D&D 5E Hypothetical Campaign: No ASIs, Only Feats.

[Rune]

So, for a while now, I've been considering the ramifications of running a campaign with feats, but no ability score increases gained through leveling (possibly in conjunction with the 3d6-in-order-with-one-switch-allowed generation method). Characters would still get racial adjustments and could still increase ability scores with magic items or feats that grant increases. Also, special class features could, as well (the barbarian capstone, in particular. Hypothetical future classes, too).

I may well be missing some unintended ramification, but here's what I think would happen:

• High level characters look more different from each other than in standard 5e (not just because the don't max out stats, but also because they'll instead pick up multiple feats through their careers).
  
  
• Half-feats look more attractive. This could possibly take some of the punch out of the (perceived) overpowered feats (GWM and Sharpshooter). Certainly, it will make taking -5 to hit a harder choice.
  
  
• Bounded Accuracy would be more bounded. Even so, the theoretical power increase that feats provide should keep PCs viable.
  
  
• In a funny way, this seems like it would be more of an old-school feel than a featless game would. At least to me, one of the defining characteristics of pre-3e D&D was that the framework of your character, the ability scores that define who s/he is, are almost never going to change. Put another way, each set of stats had its own personality--and kept it.

But I'm sure y'all will see something I'm not. Discuss!

 

[NotActuallyTim]

Other than shaving off a few + 1s and 2s from characters, I don't think this will change much at all.

Except, of course, that everyone will start looking for classes that don't rely much on stats.

 

[Greg Benage]

-5/+10 isn't really a hard choice even with a 16 stat as long as you've still got Archery, Trip Attack, Reckless Attack, OoV, Shield Master, Wolf Totem, bless, etc., in the game. This should not be a surprise, as optimizers will always want to take those feats ASAP in the current environment, before capping their attack stat. If anything, it boosts those abilities that improve hit chance even more.

Makes good save/bad save even more polarized. I suppose Resilient becomes an even stronger pick.

Seems to help classes that depend on damage riders (rogue, paladin) and to hurt classes that depend on multiple attacks (fighter).

You probably see more SAD builds, obviously, and you probably see optimizers try to cap using half-feats.

I'd probably give it a try, if I couldn't persuade you to run a no feats/no ASI game.

 

[ad_hoc]

This is a big nerf to fighters and rogues who get extra ASIs.

It will also further compound what I feel is already a problem - that some feats become standard and are always taken.

I am inclined to go the other way, start with lower stats and limit feats to 1 (2 for fighters and rogues).

 

[Ath-kethin]

I've never had a player pick an ASI anyway, so this isn't much different from my campaign as it runs. It works OK. And I agree that it makes for more interesting characters.

 

[Rune]

Also, it occurs to me, there would probably be less multiclassing.

 

[Lehrbuch]

So, for a while now, I've been considering the ramifications of running a campaign with feats, but no ability score increases gained through levelling...

I can't see it causing any serious problems, principally because (in a campaign that allows Feats) the players could simply choose to not take ability score increases and only take feats.

The PCs will look a bit different (on average) as they'll have less high stats, and they'll have some kooky features from the feats. Whether those features all see much use in play is a bit more debatable. It's cool to pick one or two Feats to either give your PC a couple of fun things to do occasionally, or a boost to something that she does all the time. However, when you are looking at high level PCs with 4-5 or more Feats, it becomes increasingly difficult to pick enough Feats that will all see much use in-play. But if you're mostly only playing in the level 1-10 window that won't be a problem that arises.

 

[Sunseeker]

Other than shaving off a few + 1s and 2s from characters, I don't think this will change much at all.

Except, of course, that everyone will start looking for classes that don't rely much on stats.

Agreed, the OP's stat-generation system is going to have a MUCH bigger impact the game than no stat bumps at level intervals.

 

[crashtestdummy]

As ad_hoc indicated, rogues and fighters get more ASIs, but I'm not sure I agree that this is a nerf for them. However, if a fighter gets 7 feats over their career, what would those 7 feats be? How much variation is there going to be in what people pick? You stated you were doing this to try to increase variability, but I think you'll find that particular roles will pick particular feats, as they're the feats best for that role.

Class abilities that are tied to stat bonuses will also be affected (eg. Paladin auras, bardic inspiration die, etc)

The other thing is that this is either making or breaking a character based on their initial rolls. They will have very limited ability to address average rolls, for example. This means that spellcasters will not progress their DC's as quickly (only via their proficiency bonus) and fighting types will not progress their attack bonus as quickly (especially fighters). This may require a minor adjustment to CRs.

It's worth a try, but it would work better if there was a better breadth to the feat list.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I suspect that, without the option to increase ability scores, players will feel even greater pressure to take a race that offers a +2 to their primary stat. So you might see less diverse race/class combinations as a result.

I know some players do that sort of thing anyway, but with ASIs in the game I personally don't feel significant pressure to do so. I'll get that 20 sooner or later, and if later means I get to play a more interesting racial option, I'm good with that. Without ASIs though, I probably would choose the mechanically effective choice over the interesting one.