D&D 5E Wizard with 20 CON and the Durable feat

[TwoSix]

Why? What does mechanically differentiating your character make it better somehow? Does not having the feat prevent you from getting into bar fights? All the feat does is make you more powerful when getting in bar fights. It certainly doesn't make bar fights somehow "better" or the character "better". All it does is make them different in a very small and inconsequential way. Exactly the same as saying "I like to get into bar fights" in scope.

No, but just saying I'm better at bar fights doesn't make me want to get into bar fights. If my flaw was "A little bit of a prinking droblem," then sure, absolutely. Knowing that I'm good at bar fights does make me want to get in them more. If I take Dungeon Delver, I want to go to dungeons more.

However, in one case the conversation is about the character and in the other it's about the mechanics.

Contrast:
"I punch that guy in the face!"
"Not again! Why are you always getting into bar fights?!?"
"Shut your face! I love fighting!"

vs

"I punch that guy in the face. I do more damage because I have Tavern Brawler!"
"I thought about taking that feat. But I didn't think we'd get into enough bar fights to make it worthwhile"
"That's why I'm starting this bar fight. I took the feat, I'm going to darn well use it!"

I find only one of those conversations interesting, but it's probably not the one you do.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Only if you can't follow the math.

It's not only the math that matters. There's other factors involved. How much math precisely is "I draw two swords instead of one per round" worth? You can express it on the one attack per combat you might miss because you can't draw your second weapon. But what number do you put on the frustration you feel each time you say "I wish I could draw both my weapons this round"?

And when that extra complication is several orders of magnitude less than the existing complication you can say that realistically, no, it doesn't.

Honestly, I just gave you the full complications of a 1st level fighter compared to a 1st level fighter with a feat. It looks like the text and options were triple that of the character without the feat. At higher levels? Sure, there are more options without feats. Add an equal number of feats and I think "several orders of magnitude" is a bit of a stretch.

Either way, the point isn't how MUCH extra complication it adds, but that it adds complication at ALL. Most characters in 5e so far literally have to think of exactly 4 numbers all combat: To Hit, Damage, HP, AC. The action they'll take in 95% of rounds is "attack" and maybe move. Even my 6th level group spends most rounds doing exactly that.

The options in that feat already require you to keep track of a bunch more things than you did before: Did I bring them to 0? Did I crit? Do I want to take a -5 to attacks to do more damage? Is it worth it?

When previously the choices were: "Do I want to attack this round? Which enemy?"

 

[fanboy2000]

But you don't want people to take stat bumps! I want a player taking 5 feats to be a worthwhile option compared to Main Stat 20.

I don't think that was ever a design goal. That's not what I want, personally.

I view feats as something people take after they've maxed out their Main Stat. Or, alternatively, something they take TO max out their Prime Stat, in the case of +1 feats.

Feats are radically optional. First, the DM has to allow them. Second, the player can choose between them and stat increases. So I don't care if a feat is suboptimal compared to +2 in your Main Stat because your likely to choose to do that instead.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't think that was ever a design goal. That's not what I want, personally.

I view feats as something people take after they've maxed out their Main Stat. Or, alternatively, something they take TO max out their Prime Stat, in the case of +1 feats.

Feats are radically optional. First, the DM has to allow them. Second, the player can choose between them and stat increases. So I don't care if a feat is suboptimal compared to +2 in your Main Stat because your likely to choose to do that instead.

Cool.

I, on the other hand, will be giving out +1 stat AND a feat for each Ability Score Increase, because I want people to take feats. Thank goodness for the ease of houserules.

 

[pemerton]

...

Describing a process for determining something is not the same thing as defining it. I could tell you: to determine the volume of a glass, fill it with water than pour that water into a measuring cup. That doesn't define the phrase "volume of a glass".

I note also that you have not explained how you think the halfling's "Lucky" ability is meant to work. Do you think it can never help an attack roll or saving throw if that roll is made with a bonus?

A die without modifiers cannot roll higher than the highest number that is on the die. A six sided die has six sides numbered 1 through 6 and thus cannot roll higher than six. The number ten is higher than the number six and so the die cannot roll a 10. A statement that says it can roll higher than six without modifiers is illogical.

In resolving game mechanics, a die is first and foremost an abstract notion for generating random numbers. If a rule says that a random number that would normally be determined by rolling d6 is instead equal to 10, that is not illogical. It is stipulating a result in place of determing one by random roll.
[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION] makes the same point in post 137.

 

[Wrathamon]

Use a dwarf. I hear they are the best spellcasters anyway.

I am upset that my classic character concept of a dwarven wizard has been ruined by the internet.

I will be called cheezy now instead of wow that is different.