Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if you had to take a feat at ASI levels?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="squibbles" data-source="post: 8716544" data-attributes="member: 6937590"><p>I haven't tried this.</p><p></p><p>I think if you did, It'd be important to address feat balance. Where using <em>ASIs only</em> lets you avoid the imbalance of feats, using <em>feats only</em> doesn't, even if it makes imbalance no worse. The easiest way would be a for players to have a gentleman's agreement to take feats of comparable strength--so you avoid a situation where one player has sharpshooter and crossbow expert and another player has linguist and elemental adept. Alternately, you could tinker with the overly strong or weak feats... but I'm sure this insight is a surprise to absolutely no one here at ENWorld.</p><p></p><p>The other issue is that some PCs need ASIs a lot more than they benefit from feats. Monks would have a bad time with this houserule (maybe make an exception for them?). So would unusual multiclass combinations (if multiclassing were permitted).</p><p></p><p>Apart from those issues, it's not gonna break the game, and I can see it being a good change of pace. It would incentivize more odd numbered ability scores on character creation and it would disincentivize PCs getting 20 in any ability score, since doing so without the Tasha's custom option would take at least 12 levels. That'd all make PCs a bit less powerful. But they would presumably be more interesting with feats than with ASIs, and it'd give permission to players who want to take, say, chef or wood elf magic (which are <em>fine</em>) without feeling like they're doing something wrong.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, since there aren't <em>that </em>many cool and appealing feats--especially if players decide it's gauche to take SS, GWM, PAM, etc.--you might find that all your PCs now pick up their basic numbers increases via resilient and/or skill expert (which I would consider only marginally more interesting than ASIs). A lot of the fun and flavorful feats don't go together that well flavor-wise. For example: shadow touched and telekinetic are cool and work reasonably well together, since they can both add to the same ability score, but they don't intuitively fit with each other. Does this spur creativity by, for example, pushing the player to think of a good reason why they do go together (awesome), merely lead to the fluff of the feats being ignored (totally fine), or discourage players from taking them together (unfortunate). How much creative mileage you get out of the houserule is gonna depend a lot on the players.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="squibbles, post: 8716544, member: 6937590"] I haven't tried this. I think if you did, It'd be important to address feat balance. Where using [I]ASIs only[/I] lets you avoid the imbalance of feats, using [I]feats only[/I] doesn't, even if it makes imbalance no worse. The easiest way would be a for players to have a gentleman's agreement to take feats of comparable strength--so you avoid a situation where one player has sharpshooter and crossbow expert and another player has linguist and elemental adept. Alternately, you could tinker with the overly strong or weak feats... but I'm sure this insight is a surprise to absolutely no one here at ENWorld. The other issue is that some PCs need ASIs a lot more than they benefit from feats. Monks would have a bad time with this houserule (maybe make an exception for them?). So would unusual multiclass combinations (if multiclassing were permitted). Apart from those issues, it's not gonna break the game, and I can see it being a good change of pace. It would incentivize more odd numbered ability scores on character creation and it would disincentivize PCs getting 20 in any ability score, since doing so without the Tasha's custom option would take at least 12 levels. That'd all make PCs a bit less powerful. But they would presumably be more interesting with feats than with ASIs, and it'd give permission to players who want to take, say, chef or wood elf magic (which are [I]fine[/I]) without feeling like they're doing something wrong. On the other hand, since there aren't [I]that [/I]many cool and appealing feats--especially if players decide it's gauche to take SS, GWM, PAM, etc.--you might find that all your PCs now pick up their basic numbers increases via resilient and/or skill expert (which I would consider only marginally more interesting than ASIs). A lot of the fun and flavorful feats don't go together that well flavor-wise. For example: shadow touched and telekinetic are cool and work reasonably well together, since they can both add to the same ability score, but they don't intuitively fit with each other. Does this spur creativity by, for example, pushing the player to think of a good reason why they do go together (awesome), merely lead to the fluff of the feats being ignored (totally fine), or discourage players from taking them together (unfortunate). How much creative mileage you get out of the houserule is gonna depend a lot on the players. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What if you had to take a feat at ASI levels?
Top