D&D 5E Feats AND Ability increases?

Don't like this.

First, the "ASI at levels multiple of 4", I hope you are talking about class level. If you are talking about character level I wouldn't play at that table, it removes an important protection against rampant multiclass cherry-picking. I have more than enough of that playing 3.x with power gamers. Got no beef with multiclassing to describe a concept, don't like cherry-picking for mechanical gain.

But the reason you gave is the reason IU want to keep it. It's a meaningful choice. You prefer the math advances of ability scores. Other prefer the additional options feats bring. It's a choice that helps define this character vs. others of the same class mechanically. For me, removing a meaningful choice in character design doesn't seem like a step forward, even for some "have my cake and eat it too" wish fulfillment.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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.
To be clear do you mean:

Two half-feats (getting half-feat powers twice) and both ASIs (getting +2)

OR

Get one full-feat (powers of single full-feat) and one ASI

???

Seems like the first would be a stronger option in general... You're "effectively" getting a full feat (two halves) and +2 ASI (two +1's) over a full feat and +1 ASI. Isn't the first option sort of an extra +1 ASI over the second option?
 

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.
Like I said, I didn't do that because that is all I had. Also, I specifically didn't respond to the OP, but another poster. You seem to be dragging my to places I never wanted nor intended to go.
I think a big part of it was also the way it was delivered. How does this:

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."
See my comment above. That was not me or how I delivered my message. You, on the other hand, I being rather aggressive with your assertion that I'm being somehow unhelp or even harmful. Which is odd as I never responded to the OP!

PS - I will note the the OP "liked" my initial comment, so there is that.
 

You know, turning all feats into half feats (if they aren't already) and upping the bonus to +2 would be an interesting middle ground. It's only a +2 to (effectively) +3 differential, it keeps the ASI level from being weakened, and it makes sure choices are interesting (because as much as +2 to your offense stat is useful, it is boring).
 

Like I said, I didn't do that because that is all I had. Also, I specifically didn't respond to the OP, but another poster. You seem to be dragging my to places I never wanted nor intended to go.

See my comment above. That was not me or how I delivered my message. You, on the other hand, I being rather aggressive with your assertion that I'm being somehow unhelp or even harmful. Which is odd as I never responded to the OP!

PS - I will note the the OP "liked" my initial comment, so there is that.
You really have become defensive about this, so I'm dropping it. Happy gaming.
 

You really have become defensive about this, so I'm dropping it. Happy gaming.
I am just responding to your comments. Not sure how that is any more defensive than you responding to mine. To be clear I don't feel attacked or any need to be on defense. I am just having what I thought was a normal friendly conversation. But I agree, this is a rather silly tangent to someone else's thread, no need to continue!
 

You know, turning all feats into half feats (if they aren't already) and upping the bonus to +2 would be an interesting middle ground. It's only a +2 to (effectively) +3 differential, it keeps the ASI level from being weakened, and it makes sure choices are interesting (because as much as +2 to your offense stat is useful, it is boring).
I am curious, do you feel 5e PCs need the +2 or any bonuses really? With BA we have found the game works just fine without them.
 

You know, turning all feats into half feats (if they aren't already) and upping the bonus to +2 would be an interesting middle ground. It's only a +2 to (effectively) +3 differential, it keeps the ASI level from being weakened, and it makes sure choices are interesting (because as much as +2 to your offense stat is useful, it is boring).

So if I am following you correctly, at 4th level your options would be:

Pick a feat. It is a half-feat so includes a static ASI +1 (some might be dynamic depending on the feat).
Apply a dynamic (i.e. floating) ASI +1.

If you apply the dynamic ASI +1 to match the half-feat ASI +1, you will effectively still have the ASI +2, but the benefits of the half-feat to go with them.

Right?
 

I am curious, do you feel 5e PCs need the +2 or any bonuses really? With BA we have found the game works just fine without them.
As an aside, in my games I don't allow the ASI +2, either, but I do allow the option for the PC to apply two different ASI +1s instead of taking a feat.

This way the player can focus on the ability increases over feats if desired, but you don't see a single +2 jump at once.
 

I am curious, do you feel 5e PCs need the +2 or any bonuses really? With BA we have found the game works just fine without them.
Yeah. The math seems to really want a +1 at 4 and 8. I make a lot of custom monsters and used the DMG monster guidelines extensively, so I got very familiar with those baselines. +1 is pretty invisible, since it's the difference between a magic item or not, but when I played a Wildfire Druid (yay for actually getting to play) I really felt it when I spenty 4th level feat on Elemental Adept instead of +2 Wis (especially because I never got a +1 implement).
 

Remove ads

Top