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

[Psikerlord#]

Hiya!



I think you got that backwards...what I would say is: ban Feats, only allow ASI's.

As for having to make a hard choice...er...yup. Life's kinda like that...and RPG's are even more like that. Now, IMC, I don't allow Feats (or Multiclassing for that matter), and nobody's character has 'suffered' in terms of coolness factor or 'fun'. In fact, when we did use Feats, players actually had less fun playing their characters...because they always felt like they were "expected" to take some particular Feat. Like the OP (?) said, if you were playing a Greatsword-wielding Champion Fighter in a game that uses Feats...then not taking GWM would feel, look and probably be, like you were trying to make your Greatsword Master more of a Greatsword I'm-not-too-bad-but-could-be-better-Master. When I announced "NO Feats!" for the next (and every since then) campaign/game, every single one of my players has been relieved. YMMV.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

oh I totally agree - I would prefer a no feats game, or at least recommend liberal rebalancing of a number of feats (in fact, my personal preference is "custom only" feats, using the existing ones as a guide).

But, if the OP wants to avoid ASIs, I think just take them away as a choice.

 

[CapnZapp]

Here's my attempt at summarizing the pros and cons of Mounted Combatant:

(-) Logistics. You need a good way of procuring a mount in the first place, and/or replacing one if it gets killed by white dragon breath or something. Find Steed and Phantasmal Steed can both work, as can gold and downtime, but you'll need to plan this out. Also you need to feed it and care for it.
(-) Availability. Sometimes your mount won't fit into the adventure, e.g. if it takes place at the bottom of a well or at a duke's ball.
(+) Advantage on your melee attacks against Medium creatures: can cancel out the downside of GWM or simply increase your effectiveness against an armored foe.
(+) Mobility: free Dodges and Disengages on a high-speed (60'+) chassis means you lose fewer rounds of combat on closing to melee range. Or you can kite effectively with a longbow if you prefer to be more cataphract than Sir Lancelot.
(+) Extra opportunity attacks: attacks from your warhorse/gryphon/whatever make you stickier.
(+) Better blocking/tanking: a Large-sized mount can hold a chokepoint against a Huge giant. A Medium-sized human cannot--the giant can just ignore you and move through your space because it's two sizes larger. This makes you a more effective tank.
(+) Weird combos. If you have a mount that is capable of attacking on its own (i.e. an intelligent mount, possibly via Find Steed depending on DM ruling), you can sit up there on its back and Dodge every turn while the mount attacks. That gives you one attack at +6 for 2d6+4 (11) while also imposing disadvantage on any attackers. Goes well with the better tanking aspect.
(-) Stealth: Mounts are usually bad at it.
(-) Vulnerability to Pushing attacks: You can get knocked off your steed (possibly falling prone), and that will really disrupt your battleplan if you hadn't realized it was possible. Especially if it was a flying mount.

Thank you.

But so far, all you have is a bunch of plusses and minuses.

Let me assign numbers for the severity of each of these:

(-) Logistics. "Classic" campaign ("clean" heroes AD&D style, faux-medieval campaign-world with easy access to horse "shops" and stables, "normal" terrain): -1
"Angsty" campaign (dirty, ambigous anti-heroes, fantastical terrain such as deserts, laval fields, underdark etc): -5
(-) Availability. Classic: -2 Angsty: -5
(+) Advantage on your melee attacks against Medium creatures: Classic:+3 Angsty +2
(+) Mobility: Classic:+5 Angsty: +2 (great on green fields against infantry stupid enough to leave broken ground)
(+) Extra opportunity attacks:Classic: +2 Angsty: +2
(+) Better blocking/tanking:Classic: +1 Angsty +1 (the St Knight vs Giant/Dragon simply doesn't happen often)
(+) Weird combos.Classic: +0 (don't make the foe WANT to eat your horse) Angsty +2
(-) Stealth:Classic: -1 Angsty: -5 (knights don't stealth anyways)
(-) Vulnerability to Pushing attacks:Classic: 0 Angsty 0 (use combat saddle)

TL;DR: Don't take McCombat if you expect to ride a horse into the Underdark

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm an old school gamer. Played AD&D from 1981 all the way until 5e came out. You'd think I'd totally be for ASIs and getting rid of feats. But actually, I almost always choose the feat. Nearly every time. I just like the flavor of the broad feats.

 

[Downlowd]

http://nevinera.net/dd-the-case-for-free-feats/

Pretty much this. Don't play with powergamers and/or restrict feat approval to the DM prior to use in game, and there are no issues with allowing both.

 

[firstkyne]

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."

