D&D 5E Feats AND Ability increases?

[dave2008]

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:

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:


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.

A couple of points.

1. @Xeviat is clearly talking about being a DM for this campaign. So their personal preference on Feats and ASI probably has less merit than the players preference. I mean, they are not taking the Feats or ASI, the players are. As a DM, I would think they would welcome different viewpoints.
2. The OP's solution is fine if they are willing to handle the extra power. No comments are really needed IMO.
3. People often miss the forest for the trees. The best solution to the problem (not enough Feat usage) may very well be different to the one the OP proposed. Suggesting different solutions is a service, not a distraction IMO.
4. If @Xeviat really just wants comments on their proposed solution, they are likely to eventually come here and tells us. If/when that happens I/we can respond accordingly. I see no need to shut down ideas at this point in the discussion. Instead, I think we should embrace as many ideas as possible.

 

[ezo]

We'll see.

1. @Xeviat is clearly talking about being a DM for this campaign. So their personal preference on Feats and ASI probably has less merit than the players preference. I mean, they are not taking the Feats or ASI, the players are. As a DM, I would think they would welcome different viewpoints.
2. The OP's solution is fine if they are willing to handle the extra power. No comments are really needed IMO.
3. People often miss the forest for the trees. The best solution to the problem (not enough Feat usage) may very well be different to the one the OP proposed. Suggesting different solutions is a service, not a distraction IMO.
4. If @Xeviat really just wants comments on their proposed solution, they are likely to eventually come here and tells us. If/when that happens I/we can respond accordingly. I see no need to shut down ideas at this point in the discussion. Instead, I think we should embrace as many ideas as possible.

1. Probably, since they are proposing the rule change. By why comment on what they do (taking ASI over feats) unless they also play or intend to play? I DM a lot, but often have a PC as well.

2. They stated outright they are willing to handle the extra power. The comments they ask for are concerning what feats will likely be taken and how to integrate the solution.

3. Sure, but as I said, it seems unlikely. While possible, I will be outright amazed if the OP says, "I never thought to just not allow +2 ASI" when they both say they find ASI more valued than feats and include +2 ASI in their own solution concept.

4. As I said, we'll see. I don't, however, see the point in suggesting "solutions" that don't agree all the points in the OP, nor are in any fashion a commentary on the solution posted in the OP itself.

(Apologies if my edit messed up your "like" @dave2008.)

 

[dave2008]

In the 2024 rules, all feats give +1 ASI, except for Origin Feats and Fighting Styles.

Do we know that for a fact? I don't remember them specifically stating that all feats get the +1, but I may have missed it. I know we have seen some revised feats that now include the +1, but I didn't take that to mean all of them had.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I really miss feats. I hardly take them since I personally value ability increases more than most feats. I'm strongly considering taking away the +1 ability score part of feats but also giving a feat progression so characters can have their ability score adjustments and get to pick feats too.

Yeah, it will make characters more powerful, but I can always add more monsters. But I was to see if it passes a sniff test first:

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.

Lucky would be the biggest culprit, I think. It still baffles me why they made 5.5e's version even stronger when it was already one of the most desirable feats in the game.

(Edit: To be specific, while Lucky is very lightly nerfed if you're levels 1-4, it's buffed for any character above level 8, and becomes arguably THE single best feat once you have a +6 proficiency bonus.)

 

[Moorcrys]

You could play with all feats granting +1 ASI including origin Feats. That way humans end up with +7 ASI’s total for standard feat progressing classes and other species at +6. Or you can keep the Origin Feats as-is and add a +2 ASI bump at 11th or so. That will even the progression. If you’re up for some monster bumps to address the bit of power-up I don’t think it’s going to hurt anything. I’ve played a couple games with bumped attributes and nothing came crashing down around our game.

 

[SoulDoubt]

Do we know that for a fact? I don't remember them specifically stating that all feats get the +1, but I may have missed it. I know we have seen some revised feats that now include the +1, but I didn't take that to mean all of them had.

