Do you hate having to pick between ability score increases and feats?
Do you hate having to pick between ability score increases and feats?
My paladin is now level 4 and has 19 strength and 15 charisma. I know it is probably better to take the ability score increase and get another +1 on the majority of rolls I'll be making but that's just so boring!
I'm taking Shield Master instead.
Does anyone else have this conflict?
Most people seem to be misunderstanding. I don't mind having to make "tough choices" in general, only when the obviously correct choice is boring and the suboptimal one is the cool fun one.
i've personally (as DM) let players have both a feat and an ASI at the appropriate levels. Honestly doesn't hurt balance that much overall, just makes for slightly more powerful PCs.
I heard one DM say that they let the players choose, either they get to pick a feat, or they pick an ASI and the DM chooses a feat for them. The reason being that it means that the player has the chance to pick one of the big power spike feats (GWM, PAM, Sentinel, War caster) or get an ASI and get something thats not quite as big an impact mechanically, but helps develop the flavor of their character ( think like actor, charger, heavily armored). I haven't tried it, but I want to give it a shot some time.
OP, this is a good homebrew rule to talk to your DM and fellow players about. Some tables prefer to keep it as-is, citing that it picking between the two makes for a meaningful choice. Others, me included, prefer to have their cake and eat it too. It'll make your campaign feel a little bit more high fantasy, with a party of adventurers that all have 20 in their main stats. For many, that's a positive.
If your DM is comfortable adjusting encounters for a party with maxed stats and a couple extra feats, it's (imo) a great rule to run with.
Same. I feel like the ASI give the pc more of a gradual power bump, and the feats let's them make the character more "their'", whether they choose something for RP, supporting a particular playstyle/build or something else. As a player I sometimes feel bad for having to decide between being stronger or making a fun character
I hate how rarely you get ASI’s and feats. Plus with the reliance on half feats, it’s so much work to figure out what to do. I think that all feats should change to half feats, lose the built in ASI, and then every even level you get a choice of a +1 in a stat of your choice or one of these ASI-less half feats.
It’s a very anti-fun design decision. But then again, feats are an optional rule for some reason so it would be hard to have it a different way.
The designers are really kidding themselves by calling them optional still.
I do know someone who doesn't allow feats at their table because they feel feats are overpowered.
My table gets a free feat at lvl 1.
I think feats are one of the coolest aspects of D&D character customization, so it's always a pain when it's stifled in favor of number-go-up. Depending on how high I plan to go, I give my players a feat every level or every other level. They end up with more than they know what to do with and end up taking RP feats, which are sorely underutilized because of the opportunity cost of obtaining them.
Yes, the PCs get more powerful, but that just means I rebalance enemies.
I'm not a fan. But I need to stop playing D&D because, among other reasons, I find class+level too coarsely grained. I'd rather be able to spend xp directly on stuff like in cofd, fate, many other games I know less well.
5e is weirdly stingy with ASIs and feats. It is kinda weird
5e is twice as generous as 3.5 with ASIs where you got 1 point every four levels. This was balanced out by the entire system having a lot more ways to increase your numbers, in the case of ability scores there are a buttload of different magic items that boost them either permanently or while worn (and there's no attunement to limit to how many items you can benefit from though similar sources don't stack benefits). Comparably 3.5 is also more generous with feats, giving them out every three character levels (not class levels) and if you're a fighter your entire class mechanic is literally "get a bonus feat at first level and every even numbered level." But feats in that system are mostly either less effective than 5e counterparts (5e using compressed numbers and bonded accuracy affects this) or being grouped into chains/trees of multiple feats you need to get the best affects. An example is how any specialist archer needs Point Blank Shot as a prerequisite for the more effective ones like Rapid Shot and Precise Shot.
5e is built around the idea of bonded accuracy. In super simplified terms that miss a lot of nuance, this basically means all the numbers are smaller insteqad of tacking on literally seven different modifiers to any given roll so that a mid level character isn't good at something unless they can consistently hit a DC 30 check. This means that that +1 bonus you get to relevant rolls from a +2 ASI makes a BIG difference by comparison. Not all 5e feats are super powerful, but you get ones with multiple effects that in 3.5 would be spread around multiple feats that must be taken separately. Additionally the lower numbers you're using means things like lower AC on monsters so that -5 penalty from Sharpshooter or GWM is often a reasonable risk for the extra damage equal to around twice what you average on your normal damage dice. These are much more powerful effects and as such you get less of them.
