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

[Li Shenron]

I like having to choose in 5e for two reasons. First because I am not a huge fan of games where PCs have all high stats, and thus I like that those who choose ASI have to give up feats. Second because I like how these particular choice points work as a "dial" on PC complexity.

If the rest of your group feels the same as you, the easy solution is just to grant both ASI and a feat each time.

For a more balanced solution (to avoid those levels being too much of a power bump), you could just take either the ASI or the feat, and grant it separately based on total character level.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Is there an underlying belief that a character who took feats, instead of stat bumps, somehow does not continue to succeed in adventuring?

Because, at the end of the adventuring day, isn't that all that matters? And if so, isn't doing that with the funnest options the better choice?

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

Is there an underlying belief that a character who took feats, instead of stat bumps, somehow does not continue to succeed in adventuring?

Because, at the end of the adventuring day, isn't that all that matters? And if so, isn't doing that with the funnest options the better choice?

It seems that with the pople i play with there seems to be a belive that maxing you to hit is very important.
and ability score increases increase to hit and spell DC feats don't

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

RAW does no such thing. Your DM puts you in the position of making that choice by by allowing feats in the campaign.

 

[Shiroiken]

I'm fine with it now, because I accept why they did it this way (modular game to appeal to the largest base). However I liked them separated, but for a totally different reason. With a hard cap of 20, ASIs have a point of diminishing returns. If a player rolled high for ability scores, they would cap their primary ability early, meaning that future ASIs were less meaningful. A player who rolled less well would eventually catch up in their primary ability, but the player who rolled well would simply be more well-rounded. As it is now, I usually see players use ASI to reach 18 or 20 in their primary ability, then switch to Feats.

 

[the Jester]

I am delighted by devil's choices, where there is no automatically 'better' option and it's damned hard to pick. So I love it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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?

See if you can get your DM to ban ASIs. A feat-only game could be interesting.

 

[Azurewraith]

We did a game once where asi and feats were handed out together. My fighter was well broken by lvl 10 he had 20s in str con and dex(rolled stats) that 1lvl dip in barbarian was awsome. Dm did throw out his mm though as we knocked out multiple deadly encounters a day like it was nothing

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

And yet, there are plenty of fighters out there today who take Great Weapon Master (for the -5/+10) but not Mounted Combatant (for advantage to cancel out the -5, and for mobility to mitigate the downsides of being a melee fighter). Does the existence of Mounted Combatant make GWM fighters somehow less? Or is this really a social problem wherein the goal is to excel in the Internet metagame instead of have fun at the table? The Internet hivemind hasn't really picked up on that GWM/Mounted Combatant synergy so from that perspective no one is likely to mock you for not having it, and if winning the metagame is the goal, anything the hivemind doesn't know about is non-mandatory... which means that the problem isn't the hypothetical dozen sword-related feats, it's the metagame's awareness of those dozen feats.

Solution: cut the Gordian knot. Exit the metagame.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

1. When designing 5E, they seem to have put a higher priority on making the feat system optional than making it good. Hence the issue in this thread.

2. Looking at 5E from the DM's chair, I'm not sure there is a good solution. I'd like to make the stat boosts automatic and let people pick feats at every opportunity, but there aren't enough feats for that to my taste. Not for a 20 level game, though the likelihood of most campaigns not getting that far mitigates that to a certain degree,

3. I agree with the sentiment that combat and noncombat feats competing for the same slot is a bad thing.