D&D 5E half-feats & point-based ASIs

[GlassJaw]

Redesigning feats has been a hot topic for a while now, and while I haven't taken up the task myself (yet), I totally understand the desire and need (I predict that feats would get a major overhaul in a 5.5).

It's clear that some feats are significantly better than others. You can also see how a large number of feats can be broken down into smaller abilities, especially with some of the UA feat options.

All this leads me to believe the designers wanted to keep the number of feats small(-ish), to be fairly specialized, and to remove prerequisites of other feats. Because each feat needs to be quite significant unto itself, those that are purely combat, especially those that are numbers-based versus a new combat option, don't match up well to feats that have are skill-based or out-of-combat.

Now I don't think I've said any revelatory but it sets the stages for a potential solution - or at least design direction - I've been considering, which piggy-backs on the half-feat idea (which I like). Instead of half-feats, an ASI would give a character 4 points to spend on ability scores or feats. Basically, a +1 ASI is worth 2 points and something like light armor proficiency is also worth 2 points.

But by making the system more granular, it would allow for learning a new language, gaining proficiency in a new skill, doubling your proficiency for a skill you are already proficiency with, or maybe even learning a cantrip to be each worth 1 point, as well as the laundry list of "minor" abilities in various feats such as

It would also allow the problematic feats to be broken down and recosted. Perhaps GWM is worth 6 or 7 points instead of "4" using this system. It would also allow for feat prerequisites to be reintroduced.

Now there's no doubt that this increases the "complexity" of the feat system, at least as far as allowing for far greatly customization (which in turn places a burden of knowledge on the player). I'll also admit it opens up (without jumping in) the rabbit hole of a point-based character creation system (which I'm not opposed to). I'm not going down that path yet but

tl;dr A character get 4 points at each ASI. A +1 ASI costs 2. Current feat abilities are modularized and then recosted from 1 to N points.

 

[Li Shenron]

I thought about half feats since the first time the introduced the large 5e feats. In my case it was more because I wanted to port many 3e feats to 5e.

It's ok to split feats into smaller ones. However, notice that it changes the IDEA of feats. 3e-style smaller feats are essentially specific techniques or tricks to learn for narrow purposes. 5e-style larger feats are character concepts, even tho sometimes they end up again being a bland boost.

 

[LapBandit]

I split most feats into half feats buyable with one of two points of ASI. A few had to stay full ASI cost because of their power.
I also got rid of variant human and made human +1 to all and a half feat. Works at my table.

 

[GlassJaw]

5e-style larger feats are character concepts, even tho sometimes they end up again being a bland boost.

Totally understand. And while I think it was a noble goal, it's been one of 5e's biggest missteps. The combat feats completely overshadow most of the "character concept" feats. And even if the combat and non-combat feats are completely "balanced" (which is impossible to quantify), the combat feats take precedence because combat ability is more tangible and easier to understand.

By making the system more granular, I predict that players will be encouraged to take more non-combat abilities because the cost will be less and they can choose a la carte to customize their character. Because the choice is currently so great - once every 4 levels and competing with ASIs - players are inclined to go big or go home with their feat selection and take the one that's going to have the most tangible effect during play.

tl;dr Making everything a la carte will result in players taking more non-combat options to customize their characters.

 

[Horwath]

I split most feats into half feats buyable with one of two points of ASI. A few had to stay full ASI cost because of their power.
I also got rid of variant human and made human +1 to all and a half feat. Works at my table.

I made human with +1 skill and 2 feats. no ability bonuses.

 

[Duncan Wynn Jr.]

Hello , I`m kinda new to the DM and 5e things. I have a couple of players who want to do a feat or two , but they contend that RAW , feats are too expensive to be practical . BTW , one also wants to do a feat for a nonhuman PC at 1st level.
Their argument is that since most PCs only get 5 ASIs , they`re scarce and consequently more valuable than they would otherwise be. They suggest that since each ASI is a 2 step process ( Either 1 score by 2 or 2 scores by one .) , a feat should cost 1 step of an ASI .
I can see their point and am inclined to agree . On the NHPC feat at 1st level , i think tht yes he can but it`ll cost 1 point of racial ASI , to reflect the extra training , etc. Thoughts?

