D&D 5E What To Do With Racial ASIs?

What would you like to see done with racial trait ASIs?

  • Leave them alone! It makes the races more distinctive.

    Votes: 81 47.4%
  • Make them floating +2 and +1 where you want them.

    Votes: 33 19.3%
  • Move them to class and/or background instead.

    Votes: 45 26.3%
  • Just get rid of them and boost point buy and the standard array.

    Votes: 17 9.9%
  • Remove them and forget them, they just aren't needed.

    Votes: 10 5.8%
  • Got another idea? Share it!

    Votes: 18 10.5%
  • Ok, I said leave them alone, darn it! (second vote)

    Votes: 41 24.0%
  • No, make them floating (second vote).

    Votes: 9 5.3%
  • Come on, just move them the class and/or backgrounds (second vote).

    Votes: 15 8.8%
  • Aw, just bump stuff so we don't need them (second vote).

    Votes: 4 2.3%
  • Or, just remove them and don't worry about it (second vote).

    Votes: 8 4.7%
  • But I said I have another idea to share! (second vote).

    Votes: 4 2.3%

Sure. Way more than 4% of 1-3 PCs are Human:

That link shows that nearly 60% of PCs on D&D beyond use feats. It also shows what we all know. The first ASI is often used to bump the prime stat and then once that's done, at 8th level the number of feat using characters skyrockets to nearly 50%.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've often thought the same thing. I would not be surprised if many players rush for that 20 in their main attack stat so unless they start with an odd number and pick up a half feat for an additional +1 then they are, more often than not, going to boost their stat with the standard +2. I know for me it is very rare that a feat will complete a character I'm making to the point where I'll pick it up as soon as I have the opportunity.
It’s fairly common for me, but that’s because it’s part of how I like to build my characters. The classes and subclasses are too cookie-cutter for my taste, offering little to no room to customize my character (though some are better about this than others - there’s a reason Warlock is my favorite class this edition). Feats provide me with a way to distinguish my character from others of the same class and subclass, so I usually build my characters to take advantage of a Feat I want to use and grab it as early as possible. But I know I am very much not in the majority on this.
 


I just can't get over the weird idea that feats are only uncommon because most characters on the site are level 1-3.

I mean, in the dev update video, or the comments responding to it, I think @BadEye stated that feats are still unpopular when you correct for active characters of level 4 and higher. Not to mention that no such "explanaition" is remotely possible as an explanation of wotc's data. Gotta just call wotc liars for that, apparently.

I just don't get it.

I've literally never taken a single ASI in 5e, and I doubt I ever will. I can't imagine a character where i would. I suggested level 1 bonus feats and gaining +1 to a stat when taking a feat from class levels as a houserule because I just assumed that I saw ASIs being taken in my Eberron campaign because the math-centered players were too worried about the numbers to look at feats. I...really prefer the game with feats.

But it isn't difficult for me, at all, on literally any level, to accept that feats aren't that popular. Why is it hard to accept for some folks?
 

I just can't get over the weird idea that feats are only uncommon because most characters on the site are level 1-3.

I mean, in the dev update video, or the comments responding to it, I think @BadEye stated that feats are still unpopular when you correct for active characters of level 4 and higher. Not to mention that no such "explanaition" is remotely possible as an explanation of wotc's data. Gotta just call wotc liars for that, apparently.

I just don't get it.

I've literally never taken a single ASI in 5e, and I doubt I ever will. I can't imagine a character where i would. I suggested level 1 bonus feats and gaining +1 to a stat when taking a feat from class levels as a houserule because I just assumed that I saw ASIs being taken in my Eberron campaign because the math-centered players were too worried about the numbers to look at feats. I...really prefer the game with feats.

But it isn't difficult for me, at all, on literally any level, to accept that feats aren't that popular. Why is it hard to accept for some folks?
Maybe because even the link provided shows that by the second ASI 49% of PCs have a feat and it's 58% by the third ASI. That's hardly unpopular.
 


Maybe because even the link provided shows that by the second ASI 49% of PCs have a feat and it's 58% by the third ASI. That's hardly unpopular.
Almost like a large number of characters contributing to those percentages are just test builds that WotC controlled for in their analysis 🤣
 

This is just absurd. It's tiring watching some of y'all jump through every possible hoop to avoid accepting a fact that doesn't remotely affect you.

Feats aren't that popular.


Parmandur is a more patient person than many of us, and probably will, but dude. Seriously?

You know damn well how to google things.

I mean, Feats are fairly popular, it's a solid minority that's into them. The design as it stands is a really pretty amazing acommodation between differing styles, even allowing people to choose differently at the same table with no negative consequences.
 

Almost like a large number of characters contributing to those percentages are just test builds that WotC controlled for in their analysis 🤣

In Bradford's breakdown, it's more that the Tier 1 and 2 characters vastly outnumbered the higher tier characters.

There's a heavy Venn diagram overlap between the minority who use Feats, and the minority who plays high level games.
 

I mean, Feats are fairly popular, it's a solid minority that's into them. The design as it stands is a really pretty amazing acommodation between differing styles, even allowing people to choose differently at the same table with no negative consequences.
It’s a great example of the potential behind the modularity concept. If only they’d managed to pull it off more broadly as they had been hoping to at the beginning of the design process.
 

Remove ads

Top