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

[Charlaquin]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the data says most players don’t use feats, not necessarily that most groups don’t use them. I always allow feats, and in my group of 5, one player almost always takes a Feat at 4th and generally takes ASIs after that, one player always considers Feats at ASI levels but only ends up taking them maybe half the time, one player prefers to get her primary ability to 20 before taking any Feats (which means it’s rare that she takes Feats at all since our games usually end before 12th level), and two players rarely ever bother with Feats. So, anecdotal, but that’s a table that allows Feats where the majority of players still don’t use them.

 

[Parmandur]

@Parmandur do you have a broken sense of humor or were you abusing the laugh button? Nothing I said in that post was funny.

Yes, no, and that's in the eye of the beholder, respectively.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, no, and that's in the eye of the beholder, respectively.

Not around here. If there's nothing funny about my post, don't laugh at them. I'll start reporting it from here on out.

 

[Parmandur]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the data says most players don’t use feats, not necessarily that most groups don’t use them. I always allow feats, and in my group of 5, one player almost always takes a Feat at 4th and generally takes ASIs after that, one player always considers Feats at ASI levels but only ends up taking them maybe half the time, one player prefers to get her primary ability to 20 before taking any Feats (which means it’s rare that she takes Feats at all since our games usually end before 12th level), and two players rarely ever bother with Feats. So, anecdotal, but that’s a table that allows Feats where the majority of players still don’t use them.

Crawford nuanced that in the video about the Feat UA, yup. Part of that is that for balance purposes, Feats can't be better than a stat bump. When my brother in law DMs, he always yours Feats as an option, proactively, but then we all get stat bumps anyways.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the data says most players don’t use feats, not necessarily that most groups don’t use them. I always allow feats, and in my group of 5, one player almost always takes a Feat at 4th and generally takes ASIs after that, one player always considers Feats at ASI levels but only ends up taking them maybe half the time, one player prefers to get her primary ability to 20 before taking any Feats (which means it’s rare that she takes Feats at all since our games usually end before 12th level), and two players rarely ever bother with Feats. So, anecdotal, but that’s a table that allows Feats where the majority of players still don’t use them.

I think people would take more feats if ASIs weren't generally a better option. There is clearly no consensus on how to fix that problem, however.

 

[Parmandur]

Nothing to see here, just talking to nobody...

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Another thing to keep in mind is that the data says most players don’t use feats, not necessarily that most groups don’t use them. I always allow feats, and in my group of 5, one player almost always takes a Feat at 4th and generally takes ASIs after that, one player always considers Feats at ASI levels but only ends up taking them maybe half the time, one player prefers to get her primary ability to 20 before taking any Feats (which means it’s rare that she takes Feats at all since our games usually end before 12th level), and two players rarely ever bother with Feats. So, anecdotal, but that’s a table that allows Feats where the majority of players still don’t use them.

Yep. I think feats competing with the ASIs and most campaigns not going to high levels in effect result most players not using feats. I think making the feats and ASIs to use the same resource was a mistake.

 

[Parmandur]

I think people would take more feats if ASIs weren't generally a better option. There is clearly no consensus on how to fix that problem, however.

It's not necessarily a problem from WotC point of view. Crawford seemed quite pleased with the balance 5E stuck while discussing the UA.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not necessarily a problem from WotC point of view. Crawford seemed quite pleased with the balance 5E stuck while discussing the UA.

Fair enough. I'm under no obligation to agree with WotC, however. I just have to accept their choices.

 

[Parmandur]

Yep. I think feats competing with the ASIs and most campaigns not going to high levels in effect result most players not using feats. I think making the feats and ASIs to use the same resource was a mistake.

I mean, based on what they said, they needed to balance a significant number of people (probably not the majority) who didn't want Feats at all, and the significant number who loved Feats, and those in the middle. Making them an optional rule, with characters working fine with or without Feats, is a major design triumph.