D&D 5E What To Do With Racial ASIs?

[Maxperson]

Y... yes... I didn’t claim otherwise.

You kinda did when you responded to my post by eliminating them and pointing to GWM and Bow Master as the feats closest to ASI's. The very, very strong implication was that you don't think Sentinal and War Caster are close to ASI's.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

You kinda did when you responded to my post by eliminating them and pointing to GWM and Bow Master as the feats closest to ASI's. The very, very strong implication was that you don't think Sentinal and War Caster are close to ASI's.

Or someone had an opinion that those were the most relevant ones to them, so they discussed it.

 

[Charlaquin]

You kinda did when you responded to my post by eliminating them and pointing to GWM and Bow Master as the feats closest to ASI's. The very, very strong implication was that you don't think Sentinal and War Caster are close to ASI's.

I don’t think they’re as close, but I do think they’re strong contenders.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t think they’re as close, but I do think they’re strong contenders.

I think all 4 of those are better than a +2 or 2 +1's.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Wow, a threadjack on feats but like 50 posts since I ask for a citation on it!

Well, personally I don't trust D&D Beyond data. Just because it is the only data we have doesn't mean it's accurate really. We know people use it to test out builds and such with character concepts that never get played. I don't count that.

I cited before the poll I did on EnWorld and over 90% of games used feats IIRC. I'm not saying that's any better data, but at least I know where it is coming from and people posted about characters they actually played. I find that more reliable.

I've stated how a 16 (or 18 sometimes) is all I need for my PC to feel satisfied. I rarely bother boosting any other ability score unless I have two odds I can make even to bump up the modifiers. 90% of the time I will bump stats with feats that grant ASI +1's anyway. Sure, there aren't a lot depending on what you want to bump, but I see those feats as killing two birds with one stone.

As @Maxperson has said, so many feats offer way more benefit both for flavor and game mechanics than a simple stat bump via ASI.

Anecdotally, more people here have expressed that they used feats, even if only a couple, than the single one (maybe two) who said they never use them. I can honestly tell you in our tables 3 out of 4 ASIs go to feats, not ability score bumps. For others, it is reversed and maybe 1 in 4 ASIs go to feats, but the fact is the still use them.

If the average PC gets 3-4 ASIs, I couldn't imagine using all of those on ASIs! It would seem like such a waste!

Either way, thanks to everyone for continuing to share your own views and insights into the game (and for keeping the thread that will not die going! ).

 

[Maxperson]

As @Maxperson has said, so many feats offer way more benefit both for flavor and game mechanics than a simple stat bump via ASI.

And a lot of them come with a +1 to a stat, so it's only half an ASI that you are spending.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Because False Equivalences, Strawmen and Reducto ad Absurdem are your go to arguments.

Hmmm, toeing awfully close to the line of attacking me, not my posts. But that’s ok; it’s all just in fun.

But, speaking of logical fallacies, let us refer back to this leap of reason, which followed my reaction to your distrust of Jeremy Crawford. (Yes, THAT Jeremy Crawford, corrupt mouthpiece of corporate evil):

If you want to believe everything corporations tell you...

 

[Parmandur]

Wow, a threadjack on feats but like 50 posts since I ask for a citation on it!

Well, personally I don't trust D&D Beyond data. Just because it is the only data we have doesn't mean it's accurate really. We know people use it to test out builds and such with character concepts that never get played. I don't count that.

I cited before the poll I did on EnWorld and over 90% of games used feats IIRC. I'm not saying that's any better data, but at least I know where it is coming from and people posted about characters they actually played. I find that more reliable.

I've stated how a 16 (or 18 sometimes) is all I need for my PC to feel satisfied. I rarely bother boosting any other ability score unless I have two odds I can make even to bump up the modifiers. 90% of the time I will bump stats with feats that grant ASI +1's anyway. Sure, there aren't a lot depending on what you want to bump, but I see those feats as killing two birds with one stone.

As @Maxperson has said, so many feats offer way more benefit both for flavor and game mechanics than a simple stat bump via ASI.

Anecdotally, more people here have expressed that they used feats, even if only a couple, than the single one (maybe two) who said they never use them. I can honestly tell you in our tables 3 out of 4 ASIs go to feats, not ability score bumps. For others, it is reversed and maybe 1 in 4 ASIs go to feats, but the fact is the still use them.

If the average PC gets 3-4 ASIs, I couldn't imagine using all of those on ASIs! It would seem like such a waste!

Either way, thanks to everyone for continuing to share your own views and insights into the game (and for keeping the thread that will not die going! ).

A few dozen random people on the Internet versus the data that WotC has carefully researched about the 40+ million people into D&D ...


I'll believe the professionally sou ced research based in self-interest and profit over a poll on a hobbyist website that a miniscule fraction of board members actually participate in.

 

[Maxperson]

Hmmm, toeing awfully close to the line of attacking me, not my posts. But that’s ok; it’s all just in fun.

But, speaking of logical fallacies, let us refer back to this leap of reason, which followed my reaction to your distrust of Jeremy Crawford. (Yes, THAT Jeremy Crawford, corrupt mouthpiece of corporate evil):

Another Strawman by you. I just said that I don't just accept at face value what corporate spokes people say.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Another Strawman by you. I just said that I don't just accept at face value what corporate spokes people say.

Mmmm...no you didn’t. I expressed skepticism in your belief that JC is lying in this one case*, and you jumped to an accusation (albeit quasi-indirectly; useful for plausible deniability) that I believe, and I quote, “everything” said by corporations.

*I mean, really, what possible motive would JC have to lie about this? Just general corporate evil-ness? A desire to not break a perfect record of lying? WTF?