D&D 5E Choosing between ASI and Feats; how important is a maxed stat?

[Unwise]

What I dislike about the current system of feats vs ASI is that for any Dex based character the ASI always seems way better. It amounts to +1AC, +1to hit, +1 damage, +1 initiative, +1 to dex saves, +1 to stealth/acro. Feats don't really compete with that. For a Str based guy, they don't get the AC or Init, so feats are far more tempting for them.

My group feels that they are being sub-optimal to get feats before 20dex, so they would not get any before the end of the campaign. For Str types, they feel feats are a bit better, but vastly more interesting. For casters, they just got for stats, since caster feats tend to suck or not exist. Adding in some more interesting caster or out of combat feats could help.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I continue to see it assumed that ASI is necessary and you must get your primary ability to 20 ASAP. That is not my experience in play, however. While I do see some players choosing to bumpy their stats, I myself would almost always take the feat.

Still, I like having the choice, and I do think about it whenever the opportunity comes around (not often, admittedly).

 

[neobolts]

Thank you very much! You are right, it's probably best to follow my gut and choose fun over optimization.

If there was even an edition to adopt this attitude in, it's 5e with its bounded accuracy! You won't be sorry!

 

[pming]

Hiya.

To the OP: I'm assuming your DM has OK'ed Feats. If not...you definitely want to find out if he's using that optional rule.

That said... talk to your DM anyway. About your planned "build". With 5e, everything is up to the DM and is, can, and will be adjudicated on a case by case basis. It's kind of the nature of the beast (a GOOD thing, IMHO!). He may be cool with "do whatever is ok by the rules", but maybe he isn't. Maybe he'll be fine with everything, but modify/change/nix some particular Feat that you want.

As an example, in my current 5e game I *just* started on Sunday, I initially said "NO!" to even using Feats. But then I thought about it and said..."F-it! Go ahead"....but I also told players that taking a Feat is NOT going to make their character "tougher/better"...only "different". In short, I outright told them that if a Feat or some combo of using them gives them too much of an edge, I will gleefully change (re: power-up) their PC's opponent, whilst leaving everyone else's 'normal'. One player remarked "So, you're basically punishing us for taking a Feat?". To which I replied: "Nope...I'm just evening everything out. You will NOT be tougher...just different. If you want a Feat, you should probably be taking it for character development and non-mechanics reasons...because the mechanics aren't going to matter much". They thought about it and said, "Ok. We're cool with that". So I know that my players, if someone chooses a Feat, they are doing it to build "character" into their character...and not just thinking of 'stacking bonuses and combos'. Oh, and I did mention that the Alert Feat has changed. The "never surprised" thing is now "not usually surprised", and the "no bonus for others sneaking up on you" is modified; now a separate Initiative roll is made if someone, say, attacks you from the shadows; if you beat him, he doesn't get his cookies...if he beats you, he does.

Anyway, my main point is that you should talk to your DM about all your planned "character building choices", because the DM can/will/should change stuff if he thinks it necessary to help run the world and campaign that he wants. This may lead you some perceived combo you have being null and void. (e.g, my changes to the Alert Feat, for example).

PS: I agree with others about 5e being designed just right...a nice balance of choice between ability boost, or Feat. As I always say, the best compromise is one where neither party is happy.
^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[The Human Target]

If your DM tells you that choosing feats is cool but if that you use them as they are intended as a mechanical bonus (like improving an ability score is) you will be punished, take the ability score increase.

 

[77IM]

I'd definitely pump Dex up to 20 first. Mobility seems underpowered for you: you already move fast, and you already have a ton of "disengage" options if you need them. Don't underestimate the power of knocking someone prone, then attacking them with advantage, and then just walking away from them and letting them swipe at you with disadvantage. Mobility seems unnecessary both conceptually and mechanically, compared to just increasing Dex and getting +1 to like everything all the time.

 

[Bayonet]

'I know the math makes ASI look better, but the feat will probably be more FUN.' - Paraxis

Paraphrased for general wisdom. I've found it much more fun to build my fighter with feats and class abilities than to simply max out ST and Con. Mathematically he could be better, but my Heavy Armour tanking, Shield Master bashing, Sentinel 'you'll-never-leave-here-alive' hamstringing, Battlemaster gets up to all sorts of entertaining badassery when it's time to fight. (also, that scimitar that gives me a free bonus attack, thanks DM)

ASI may make you stronger, but Feats really make you better at exploiting your niche.

 

[77IM]

Corollary: Only take a feat because it sounds really fun, not because you think it will make your character more powerful.

A few feats are obvious winners (Polearm Mastery is pretty badass for many warrior builds, for example), but I think the majority are clearly underpowered compared to ASI. So don't take any feat unless it sounds genuinely fun to you and fits your character concept well, and you think it will be MORE fun than just doing what you are currently doing, only better.

 

[tagwort]

I'd definitely pump Dex up to 20 first. Mobility seems underpowered for you: you already move fast, and you already have a ton of "disengage" options if you need them. Don't underestimate the power of knocking someone prone, then attacking them with advantage, and then just walking away from them and letting them swipe at you with disadvantage. Mobility seems unnecessary both conceptually and mechanically, compared to just increasing Dex and getting +1 to like everything all the time.

I disagree with this. A shadow monk/rogue being able to run from any creature (without even needing to hit them) would free up my bonus action, which already competes with Flurry of Blows, Shadowstep, and Cunning action. Without Mobile, I'd never want to Shadowstep offensively (making use of free advantage) or Flurry on my bonus action because disengaging would be entirely reliant on successfully stunning/pushing my enemy (either spending ki or losing damage from an attack action). At that point, I might as well just be a shadowstepping archer instead.

On top of that, the decision was never between Dexterity and the Mobile Feat; ultimately I'm maxing Dex either way. It's about whether Mobile is worth not maxing Wisdom.

Of course, everything I say is theoretical because I haven't been playing too long. I feel like I'm missing something when people dismiss the Mobile Feat; it seems extremely powerful to me, as well as essential for hit-and-run tactics.

 

[77IM]

I hear what you are saying. Mobility lets you disengage from your target perfectly, every round; without it, you CAN disengage, but there are lots of trade-offs and risks. To me, those are interesting tactical considerations that Mobility would deprive me of.

I guess one person's "interesting decision" is another person's "painful decision." For me, I find trading an ability score point (boring but powerful) for a feat (interesting but weak) to be a painful decision. If a game is a series of interesting decisions, maybe this is why no single RPG could ever be made that pleases everyone.