D&D 5E Does your group use feats?

[Arnwolf666]

I allow them only for humans at first level that choose the human variant. I do that as just a way to place humans on par with Demihumans.

 

[BlivetWidget]

In 5E, 5% can be make or break in the long run, if the players are pushed. See also, Champion's extended crit range which is huge over time.

There is a world of difference in the importance of ASIs between a martial class that can attack multiple times every single turn and which gets to increase its crit range by two hundred percent for every single one of those attacks... and a wizard who is best served by only making attacks as a filler action.

The wizard isn't using Chill Touch to slay dragons, he has other tools for that job. Tools that don't require rolling dice. Being marginally more effective with a cantrip isn't bad by any means, but my argument is that it's not what determines success as a wizard and that taking a feat does not derail a wizard's career in the slightest.

 

[Parmandur]

There is a world of difference in the importance of ASIs between a martial class that can attack multiple times every single turn and which gets to increase its crit range by two hundred percent for every single one of those attacks... and a wizard who is best served by only making attacks as a filler action.

The wizard isn't using Chill Touch to slay dragons, he has other tools for that job. Tools that don't require rolling dice. Being marginally more effective with a cantrip isn't bad by any means, but my argument is that it's not what determines success as a wizard and that taking a feat does not derail a wizard's career in the slightest.

In a full adventure day, Cantrip usage can make a big difference. At least as much as anything from a Feat.

 

[Salthorae]

I mean, just go gander at some of the builds Treant Monk just did for all 10 Wizard subclasses. There were some, maybe a couple, that almost effectively tanked Int, but were still very effective wizards.

YMMV of course

 

[FrogReaver]

I mean, just go gander at some of the builds Treant Monk just did for all 10 Wizard subclasses. There were some, maybe a couple, that almost effectively tanked Int, but were still very effective wizards.

YMMV of course

Whose arguing a wizard cannot be effective without maxing int?

 

[Shiroiken]

I'd put some very heavy caveats on this claim. I would put three feats on a wizard before I went for a single ASI. Most of the great wizard spells just happen. To name only a few: Shield, Misty Step, Tiny Hut, Polymorph as a buff, Animate Objects, Wall of Force, Simulacrum, Maze, ... you don't even have to pick up dice of any kind to successfully cast these amazing spells.

Given the choice between making the wizard's save DC just 5% better when it's not needed for most of the great spells anyway (in or out of combat)... or taking a feat, there are some very attractive options for feats. Resilient for those Con saves, Magic Initiate for more cantrips and an extra first level spell, etc. The opportunity cost is just so low.

Well I was referring to my groups, not overall. The other issue is that most feats are only "okay" for a lot of spellcaster (Resilient is amazing), unless you are working a specific build that incorporates specific feats (like Warcaster or Spell Sniper). Since most characters are likely only going to have 3 opportunities before the campaign ends, it discourages my players from taking them.

 

[BlivetWidget]

Well I was referring to my groups, not overall.

That's absolutely fair. I do think they should reconsider, though! (Also to be fair, some casting classes rely on spells that are more tied to their main stat than wizards are). It also depends on the game, how many pillars of play are in use, etc. A strictly combat-focused game isn't going to see much use out of the Prodigy feat, for example, but it's worth it over an ASI in a game that offers more applications for tools and skills.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's absolutely fair. I do think they should reconsider, though! (Also to be fair, some casting classes rely on spells that are more tied to their main stat than wizards are). It also depends on the game, how many pillars of play are in use, etc. A strictly combat-focused game isn't going to see much use out of the Prodigy feat, for example, but it's worth it over an ASI in a game that offers more applications for tools and skills.

Wizard Spells - a ton of the best ones per spell level are tied to casting stat.

Just because you can make a wizard that has doesn't rely for save spells doesn't mean that's a better wizard than the one relying on saves.

 

[Ashrym]

I'm in the "delay asi for feat" camp with wizards. It's irrelevant for 3 levels already and arguably not a big enough bonus to be better than a feat to maintain concentration for the next 8 levels.

The bonus applying to cantrips damage is the exception and the number of cantrip attacks in a day is low. People like sleep and magic missile at low levels for a reason.

I'd ditch CHA more on bards if it didn't matter for inspiration dice and healing spells. Wizards are surprisingly easy to work around INT a bit. I wouldn't skip more than 1 ASI, though.

 

[Ath-kethin]

Personally I’d probably sooner rule only Feats at ASI levels than no Feats. +2 in your primary ability score is a very strong boost, and also pretty boring, which is a bad combination in my opinion.

I've run games where we did abilities as standard array +2 (everyone had 2 points to add to their ability scores as they saw fit), feats but no ASIs, and no multiclassing. We ended up with much more varied and IMO interesting characters than we usually do that way. And next to no balance issues or complaints.