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

[Chocolategravy]

Feats in 5e have been specifically balanced to be exactly the same or slightly worse than a +2 to a stat. This is to make sure that new players who don't want to complicate their character with feats aren't less powerful than those who take feats. Feats also give you more options and more flavor which should be its own reward.

LOL, well, they're NOT even CLOSE to being balanced to be the same as a +2 stat. Durable is quite a bit worse. Heavy Armor Master and Great Weapon Master are quite a bit better.

There were a few, quite laughable and wrong, reasons given for the jumbo feats. However given that class abilities and sub-class abilities, which are really just complex feat trees, are often quite a bit more complex than feats, not allowing feats is really doing nothing to simplify your character. All it does is remove one of the very few ways you can customize your character so it isn't mechanically exactly the same as every other character of the same class.

 

[marleykat]

In the interest of being constructive, here's the house rule I'm going to use in my game.

"Ability Score Improvement: You may gain either a +2 to one stat, a +1 to two stats, or a +1 to one stat and a feat."

Why even take the first or second option then?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I agree. Getting them to be "exactly the same" is obviously a fool's errand, but they should be in the 80-110% range, in my estimation. And you should reward people for choosing flavor over blandness by not giving them something ineffective.

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.

Here's the deal. I like "blandness". There's a reason feats are an optional rule in the first place. I want people concentrating on their character's personality. I find the only way to make people do that is by minimizing the amount of mechanics on their character. The reason both 3.5e and eventually 4e drove me insane is because the game became ABOUT the mechanics. As I said before, your class, race and background didn't matter nearly as much as your feats which were the meat and potatoes of your character. Sure, you got BAB, skills and hitpoints from your class...but that wasn't anywhere near as cool as the ability to get free trip attempts on all your attack rolls or add poison damage to all of your attacks.

So because of that, players obsessed over feats...they planned their entire character just to qualify for feats or to get the final feat in a feat chain.

5e is attempting to make feats entirely optional and equal to never taking feats at all. The only way to do that is to make sure the "coolness" of having a special ability no one else gets is factored into the balance. I want my players to look at the list of feats and HONESTLY consider taking all stat bumps.

I can tell you that people ARE taking feats in my games. There is always at least one or two feats that someone feels their character would be incomplete without. The rest they take as stat bumps. I like that. Feats are taken because they fit the character not simply because taking them is always better than a stat bump. To me, stat bumps should be the default.

There's no need to obsess with feats if they suit your flavor and they're just as good as a stat bump. You just take the one that sounds cool. If nothing really fits, then you take the stat bump.

I agree. You were suggesting that you needed to REWARD people for taking the feat. If there is a reward, you take the option that rewards you rather than the one that doesn't. There shouldn't be a reward to taking one option. You take it because you feel it is best for your character.

My two weapon fighter will take the feat because I'd like to fight every round of combat with 2 weapons and being able to draw only one weapon a round doesn't really fit my image of him. I'd also like to use a longer weapon as his primary. It would be a better idea mechanically to just add +2 dex. I won't do it though, because the "coolness" of the feat makes it more valuable for me.

To me, that's precisely the sweet spot that feats need to hit. Useful for those people who really want the ability they provide...not useful for anyone else.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

LOL, well, they're NOT even CLOSE to being balanced to be the same as a +2 stat. Durable is quite a bit worse. Heavy Armor Master and Great Weapon Master are quite a bit better.

I'd say that's debatable. As I mentioned, I've been running 2 5e games for a while now and there's nearly an equal number of feats and stat bumps being chosen. I'd say that whether they are worth it depends on the character that is taking them.

There were a few, quite laughable and wrong, reasons given for the jumbo feats. However given that class abilities and sub-class abilities, which are really just complex feat trees, are often quite a bit more complex than feats, not allowing feats is really doing nothing to simplify your character. All it does is remove one of the very few ways you can customize your character so it isn't mechanically exactly the same as every other character of the same class.

Any mechanics added to your character make it more complicated.

I mean if your fighter's character sheet says "+6 to hit for 2d6+4 damage. Reroll 1s or 2s for damage with two handed weapons." and another fighter's says "+5 to hit for 2d6+3 damage. Reroll 1s or 2s for damage with two handed weapons. If you crit or reduce an enemy to 0 hitpoints with a melee weapon you can make one weapon attack as a bonus action. When you make a melee attack with a heavy weapon that you are proficient with, you can take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you can roll the weapon's damage dice one additional time, add your strength modifier, and add the total to the attack's normal damage.".....well the second one is more complex than the first one.