I'm curious. How did you get your players to feel comfortable that they could indulge in feats?
Less punishing fights? (in my experience, players panic that they will end up boringly weak compared to the fighter who chooses optimally,
or that they risk getting killed if they don't choose optimally).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Thank you.

But so far, all you have is a bunch of plusses and minuses.

Let me assign numbers for the severity of each of these:

(-) Logistics. "Classic" campaign ("clean" heroes AD&D style, faux-medieval campaign-world with easy access to horse "shops" and stables, "normal" terrain): -1
"Angsty" campaign (dirty, ambigous anti-heroes, fantastical terrain such as deserts, laval fields, underdark etc): -5
(-) Availability. Classic: -2 Angsty: -5
(+) Advantage on your melee attacks against Medium creatures: Classic:+3 Angsty +2
(+) Mobility: Classic:+5 Angsty: +2 (great on green fields against infantry stupid enough to leave broken ground)
(+) Extra opportunity attacks:Classic: +2 Angsty: +2
(+) Better blocking/tanking:Classic: +1 Angsty +1 (the St Knight vs Giant/Dragon simply doesn't happen often)
(+) Weird combos.Classic: +0 (don't make the foe WANT to eat your horse) Angsty +2
(-) Stealth:Classic: -1 Angsty: -5 (knights don't stealth anyways)
(-) Vulnerability to Pushing attacks:Classic: 0 Angsty 0 (use combat saddle)

TL;DR: Don't take McCombat if you expect to ride a horse into the Underdark

The problem with trying to assign numbers is that the scores are inherently subjective and highly situational. I'd rather just lay out and pros and cons and weigh the balance for their own circumstances. If I'm planning on a pure Underdark campaign, and my DM is cool with Find Steed summoning a giant spider, then I'm all set! (It occurs to me now that my players would probably try to tame a Purple Worm. Good luck with that one, kids... though it would be awesome if they can make it work somehow.)

I disagree with some of your other subjective ratings (e.g. Mobility is good against airborn opponents too like Perytons and dragons, not just infantry; and this is really just another way of double-counting Availability anyway; your evaluation of the frequency of better blocking is way off--at my table, Huge vs. Medium conflicts happen relatively frequently, not to mention Small vs. Large) but I don't disagree with the substance of anything you write except for the last one: combat saddles do not remove vulnerability to pushing attacks. They only help on ability checks to remain seated. If you're riding your wyvern and you get hit by a Repelling Eldritch Blast, combat saddle or not you'd better be prepared for a long fall.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm an old school gamer. Played AD&D from 1981 all the way until 5e came out. You'd think I'd totally be for ASIs and getting rid of feats. But actually, I almost always choose the feat. Nearly every time. I just like the flavor of the broad feats.

Also, old-school gamers might be more comfortable with "low" scores like Int 16, because AD&D didn't let you change your stats at all (hardly ever). The roleplayer in me actually hates the thought of every fighter always winding up the strongest man in the world and every rogue the quickest and every wizard the smartest. It's bland. Feats are more interesting and less homogenizing.

It would be interesting to see whether old-school gamers, as a group, lean toward feats or ASIs. I'm hypothesizing that they'd lean toward feats.

 

[CapnZapp]

I feel, somehow, that you're burying the lede. Or that this might be severe understatement. Or something.

I have a joke-
"A horse walks into a bar."
"Then what?"
"It’s funny. A horse shouldn’t be in a bar. It doesn’t have ID."

Perhaps it's time for the thread- horses and sneak attack- Awesome? Or Awesomer?

Give it a lick!

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem with trying to assign numbers is that the scores are inherently subjective and highly situational.

Well, the problem with Mounted Combat IS how highly situational it is.

That's what I attempted to point the light at. Not just a bunch of plusses and minuses. HUGE minuses unless you get your DM aboard BEFORE you make the choice.

In a classical AD&D campaign (where every illustration shows clean beautiful Heroes with a big H): absolutely! That's the kind of campaign where the evil goblins would never dream of trying to harm your dear horsie.

In Out of the Abyss: if you're an underdark denizen yourself, maybe. Just maybe. But as a human knight? fuhgeddaboudit!

The point I'm trying to make is that the feat describes the best-case scenario. There are lots of adventures that will restrict you in a way that simply doesn't happen for many other feats, but none* that make it better than what's on paper.

It's like Dungeon Delver - with a DM that doesn't care much for traps and doesn't remember half the traps that's there, it's just not a good feat. But the thing is that trapfinder-friendly adventures are more common than mount-friendly ones!

*) Well, I guess a Dragonrider campaign where anyone not on a flying mount can go home...