I don't recall where I read/heard this, but I am reasonably confident it is the case. I remember it being stated as a specific design decision to make it so players don't feel like they are completely "missing out" on ASI when they take a feat. I can't think of any reason why they would backtrack on that (although it's WotC, so I guess anything's possible). At any rate, I will be genuinely surprised if all "General Feats" don't come with a +1 ASI.

 

[dave2008]

Lucky would be the biggest culprit, I think. It still baffles me why they made 5.5e's version even stronger when it was already one of the most desirable feats in the game.

(Edit: To be specific, while Lucky is very lightly nerfed if you're levels 1-4, it's buffed for any character above level 8, and becomes arguably THE single best feat once you have a +6 proficiency bonus.)

One of the reasons we switched to Feats only is that you don't have to worry about issues like this. You're going to get 6-8 feats so if everyone picks the same feat for one of those choices it is no big deal.

 

[dave2008]

We'll see.


1. Probably, since they are proposing the rule change. By why comment on what they do (taking ASI over feats) unless they also play or intend to play? I DM a lot, but often have a PC as well.

To show their own bias.

2. They stated outright they are willing to handle the extra power. The comments they ask for are concerning what feats will likely be taken and how to integrate the solution.

3. Sure, but as I said, it seems unlikely. While possible, I will be outright amazed if the OP says, "I never thought to just not allow +2 ASI" when they both say they find ASI more valued than feats and include +2 ASI in their own solution concept.

4. As I said, we'll see. I don't, however, see the point in suggesting "solutions" that don't agree all the points in the OP, nor are in any fashion a commentary on the solution posted in the OP itself.

I almost always see the value in offering outside the prescribed box solutions. That is, IMO & IME, the secret to improvement and success. If we restrict ourselves to simply what we want, or what we think we want, we miss out on a lot of ideas.

And as I have nothing to offer regarding the proposed solution other than: "yep, that will work," I think my time is better spent on looking outside the box for both the OP and others reading this thread. Not sure why you think this is so harmful, but I will just have to disagree with you there.

(Apologies if my edit messed up your "like" @dave2008.)

No worries!

 

[Maxperson]

I really miss feats. I hardly take them since I personally value ability increases more than most feats. I'm strongly considering taking away the +1 ability score part of feats but also giving a feat progression so characters can have their ability score adjustments and get to pick feats too.

Yeah, it will make characters more powerful, but I can always add more monsters. But I was to see if it passes a sniff test first:

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.

You might try just keeping the progression the same, but instead of +2 OR a feat, make it two half feats that give +1 to a stat, or one whole feat and +1to a stat. They will get the stat bonuses and have a decent amount of feats.

 

[ezo]

I almost always see the value in offering outside the prescribed box solutions. That is, IMO & IME, the secret to improvement and success. If we restrict ourselves to simply what we want, or what we think we want, we miss out on a lot of ideas.

I would agree in general, but in this case the suggest goes directly against the OP IMO. And, it isn't even a very clever idea... "Don't allow +2 ASI, insist on feats". We've seen that around before, and @Xeviat has been around long enough to likely know about the idea. If not, and they come back with "Wow, I never thought of that, it fixes everything!" then I'll be wrong. (It won't be the first time, nor I doubt the last. )

And as I have nothing to offer regarding the proposed solution other than: "yep, that will work," I think my time is better spent on looking outside the box for both the OP and others reading this thread.

But "what" will work? That is what the OP is asking for help on: they specifically asked about two things, as I already stated. Saying "yep, that will work" is like when someone asks "Do you want to have X or Y?" and you just answer "Yes." It isn't helpful at all, really, IMO.

Not sure why you think this is so harmful, but I will just have to disagree with you there.

I think a big part of it was also the way it was delivered. How does this:

Alternatively you can ban +2 as an option.

If you feel eveyone would be weaker, then then you can use less monsters.

really help?

It comes off abrupt to me, like a smack in the face, a "I know better than you... just remove the thing you find value in to remove that issue." If the OP says they find more value in ASI than feats, but would like a way to get more feats into the game, denying them the ASI they find more value in doesn't really seem a likely direction they would want to go.

Especially since that post didn't first actually adress the issue in the OP at all. Basically ignoring what the OP was actually asking for feedback on and then saying, "Here, just remove the temptation and problem solved."