D&D (2024) Using general Feats when your ability is already 20

[ECMO3]

It seems needlessly punishing the player though. If you allow rolling scores, I think you should anticipate PCs will start with 20s on occassion. Then when they get to take a feat, they gain only "half" the benefit of the feat because they are denied the ASI...

Had the player rolled a 17 instead of an 18, then they would gain the benefit of going from 19 to 20. So, you're penalizing them for rolling well???

That is why I suggested their lowest ability gets the +1. They still gain some benefit, but don't get to choose where it goes. In my opinion, a "free floating" +1 is way more useful, so I would never go with that route personally.

I don't really see it as punishing the player, especially since he is 3 points above average already. He doesn't have to choose a Charisma boosting feat.

If they rolled a 17 instead of an 18 they would have been worse off from level 1 to 3 and still been the same from level 4 to 20.

 

[Horwath]

I disagree. The difference between 18 and 20, the +1 modifier, is hardly noticable at all due to the swinginess of the d20.

Well, if it's your main attack stat, the difference is between 15 and 25% in damage output.
depending on your base damaage and target AC.

EDIT: I mean this in comparison to the benefits of a full feat, for instance, and the amount of "power" and/or enjoyable play experience it grants compared to that +1 modifier bump.

this is true.
one of the biggest fail of 5E is to tie ASI and feats together.
they should be in separate resource pool



or even better, no ASI's after 1st level.

if you need to roll, it's (4d3D1)×2, with 2× increase of +2 for background/species/race/class/whatever

 

[Flights of Fancy]

I don't really see it as punishing the player, especially since he is 3 points above average already. He doesn't have to choose a Charisma boosting feat.

But it is.... you allowed him to roll scores and he is losing out on a benefit because he was lucky? That's punishing him. I assume he is choosing the feat for the non-ASI portion, and telling them, "Well, you don't have to take that feat" just seems sort of lame personally.

If they rolled a 17 instead of an 18 they would have been worse off from level 1 to 3 and still been the same from level 4 to 20.

But at least then he wouldn't be punished for 16 levels because they rolled lucky and was denied the ASI.

My point is, as a player, I'd be pretty annoyed with this "just suck it up" ruling. I wouldn't expect a floating ASI since that is better than a set one. Giving it to the lowest ability seemed a reasonable compromise.

But this is why I said, if your player is ok with sucking it up, then you do you.

Well, if it's your main attack stat, the difference is between 15 and 25% in damage output.
depending on your base damaage and target AC.

Percentage sounds a lot more than in practice, because you're basically talking about 1 point of damage per attack.

this is true.
one of the biggest fail of 5E is to tie ASI and feats together.
they should be in separate resource pool

or even better, no ASI's after 1st level.

I agree, they should have been separate and no bumps after 1st level.

 

[Horwath]

Percentage sounds a lot more than in practice, because you're basically talking about 1 point of damage per attack.

around 10 attacks per combat,
3-4 combats per day,
5-10 of those days per level,

it adds up

 

[Flights of Fancy]

around 10 attacks per combat,
3-4 combats per day,
5-10 of those days per level,

it adds up

You'd never notice it. It is a negligible part of the game-play experience.

 

[Horwath]

You'd never notice it. It is a negligible part of the game-play experience.

but I do notice it.
every time I miss by 1 or a monster is at 1 HP after a strike.

 

[Flights of Fancy]

but I do notice it.
every time I miss by 1 or a monster is at 1 HP after a strike.

Those things happen with it or without it -- you can still miss by 1 or have a monster left with 1 hp.

 

[TwoSix]

You'd never notice it. It is a negligible part of the game-play experience.

It very much depends on your own particular psychology. Those of us who are fairly math and rules savvy are probably more likely to notice the d20 rolls that miss by 1. And we'll notice every time we roll damage because it's one less than it "should" have been.

Likewise, some people won't even notice the lost +1 ASI from taking the feat from the OP, other people (like myself) will cringe at the inefficiency of the choice.

 

[jgsugden]

I would disagree with this IME. The "starring role" is based mostly on the player, not the character.

Familiarity with the rules, creativity, the degree to which the player can think on their feet and the players personality in terms of being an introvert or extrovert is the primary driver in the "starring role" IME. Other things which influence this are class and adventure story/loot/progression, but those are way behind the player influence.

I can't honestly say I can remember ability scores mattering at all in this.*

*Disclaimer - If you roll hit points those matter as well and we do that in some games,, but that is not strictly ability scores. It matters mostly on characters with low rolls IME and they play cautiosly. I remember we had an 8th level Fighter/Assassin with 27 hit points in a game a few years back and he played a lot different than he would have (and did in other games).

I have run a lot of D&D for new and experienced players. There is an overwhelmingly strong tendency through every edition for characters with stronger stats to take on a 'starring role' because they are inherently more efficient, and in ways that do not require deep rules knowledge, creativity or ingenuity to capitalize upon.

For example, picture a party with 2 front line 2nd level PCs. One is a 14 strength Sword and board fighter that attacks at +4 for 1d8+2 damage (average 6.5 on a hit) and the other is a 20 strength barbarian that attacks at +7 at advantage for 2d6+7 damage (average 14) while raging. Against a 15 AC foe that fighter hits ~88% of the time while the sword and board hits 55% of the time. The barbarian out damages the fighter by about 300%.

This is a starring role in combat. It just is.

So how does that equate to the game revolving around the PC? The DM has to account for the disparity in design or else the fighter feels useless in combat. The DM may feel the need to use counterstrategies to keep the high ability score PC from just doing everything. If the DM doesn't step in and revolve the game around the power disparity, the other player just feels useless in combat. We don't necessarily want this to be the truth ... but it is.

 

[AlViking]

around 10 attacks per combat,
3-4 combats per day,
5-10 of those days per level,

it adds up

Does it though? How often? If Blarg the Barbarian hits the goblin for 10 damage and the goblin only had 5HP left, it doesn't matter if they could have hit it for 11 damage instead. In theory it adds up I'm just not sure it will add up enough for anyone to notice.