D&D 5E Practice and Training: Feats vs ASI

[dave2008]

How about just have the PCs gain XP during active adventuring days only and spend XP (i.e. level up, or partially level up if you prefer) during inactive days?

No what I was asking about. I have updated the OP so hopefully it is more clear.

 

[dave2008]

I let my guys level up as soon as their experience point total ticks over the next level target.

They get all their level stuff immediately as it’s assumed that by knocking that last kobold’s block off all their studying finally clicks into place.

I think most people do that, i was asking about the concept of different requirements for taking a feat or ASI. I updated the OP so hopefully that is clear.

 

[Oofta]

I see said the blind man.

I guess I'd say that I wouldn't bother. D&D is always going to be abstract and not particularly realistic. In my campaign leveling up almost always takes downtime.

I don't see a feat (such as a new fighting technique) as being any less difficult to master than gaining an ASI. If anything it should take longer. Increased strength includes applying new muscles effectively.

At least that's my two coppers.

 

[Dausuul]

EDIT: So basically you can take a feat anytime you level up, but you can only take an ASI when you have a period of downtime to train (say 40 hrs min. broken up however). Do you think that would change how your players take feats or ASIs?

It would depend on how much downtime was available in the campaign. Sometimes there are big stretches. Sometimes there's time pressure that extends across multiple levels. If the former happened when the players hit an ASI level, there would be no effect. If the latter happened, the players would be strongly pushed toward taking feats, and they would be justifiably annoyed.

Any thoughts of the concept in general?

I wouldn't like it. It punishes spellcasters (who have far fewer good feat options), and it adds another complication when planning adventure arcs (at levels divisible by 4, there needs to be downtime fairly soon after level-up).

The advancement system in D&D, like hit points, is grossly unrealistic. Picking one small facet of the system and arbitrarily trying to impose realism on it is silly - it just highlights how bizarre everything else is, and damages gameplay in the process.

 

[dave2008]

I wouldn't like it. It punishes spellcasters (who have far fewer good feat options), and it adds another complication when planning adventure arcs (at levels divisible by 4, there needs to be downtime fairly soon after level-up).

Currently in our games all level-up requires downtime (1 month per level or 1 week per level @ full time training), which is more "fair." I was just think about other ways to do it.

 

[MarkB]

It feels like it needlessly 'rewards' players for choosing feats instead of ASIs, and it doesn't really reflect the concept you're going for. Whether it's training or practical experience, it should still take time to gain either, so (if you're modelling that in the first place), what you should be giving players is a potential feat or ASI as soon as they earn the XP for it, and then, if they want to convert that into an actual ASI, they need to take X days of downtime, whereas if they want to convert it into an actual feat, they need to battle through Y CR ratings' worth of encounters. No instant gratification in either case.