D&D 5E I hate choosing between ASIs and Feats

[Guest 6801328]

There, I said it.

Yes, I *know* Feats are "optional" and therefore they need to be interchangeable for balance.

What irks me is that in many/most cases ASIs are the optimal choice, so I'm put in the position of choosing statistical optimization or fun. I really want to choose the fun option, but almost always end up going with the optimal.

This is partly true because the Feats I want aren't the handful of OP Feats (Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, Resilient: CON). I want Dungeon Delver, Mage Slayer, Shield Master, Alert, and other fun things that aren't as powerful overall. But I just can't bring myself to sacrifice that constant +1.

And, yes, I *know* that's my choice and I could choose to do otherwise. TYVM.

Sure, I could in theory pick up Feats with my final ASIs...if I ever actually played a campaign that long. (My impression is that my experience isn't unique, that most of us don't spend much time above level 10-12.)

I'm just saying that I would be having more fun if ASIs and Feats were two separate choices. What I hear around the tables (AL at FLGS) is a similar sentiment.

Anybody else wish this had been designed differently?

 

[ProphetSword]

Nope, I like the way it's designed.

Honestly, it makes sense to me that a character has spent his down time either learning a new ability or has focused on increasing one of his attributes. Doing both would probably be overkill and make characters far too powerful, especially given as some feats also give an attribute increase.

 

[amerigoV]

Talk to your GM/group and see if they would do a game where you can only choose feats. The other option might be just map out a PC and force yourself to only take feats in your planning. That way if you do not have that temptation every time that choice comes up since the decision is already made.

(Note: I do not play 5e - so there might be other ramifications such as prereqs with attribute requirements - so keep that in mind).

 

[Guest 6801328]

Nope, I like the way it's designed.

Honestly, it makes sense to me that a character has spent his down time either learning a new ability or has focused on increasing one of his attributes. Doing both would probably be overkill and make characters far too powerful, especially given as some feats also give an attribute increase.

I'm not suggesting that you should be able to take one of each for each ASI. Not for that matter am I proposing any particular fix, or even that there exists a fix that wouldn't unbalance something.

Just saying that I wish RAW didn't put me in the position of making this particular choice.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Some of my players have expressed similar opinions. What I did for my most recent campaign was offer a free feat to anyone who does a full background write up for their character. Unsurprisingly, everyone took me up on the offer. It's a slight power boost, but not an excessive one from what I've seen so far. Plus, it motivated them to get me their backgrounds sooner than later, which is a big plus for me (helps me tie them into the goings on of the campaign world from the start). So far it's been a win/win.

 

[pdzoch]

I like the choice. But it is easy to be overwhelmed by the choices. So much goodness, included the stat increase to choose from. The choice makes for customization and really adds to replay-ability of a class. I seldom play a class the same way and it is not just because of a change in race, stat roles, and equipment.

 

[77IM]

Yes. I hate this too. To me, choosing between a feat and an ability score is an un-fun choice, for all the reasons you mentioned. I hate the feeling that creating the character I want will make that character less mechanically effective. Even if it's only slightly less!

Here's a paradox: I only want to pick feats that are an integral part of my character concept. But if it's an integral part of my character concept, I generally want to pick it early, not late. So waiting until level 12+ is not a fun option for me.

Furthermore, the presence of a feat leads to a sort of "concept inflation" where other special abilities that reinforce a character concept somehow feel less. For example, in a game without feats, if you want to play greatsword weaponmaster (that's your schtick) you just play a fighter or paladin and pick up Greatweapon fighting style and have a good Strength and use a greatsword a lot. In a game with feats you should also take Heavy Weapon Mastery or else you can't really claim to be especially good at fighting with a greatsword. Heaven forbid they publish a sword-related feat because now you'll need that too. A document with a dozen sword-related feats would be a nightmare! I'd much rather pick one thing that says "greatsword weaponmaster" and be done, rather than having to build that up.

I might like the feat system better if the feats themselves didn't mostly suck. Aside from a few OP feats, most are not worth taking. In theory, if feats were exactly balanced with ASIs, choosing between them wouldn't be so bad; it'd be a question of whether my character concept is better represented by special training and experience (feats) or raw talent (ASIs).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I like how it is designed, but then I am not the type that sees a choice between whatever I consider the "fun option" and what the system considers the "optimal option" and hesitates for even a heart-beat before choosing the "fun option."

I also try to help my players feel comfortable in doing the same by the way in which I run my campaigns - which I have had great success with.

However, I can see how someone could say "Yeah, I'd prefer getting both instead of having to choose."

 

[pdzoch]

Some of my players have expressed similar opinions. What I did for my most recent campaign was offer a free feat to anyone who does a full background write up for their character. Unsurprisingly, everyone took me up on the offer. It's a slight power boost, but not an excessive one from what I've seen so far. Plus, it motivated them to get me their backgrounds sooner than later, which is a big plus for me (helps me tie them into the goings on of the campaign world from the start). So far it's been a win/win.

Excellent idea to motive the player to build the character beyond just stats! Those backgrounds are so helpful to us DMs in building a game the players will want to play. Good seeds for story hooks also.

 

[Eubani]

To make things even worse for me I find is the fact that combat and non combat feats are drawn from the same limited pool which often finds the choice of combat viability vs colour/concept forced upon a player.