D&D 5E Alternatives to feats giving +1 ability bonuses

[Kobold Stew]

Is there a way that DDN can easily implement an alternative to the feat-lite +1 bonus?

If the tweets and L&L column are accurate, the design team is toying with a "default" +1 bonus to stats, for which feats can be substituted in a more advanced game. The immediate sense on these boards (rightly, I feel) is that this will launch a race-to-20 for the primary stat, only after which will feats become worth considering. Can this be avoided?

I think it can, and I want to suggest two ways:

a. +1 can only ever be applied to a given ability once (a feat can give you a +1, but two won't give you +2).
b. the +1 (even +2?) is applied to your lowest ability score (player chooses if tied).

Both of these seem better than the race-to-20 to me, but I know I have an allergic reaction to dump stats and over-optimized min-maxing.

Of the two, I prefer b. (no record keeping; no dump stats; a simple bonus that will help all characters, but not optimally).

Thoughts?

 

[jadrax]

Thoughts?

I don't think it really meshes with what seems to be 'design principle one', which is a fighter can take 12 +1 Ability boosts and thus not have to worry about feats at all, and this will effectively compensate for not having any spells/supernatural class features.

 

[Sunseeker]

What I like about this though is that if gives feats a numerical worth. Something they've never had before, which is why so many editions have been full of cool-sounding-but-useless feats, traps and so many other things, because nobody ever sat down and said "This is what a feat is worth". Well now we know, a feat is worth 1 point of ability score.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If the tweets and L&L column are accurate, the design team is toying with a "default" +1 bonus to stats, for which feats can be substituted in a more advanced game. The immediate sense on these boards (rightly, I feel) is that this will launch a race-to-20 for the primary stat, only after which will feats become worth considering. Can this be avoided?

Yes. By making feats powerful enough that they're worth taking.

I don't understand why that's so difficult to imagine.

 

[CAFRedblade]

I wonder if you dropped both the +1 Feats, and regular Feats that are proposed, would that be the basis for a gritty dial of play?

Personally, I'll be using Feats, and ignoring +1 ability Feat upgrades except perhaps through Magic boons of some kind. Although I'm also planning on capping ability scores at 18 + racial mod, although I'll have to see how things develop. I prefer a little more grit in my games.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I would think there are better ways to dial up the grit. Just changing all ACs would be more effective, I'd suggest (though you'd have to tune saves vs. damage similarly) -- more hits, more wounds with a straightforward linear way to make everyone easier to hit.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Yes. By making feats powerful enough that they're worth taking.

I don't understand why that's so difficult to imagine.

No need for snark. It's not difficult to imagine, as you know, and we're not saying it is (here or in the other thread where you used this same rhetorical attack). You're talking about amping up the feats across the board; I'm suggesting a limit to the +1 that pulls the other way. To each his or her own.

 

[GX.Sigma]

No need for snark. It's not difficult to imagine, as you know, and we're not saying it is

It's not snark, I just don't understand where you're coming from. What are you trying to solve? If the feats are as good as the +1, then what's the problem?

 

[Dausuul]

I wonder if you dropped both the +1 Feats, and regular Feats that are proposed, would that be the basis for a gritty dial of play?

Since different classes will be getting different numbers of feats, I don't think this would work. Fighters would be disproportionately weakened compared to wizards.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I wonder if you dropped both the +1 Feats, and regular Feats that are proposed, would that be the basis for a gritty dial of play?

Simplest solution is just rolling 3d6 for your starting scores for gritty play. No need to remove bonuses from the game if you just start a lot less powerful. What's grittier... being a Fighter with a 17 STR that never improves... or a Fighter who starts his career with a 13 STR that slowly gets higher over time?