D&D 5E Feats AND Ability increases?

[mellored]

This pretty much goes against the OP though. They know it is a bump in over all power, and are willing to add more monsters, not less.

The point was to keep full ASI somehow with adding feats (sans ASI effectively).

The point was to use more feats.

 

[ezo]

The point was to use more feats.

Without losing ASI.

 

[mellored]

Without losing ASI.

No.

The point was to use feats, but feels required to take ASI.

So remove the requirement.

 

[ezo]

No.

The point was to use feats, but feels required to take ASI.

So remove the requirement.

Yes... you should re-read the OP I think. Their own suggestion keeps all the ASI (up to +10 as RAW). Their goal is not to "remove the requirement". They value the ASI more than feats.

GOAL: Have all feats be half-feats and instead everyone got +2 score at multiple of 4 levels

@CreamCloud0 suggestion would make it +10 ASI total with five "half-feats", like the OP commented on (if all feats became half-feats). Mine would make it +9 ASI with five "full-feats" so you wouldn't have to water-down the feats.

 

[mellored]

Yes... you should re-read the OP I think. Their own suggestion keeps all the ASI (up to +10 as RAW). Their goal is not to "remove the requirement". They value the ASI more than feats.

GOAL: Have all feats be half-feats and instead everyone got +2 score at multiple of 4 levels

I did read it.

Actual Goal: "I really miss feats."

I offered a solution he didn't think of.

 

[ezo]

I did read it.

Actual Goal: "I really miss feats."

I offered a solution he didn't think of.

Try reading all of it.

Then you'll see your "solution" isn't a solution at all.

 

[dave2008]

Which is why I included your response along with that post. No need to become defensive about it.

I wasn't being defensive, just clarifying. It is the nature of this medium (non-face-to-face) that makes it hard to discern such subtle intents

But that hinders their desire for ASI because they personally value ablility increases more than feats. Not allowing +2 ASIs means at best your game has +5 ability inceases in general.

Any "solution" for them will not involve less power (by decreasing their potential ASI) as they stated they know their own idea would make things more powerful:

That could be true. It could also be true that they never thought of the alternate. In my profession we have clients that often say they want one thing, but when you dig a little deeper you find what they really want is something different (sometimes a little and sometimes a lot). That could be true in this case. No reason to shut down other possible solutions IMO.

Also, they mentioned they preferred ASI; however, they are not the player in this case. What is really important is what they and their players are trying to achieve. Is the goal really ASI + Feats, or, as initially stated, simply access to more Feats?

 

[FarBeyondC]

Here's an idea, for what it's worth:

Make the standard class progression ASIs be solely for ASIs and ASI feats, then let characters choose a non-ASI feat at the levels their character's proficiency bonus increases (5, 9, 13, 17). Adjust monsters upward if you find that necessary.

Don't make the attempt to add feats more complicated than that.

 

[SoulDoubt]

In the 2024 rules, all feats give +1 ASI, except for Origin Feats and Fighting Styles. So just get rid of the +2 ASI feat and have PCs gain +1 ASI every time they gain a feat after 1st level. Or if you prefer, remove the +1 ASI from all feats and just give the PCs +2 ASI whenever they gain a feat.

 

[ezo]

I wasn't being defensive, just clarifying. It is the nature of this medium (non-face-to-face) that makes it hard to discern such subtle intents

True enough. The tone sounded off. My mistake.

That could be true. It could also be true that they never thought of the alternate. In my profession we have clients that often say they want one thing, but when you dig a little deeper you find what they really want is something different (sometimes a little and sometimes a lot). That could be true in this case. No reason to shut down other possible solutions IMO.

Also, they mentioned they preferred ASI; however, they are not the player in this case. What is really important is what they and their players are trying to achieve. Is the goal really ASI + Feats, or, as initially stated, simply access to more Feats?

I can't see that being the case here from the OP. They know they like feats, but seem to value ASI more so don't take the feats.

When they say "I hardly take them" that implies they play, at least part-time, or have a DMPC they use.

Anyway, this is the part they wanted feedback on:

If all feats were "half feats" (I don't know if they are in 2024) and lost their ability bonuses, but instead everyone got +2 score at multiple of 4 levels, what feats would you end up taking all the time? Should the ability adjustment be part of the class progression, or should the feat?

Thanks for your ideas.

It seems apparent (to me anyway) they want "half feats" and everyone getting +2 scores at multiple of 4 levels. Their concern is then:

1. what feats would you end up taking all the time?
2. should the ability adjustment be part of the class progression, or should the feat [be]?

So, +2 scores every 4 levels is (more or less) RAW ASI. Something they currently value higher than feats. They know getting regular ASIs and an option for half-feats or even feats would be more powerful, which they also acknowledge:

Yeah, it will make characters more powerful, but I can always add more monsters.

Which they seem ok with.

Getting rid of the +2 ASI doesn't seem to be an option that would jive with their intent IMO.