So, by not allowing that feat you are simplifying the game. There are less decision points being made, there are less things that the player needs to keep track of.

 

[TwoSix]

Why even take the first or second option then?

I certainly wouldn't, but they exist for you if lack of a feat is important for your character description. After all, there's nothing wrong with taking a suboptimal choice to make the character you want, right?

 

[TwoSix]

Ack, double post.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

The feat (assuming we are reading it to apply to the die roll only rather than the total) says no such thing. It states that "the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll" is 10; the minimum applies to the resulting hit point gain, not to the physical number on the die.

If you roll less than a 10, you regain 10 instead. If you're rolling a 6-sided die, you will always roll less than 10 and so you will always regain 10 instead.

 

[TwoSix]

Here's the deal. I like "blandness". There's a reason feats are an optional rule in the first place. I want people concentrating on their character's personality. I find the only way to make people do that is by minimizing the amount of mechanics on their character. The reason both 3.5e and eventually 4e drove me insane is because the game became ABOUT the mechanics. As I said before, your class, race and background didn't matter nearly as much as your feats which were the meat and potatoes of your character. Sure, you got BAB, skills and hitpoints from your class...but that wasn't anywhere near as cool as the ability to get free trip attempts on all your attack rolls or add poison damage to all of your attacks.

Yea, my priority is pretty much the opposite. I like building my character mechanically, and then deriving backstory and personality from the choices I made. I think we're diametrically opposed on our priorities, which is why our opinion on feats is also diametrically opposed.

5e is attempting to make feats entirely optional and equal to never taking feats at all. The only way to do that is to make sure the "coolness" of having a special ability no one else gets is factored into the balance. I want my players to look at the list of feats and HONESTLY consider taking all stat bumps.

And my desire is for people to see the list of feats and have too many solid choices to take them all. I want my players to look at the list of feats and HONESTLY consider taking NO stat bumps.

I agree. You were suggesting that you needed to REWARD people for taking the feat. If there is a reward, you take the option that rewards you rather than the one that doesn't. There shouldn't be a reward to taking one option. You take it because you feel it is best for your character.

There should be a reward for making a mechanical choice that DIFFERENTIATES your character. Saying "I'm a dwarf who loves getting into bar fights" is old hat. I'd rather see you take Tavern Brawler, and prove it by doing it.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yea, my priority is pretty much the opposite. I like building my character mechanically, and then deriving backstory and personality from the choices I made. I think we're diametrically opposed on our priorities, which is why our opinion on feats is also diametrically opposed.

I'm not diametrically opposed. I enjoy mechanical differentiation as much as the next guy. I happily powergamed my way through 3.0/3.5/4e. I picked the most optimal feats possible and loved every minute of it. After 14 years of that, I'm kind of done with it, though. I've seen the difference removing those choices had on the game. And I love it more than I ever thought I would.

It's subtle. But when a game session in 3.5e ended, my friends would immediately pull out their books and start planning what classes they were taking for the next 5 levels and which feats they'd take in order to "complete their build" so they could finally play the character they wanted to play. Then they'd discuss which character's they'd made as backup characters and the cool combos they found by combining feats.

When my 5e session ends, they sit around and discuss the NPCs they hate and which direction they plan on heading next session. Whether they care more about stopping the bandits or helping the dwarves with their undead problem. They also discuss whether or not one of their old characters who became and NPC might be tracking them down.

The focus of the game has really shifted now that feats aren't that important to their characters and so far apart to obtain. This is where I want the focus of the game to be. So, for me, this is a good thing. I like the focus on the character's personalities and their adventures.

And my desire is for people to see the list of feats and have too many solid choices to take them all. I want my players to look at the list of feats and HONESTLY consider taking NO stat bumps.

I've honestly considered that already. There's just not ENOUGH good feats for a particular character. I'd love there to be more. But right now, there are maybe 1 or 2 that really work for any one character. I think a certain type of character might consider taking all feats.

There should be a reward for making a mechanical choice that DIFFERENTIATES your character. Saying "I'm a dwarf who loves getting into bar fights" is old hat. I'd rather see you take Tavern Brawler, and prove it by doing it.

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.

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!"

 

[Chocolategravy]

I'd say that's debatable.

Only if you can't follow the math.

Any mechanics added to your character make it more complicated.

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