 

[Satyrn]

Hello , I`m kinda new to the DM and 5e things. I have a couple of players who want to do a feat or two , but they contend that RAW , feats are too expensive to be practical . BTW , one also wants to do a feat for a nonhuman PC at 1st level.
Their argument is that since most PCs only get 5 ASIs , they`re scarce and consequently more valuable than they would otherwise be. They suggest that since each ASI is a 2 step process ( Either 1 score by 2 or 2 scores by one .) , a feat should cost 1 step of an ASI .
I can see their point and am inclined to agree . On the NHPC feat at 1st level , i think tht yes he can but it`ll cost 1 point of racial ASI , to reflect the extra training , etc. Thoughts?

If I was in your shoes, I'd give in to my players a little. If they really want more feats then the might as well. But I wouldn't go overboard with it, and I'd make the change as simple as possible. so

1) I'd give them all a feat and the ability increase at levels 4 and 8, and use the normal rules for all the rest of the levels.

2) If I didn't say no to the NHPC feat at first level, I'd just give every character a free feat at 1st level (with the human variant getting two, or not being allowed)

3) Make it clear that these changes are for this campaign only, because this might not work well - but if it does we'll keep doing it.


Because if what the players want is more feats - and you're open to giving them more feats - you might as well just give them some feats and leave the rest of the rules in place.

 

[5ekyu]

Hello , I`m kinda new to the DM and 5e things. I have a couple of players who want to do a feat or two , but they contend that RAW , feats are too expensive to be practical . BTW , one also wants to do a feat for a nonhuman PC at 1st level.
Their argument is that since most PCs only get 5 ASIs , they`re scarce and consequently more valuable than they would otherwise be. They suggest that since each ASI is a 2 step process ( Either 1 score by 2 or 2 scores by one .) , a feat should cost 1 step of an ASI .
I can see their point and am inclined to agree . On the NHPC feat at 1st level , i think tht yes he can but it`ll cost 1 point of racial ASI , to reflect the extra training , etc. Thoughts?

If a group of players and gm decide they want more feats in play and they want to add new rules for it, the only drawback to the game is a slight power-up vs official products and CR that the GM must address *and* it carrying over to adversaries too.

That said, while some feats are better than others, my experience says feats chosen and played to can often be even more impactful than the ASI outside of certain white rooms. Feats often open up whole new opportunities and if the focus is not layered in on dpr and a lot of situations and tactics are seen, the feat can add fun and function.

 

[Duncan Wynn Jr.]

If a group of players and gm decide they want more feats in play and they want to add new rules for it, the only drawback to the game is a slight power-up vs official products and CR that the GM must address *and* it carrying over to adversaries too.

That said, while some feats are better than others, my experience says feats chosen and played to can often be even more impactful than the ASI outside of certain white rooms. Feats often open up whole new opportunities and if the focus is not layered in on dpr and a lot of situations and tactics are seen, the feat can add fun and function.[/QU
Many thanks , Satym and Sekyu, your insight is much appreciated! Especially since I`m new to this (5e and DM.). They don`t want to go overboard , just one feat each to enable their PCs to do something they normally wouldn`t be able to . For instance , a spiked chain wielding half orc bard (Really!)).

 

[Kobold Stew]

Hello , I`m kinda new to the DM and 5e things. I have a couple of players who want to do a feat or two , but they contend that RAW , feats are too expensive to be practical . BTW , one also wants to do a feat for a nonhuman PC at 1st level.
<snip> Thoughts?

I understand their thinking, but I don't agree with it. It assumes that ASIs need to be used for stat-bunuses. It's simply a fallacy that in 5e characters need to get to 20 in their attack-or-casting stat as soon as possible.

It's fine for some who want to play that way, but -- really -- having a 16 and two feats is just as good: the player with the feats might have less power when calculating DPR, but they'll have just as much, if not more, fun at the table.