"A 25 in your primary ability by level 20? Nay, this shall not be!"
Something Something pf2e
Classes? No, GURPS doesn't have classes.
Edit: someone clearly not getting this is a meme
I have grown to accept +4 as a perfectly cromulant ability modifier and only aim to pop it to +5 if there's no feat that stands out to me so you're not alone. Unless I am a spellcaster, then I ignore feats until I get that sweet sweet 20.
I don’t mind having to make “tough choices” in general, only when the obviously correct choice is boring and the suboptimal one is the cool fun one.
This perfectly sums it up. The problem is that increasing your scores needs to be pretty darn strong, strong enough to compete with a feat...but as you said, it's usually pretty boring. A couple of +1s certainly add up and make your character more powerful on average, but a feat that grants entirely new functionality just feels so much more impactful and fun.
I would have preferred them to entirely separate stat growth and feat selection, but the OneDnD method of just making most (all?) feats into "half feats" is acceptable as well.
although with a 19 you should definitely look into the half feats
19 STR and 15 CHA.
Take +1 to both.
That's a good point!
Absolutely. Mathematically the ASI is what you want as a DPS but variety is the spice of life.
Yeah, I always find the choice disappointing too.
Most people have (including me), it's designed that way.
Unpopular opinion: This is a good thing. Having to make meaningful choices with a cost (even if it's just an opportunity cost) is a core part of what makes this an actual game.
I agree with you. The small bump to things like attack rolls, damage rolls, and save DCs from hitting levels that bump your modifier are noticeable, and playing as a wizard in the campaign I'm in right now I can tell you I'm champing at the bit to get my spell DC that one little bit higher because it's the difference between some of my spells having no effect or outright changing the flow of combat. Getting that boost and also some of the big-hitter feats like Tough or War Caster would be a bit much. It gets even worse if you're getting the benefit of the 2 points ASI as well as one from the half-feats.
On the other hand, though, there's a huge gap in the power level between feats, and I'm not sure I'd necessarily feel the same way if the feat chosen was Shield Master, which is one of the weaker of the full feats. I might also be more inclined to set aside a list of the more flavourful feats like Chef that the players could just get for free without the associated ability boost and let the players just pick one for free as character building.
On the other hand, though, there’s a huge gap in the power level between feats, and I’m not sure I’d necessarily feel the same way if the feat chosen was Shield Master, which is one of the weaker of the full feats. I might also be more inclined to set aside a list of the more flavourful feats like Chef that the players could just get for free without the associated ability boost and let the players just pick one for free as character building.
On that, I agree and I've explicitly done exactly that. In hindsight, the option to boost a main stat with a "Ribbon" half feat to 18 was still a tad too strong, but that can be easily house ruled along the lines of
At character creation, every PC can choose a feat from (list). If a half feat is chosen, it's Ability Score Increase can't be used to achieve a total character creation Ability Score Increase of more than +2.
I don't mind choosing between two fun things or two boring things. Just between a fun thing that is suboptimal and a boring thing that is optimal.
I cant really imagine ever taking an ASI. I'd have to be pretty far into a game and playing a class that gets a LOT of feats. even then those classes kinda suck for class features so...
That is exactly the reason I allways play songle Ability characters. I just dont have room for ASI. All the int increase on my wizard comes from half feats.
Cries in paladin
I feel it provides a decent balance, making you choose between raw ability and specialization
It just sucks when the correct choice is boring and the fun choice is wrong.
Both choices are good, just different paths you can take. It’s like being generally good at making bread or really good at pumpernickel
I always have my players take a Feat and ASI at level 4 now. It lets people take fun feats including some power boosting ones while still not making it feel like a bad choice. That way people get to play a feat for the majority of the game instead of only at higher levels
That's the point. If you want everything right away just start with max level characters. Congratulations, no more leveling up means no more agonizing choices.
And no, having a more powerful character at level X doesn't change this. It just means that either your DM starts throwing comparably more powerful enemies at you or everything gets easier. In the first case you're accomplishing nothing because everybody involved is just adding some extra numbers to their rolls. And if you want everything to be easier you might as well just assume you always succeed on every check and get max damage on every attack. For that matter don't bother even pretending to be interested in dice, begin every combat by just describing how you massacre your foes. Then type up a description of it and you're writing a book instead of actually playing a game.
Cool your jets, I'm not saying anything you're saying I am. I didn't say people should get 100% optimal characters right away. I'm just saying it sucks when the better choice is boring.