an OA--no self-respecting monster cares if the wizard scratches it with a dagger for 1d4+2 on its way by. But when you can toss a cantrip instead of a dagger swipe, you're threatening an OA on par with the martials--and if you're willing to burn a spell slot, it can really hurt. The opportunity to cast an extra spell out of turn is a big, big deal.

The concentration boost is handy, but as you say, it comes into play less often than one would expect (often you'd have made the save anyway). The "cast with your hands full" thing mostly depends on how you built your character, and whether the DM agrees with/enforces the rule that a spell focus does not count as a "free hand" if the spell lacks material components.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In my experience, the biggest benefit of War Caster is actually the ability to swap in a spell for an opportunity attack. Normally only about half the party can really back up the threat of an OA--no self-respecting monster cares if the wizard scratches it with a dagger for 1d4+2 on its way by. But when you can toss a cantrip instead of a dagger swipe, you're threatening an OA on par with the martials--and if you're willing to burn a spell slot, it can really hurt. The opportunity to cast an extra spell out of turn is a big, big deal.

The concentration boost is handy, but as you say, it comes into play less often than one would expect (often you'd have made the save anyway). The "cast with your hands full" thing mostly depends on how you built your character, and whether the DM agrees with/enforces the rule that a spell focus does not count as a "free hand" if the spell lacks material components.

I agree with all of this but that's never why people say War Caster is an issue. It's always "Omg you won't get Concentration broken!", which is kind of hilarious because it's like "Argh if a Fighter uses a Shield they won't get hit as much!".

 

[dave2008]

Your claim though was that it made things actively more interesting, which was what I was skeptical about, but I think re-reading I see what you're saying - that replacing ASIs with only Feats - even the +1 stat and some stuff Feats - makes the game more interesting than just ASIs, and actually that may well be true.

Yes, that is what I am talking about. Though to be honest I don't understand what you even mean by the stat line affecting game play. That has not been an issue at all with my two 5e groups.

When was that though? Like, I started in 1989, and people were figuring out ways to get 19s and stuff by 1990. Hell, I had a Lizardman with 19 STR somehow in 1990 myself.

I started in the mid 80s and my original group broke up when we graduated HS in '91. We played a mixture if BECMI & AD&D 1e (we didn't realize they were different games really - just mashed them together the best we could). The only player I recall ever having a stat above 18 was a giant who had a strength of 19 or 20 something.

And hilariously the couple of 1E players I played with were the most hell-for-leather "19 or bust" dudes I've ever met. I remember one kid giving me basically an entire presentation on how his Elf was allowed to have 19 DEX.

To be honest, I didn't know there was a method to get stats above 18 in 1e without magic items. Of course it has been a long time since I played! We definitely didn't play that way, but I have discovered on these forums there is a lot of stuff we never knew or used in 1e.

EDIT: to clarify we had the BEMCI boxed sets and the 1e PHB, DMG, MM, MM2, Deities & Demigods (I actually had the revised Legends & Lore and a friend had the original), the I think the Fiend Folio and that was it. Also a few issues of Dragon.

We tended to use the BECMI rules with some support from the PHB, DMG, and almost always used the MM / MM2 instead the monsters from BECMI (except the superior dragons of course)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To be honest, I didn't know there was a method to get stats above 18 in 1e without magic items.

If you were, for example, an Elf who rolled an 18 and put it in DEX, you had 19 DEX. There was, AFAIK, no actual rule against that in 1E AD&D. Quite a few groups had a house rule that no stat could be over 18 because they didn't have values for those stats until Deities and Demigods came out. Certainly the 1E players I knew insisted this was the case. Whereas 2E explicitly capped stats based on race, usually at 18. So the 1E players would try to drag in 1E races we didn't have explicit 2E stats for, and thus not explicit limits. A few 2E races had 19 or 20 caps too - for example Bakali Lizardmen had 19 STR and CON caps (and +1 STR/CON).

 

[Lanefan]

Rolled stats are necessary?

Given that the choice was between something I wouldn't use (feats), something I'm not a fan of (multiclassing), and something that to me is an integral part of the game (rolled stats), this one was pretty easy.

 

[ECMO3]

As the title says.

DM says the player can use feats, multiclassing or roll for stats. BUT you can only pick one your choice.

Thoughts?

After careful consideration I want feats. Sign me up for a human Bladesinger in this game.

It took me a while to come to this conclusion. The reason I chose this is I never played a character who did not take feats but I did have some bladesingers that did not multiclass.