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

[Guest 6801328]

I find it odd how much psychoanalysis is in this thread. A lot of people seem to feel that the difficulty of the decision comes from a desire to keep up with (or compete with) other players, or pressure from certain groups to optimize, or even the result of peeking at other character sheets. Or that somehow our memories of the days when scores were largely immutable, and a 16 was awesome, is biasing our decisions.

I notice it's always presented as "other people feel this way"; nobody's laying claim to it themselves. And I suppose it's possible some people *are* feeling that way, but I for one am only going to speak for myself: I just find it fun to optimize, within whatever parameters the game happens to provide, and I also find it fun to have cool tricks up my sleeve, and I like to build around a character concept. When those choices are made from the same pool of resources (ASIs) I find it...dissatisfying.

I don't really care what other people at the table or doing, nor how my characters would compare to my characters from 35 years ago.

 

[ChrisCarlson]

I find it odd how much psychoanalysis is in this thread. A lot of people seem to feel that the difficulty of the decision comes from a desire to keep up with (or compete with) other players, or pressure from certain groups to optimize, or even the result of peeking at other character sheets.

I, for one, have not gone there. I don't think your concerns have anything to do with keeping up with the Jonses. I *do* think you may be putting a bit too much weight on just how much that +1 stat bonus is actually benefiting you in actual play. And what the system expectations are for functional stat levels.

I just find it fun to optimize, within whatever parameters the game happens to provide, and I also find it fun to have cool tricks up my sleeve, and I like to build around a character concept. When those choices are made from the same pool of resources (ASIs) I find it...dissatisfying.

Okay, but when you say "optimize", you seem to be intentionally restricting the definition to number porn.

To me, if a campaign has a lot of traveling to distant lands and social interaction, I would consider taking the linguist feat to be a form of optimization. If the DM is prone to using lots of dungeons and traps, taking the dungeon delver feat is optimizing. Heck, if battling monsters is the focus of a game, optimizing could mean taking any of the various combat-centric feats. They can often be more impactful than a +1 stat bonus.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I find it odd how much psychoanalysis is in this thread. A lot of people seem to feel that the difficulty of the decision comes from a desire to keep up with (or compete with) other players, or pressure from certain groups to optimize, or even the result of peeking at other character sheets. Or that somehow our memories of the days when scores were largely immutable, and a 16 was awesome, is biasing our decisions.

I notice it's always presented as "other people feel this way"; nobody's laying claim to it themselves. And I suppose it's possible some people *are* feeling that way, but I for one am only going to speak for myself: I just find it fun to optimize, within whatever parameters the game happens to provide, and I also find it fun to have cool tricks up my sleeve, and I like to build around a character concept. When those choices are made from the same pool of resources (ASIs) I find it...dissatisfying.

I don't really care what other people at the table or doing, nor how my characters would compare to my characters from 35 years ago.

To me it's just a matter of taste. 5E does it this way, 3E and 4E did it where you got both and didn't have to choose one or the other. Having played all three, I liked 3E's and 4E's way much better. I liked them better to the degree where 5E's system bothers me. There isn't any more to it than that, and there doesn't need to be.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Now you're relativizing.

I maintain mounted combat is situational.

You say "aren't they all".

So I have to qualify my statement with "mounted combat is more situational than most", a completely unnecessary addition that I would assume everyone just too for granted, since the alternative interpretation is that my statement is essentially meaningless.

Now you know how I felt when you chimed in with what I felt was a completely unnecessary and obvious addition that I assumed everyone would take for granted! The criterion for obviousness varies based on person.

The whole reason I broke it down to pros and cons was so that people could judge the situation for themselves without overlooking anything. I take for granted that people know how to do that.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[happyhermit]

Something just dawned on me that made me feel kind of like an idiot

All of my experiences with 4e led me over and over again to it's general lack of asymmetry compared to other editions, and that is one of the biggest things that 5e brought back.

Somehow though I never realized (or I did and I forgot already, that does happen) that the choice between ASI and Feat can be a hugely asymmetrical decision for the player and the resulting character. This gives me more to think about, as if that was something I needed.

 

[CapnZapp]

The whole reason I broke it down to pros and cons was so that people could judge the situation for themselves without overlooking anything. I take for granted that people know how to do that.

Note that I do not disagree with your list.

What I did is feel how a simple list of pros and cons obscures the general or default worth - I feel MC is significantly more problematic than many other feats with a similar list of pros and cons.

Giving numeric bonuses and penalties to two different but common campaign environments helps you put a number on the feat's worth for you.

I expect the average number over many people's campaigns to be significantly lower than the mainstays; the feats that help you kill monsters equally well in any conditions.

Cheers [emoji3]

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I assume you've already considered: Playing a Variant Human for a 'free' feat; using random generation & going with feats if you happen to roll well; playing a fighter for the bonus ASIs?

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.)

According to common wisdom - and reputed WotC market research - yeah. (Of course, some of us have. I had one PC reach 18th in my 10+ year AD&D campaign (most only got to 14th), I was in 3.x campaigns that reached 13th, I've played/ran 4e at Paragon & Epic. But those're always anecdotal.)

Besides, 5e's exp chart maximizes the time spent at levels 4-through-10th.

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?

I empathize. I quite liked feats and they are a bit marginalized.

Starting at 3rd with a 'free' feat right off the bat, for instance, would give more chargen options and more fully-realized starting character concepts.

Feats instead of ASIs at specific levels could work, so there's no trade-off, but a formula everyone sticks to.

Feats instead of ASIs, and just higher stats (a more generous array) could work.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This would be my system for PCs getting both feats and stats(note that feats are required in this system)

(Note #2: this is for a higher powered game, like what I would tend to run)

1. Split feats into two groups
2. Group A would be resilient, healer, War Caster, and all of the flavor, noncombat, and underpowered feats
3. Group B would be the powerful combat feats
4. At level 1, PCs choose any 1 feat from either group
5. Variant Human still exists, but it's free feat must be from group A
6. At levels 4, 12, and 19(total character level), pick a feat from group A
7. At levels 8 and 16(total character level), choose any feat
8. Fighters and Rogues get extra feats at odd levels(not 4, 8, 12, 16, 19). At those levels in those specific classes, choose any feat
9. At total character levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19, add +1 to all 6 stats(they all advance, but slower)

 

[Skyscraper]

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?

I totally agree with you. In the homebrew campaign I am starting in a few weeks, ASIs are not an option, feats are the only option.

To me, this further links to the desire to have meaningful ability scores. My table will use the following ability score generation: roll two ability score sets, each 3d6 in order, no swap; select one. Increase a seclected ability score to a random value between 12-15; apply racial adjustments.

Having no ASIs means that ability scores increases are less prevalent. You still can get some with feats; and you can find rare magic items. But, 18 is not a low stat by any means at any level, and 20 is not what everyone gets to in a main stat over the course of a campaign.

I hope that this system will not only let my players use the cool feats that are available, but also keep the ability scores meaninful.