Bonus Points: a variant on feats and abilty score increases.

[Cybren]

So, I have always disliked the binary nature of feats. This doesn't totally address that issue, in that feast are still a "have it or do not have it" sort of thing, but it alleviates it somewhat by making them require less rare a resource and varying their cost, presumably allowing weaker feat options to see more play. This is both an idea in development and one that might prove redundant when the DMG is released.

In addition, I always find it occasionally interesting to grant non-XP, non-loot rewards to players. DMs might consider granting bonus BP as an alternate to giving Inspiration or Bonus XP for whatever reason, or perhaps just use the concept as a gauge of the value of different abilities for non-loot rewards. Alternatively, DMs might only say that a handful of choices can be taken "on the fly", and that others require in-game events to acquire. Who doesn't love a training montage?
Character power generally goes up under this system, but in easily mitigated and adjusted ways (give fewer BPs per ABI, restrict option on where BPs can be spent, etc).


Whenever a character would gain an ability score increase from their class, instead that character receives 3 Bonus Points.
Characters may save Bonus Points to spend later.
Feats that would grant a bonus to an ability score normally instead do not under this system.
Feat Variant Humans in this version instead receive +1 to two ability scores and 3 BP to spend on anything other than improving ability scores.
Given that PCs receive 3BPs that could translate to a total of +3 to ability scores it may prove prudent to have a "Rule of Twos" or somesuch: PCs cannot spend more than 2 BPs on any combination of ability scores until they receive more BPs from their class.






+1 to an ability score.
Gain a skill, tool, or weapon proficiency.
Learn a language.
Actor, Athlete, Charger, Defensive Duelist, Durable, Healer, Keen Mind, Observant, or Tavern Brawler feats.
Learn a spell from your class spell list.
Gain proficiency with shields (requires light armor prof.)
Auto succeed a die roll [May prove unpopular or used only on death saving throws. DMs might dislike the lack of drama in being able to auto succeed, and players will likely hate losing character 'power'. This is simply an idea.]





Gain a fighting Style
Gain proficiency in light armor.
Gain proficiency in medium armor and shields (requires light armor prof.) (DMs may allow players to upgrade shield prof into this)
Gain proficiency in heavy armor (requires medium armor prof.)
Gain expertise with a skill or tool.
Alert, Crossbow Expert, Dual Wielder, Dungeon Delver, Grappler, Inspiring Leader, Mage Slayer, Magic Initiate, Martial Adept, Mobile, Resilient, Ritual Caster, Savage Attacker, Shield Master, Skulker, Tough, or War Caster feats.
Add a spell to your class spell list.




Elemental Adept, Great Weapon Master, Heavy Armor Master, Lucky, Medium Armor Mastery, Mounted Combat, Polearm Master, Sentinel, Sharpshooter, and Spell Sniper feats.
Gain a spell slot. Should probably be restricted in some way.
Gain an Extra Life. May be used retroactively. [This is another one that might be an unpopular choice but occasionally used. At higher levels you can probably just pay for a resurrection and lower level characters will not have the BPs to spend.]

[Strill]

I like the idea, but not everything in the list. Some of it, like "Add a spell to your class's spell list" seems to infringe on class identity.

Also some of your feat tier arrangements are ridiculous. Defensive Duelist, for example, is awesome. Having it only worth 1BP is crazy.

Otherwise I think it's a pretty solid houserule feat system. I like it a lot.

[Cybren]

I like the idea, but not everything in the list. Some of it, like "Add a spell to your class's spell list" seems to infringe on class identity.

Also some of your feat tier arrangements are ridiculous. Defensive Duelist, for example, is awesome. Having it only worth 1BP is crazy.

Well, obviously this both has yet to be playtested and is predicated on the idea of the DM being the one that decides what is an acceptable use of Bonus Points. Some feats or options might not be as strong or be stronger than they look and only time will demonstrate where they should be costed. Also, how good is defensive duelist? it requires your reaction, so it seems limited in utility.
I do share your concern with mainlining class identity, though. I suppose though, another previously unstated goal was to allow a little bit more multiclassing-esque utility without the weirdness of multiclassing in this edition.

[Strill]

Also, how good is defensive duelist? it requires your reaction, so it seems limited in utility.
You can use it AFTER the die has been rolled. You wait to see what the roll is each time, and only ever use Defensive Duelist if it will make the difference. If you have high AC and block almost all the attacks you take, Defensive Duelist can negate the last one that gets through every turn. It saves you a ton of health.

[rollingForInit]

Very intersting. My group really dislikes that you have to choose between ABI and feats as well.

[archaeo]

Very intersting. My group really dislikes that you have to choose between ABI and feats as well.

Seems like the easiest way to roll with this is to just allow taking both at once. You'll unbalance the game to a certain extent, with that unbalance increasing as you approach level 20, but you can probably still keep it challenging by adding a bit to the XP budget for encounters/throwing more "hard" encounters than "medium" every adventuring day.

Personally, I think it's a good and interesting decision, having to choose between the two options. Don't let the opportunity cost get you down!

(I wouldn't be surprised to see the DMG offer a different take on the stat/feat thing, but that's not based on anything other than the suspicion that they'll probably try to offer some way to make 5e characters "more customizable".)

[Strill]

Personally, I think it's a good and interesting decision, having to choose between the two options. Don't let the opportunity cost get you down!
The problem I have with it is that certain feats dramatically change the way you play the game. I find those game-changers way more interesting than ordinary stat boosts, but the stat boosts are still more effective.

[rollingForInit]

Seems like the easiest way to roll with this is to just allow taking both at once. You'll unbalance the game to a certain extent, with that unbalance increasing as you approach level 20, but you can probably still keep it challenging by adding a bit to the XP budget for encounters/throwing more "hard" encounters than "medium" every adventuring day.

Personally, I think it's a good and interesting decision, having to choose between the two options. Don't let the opportunity cost get you down!

(I wouldn't be surprised to see the DMG offer a different take on the stat/feat thing, but that's not based on anything other than the suspicion that they'll probably try to offer some way to make 5e characters "more customizable".)

I guess it's how I see ability scores. If you use a two-handed weapon so much that you grow in skill (e.g. by taking the great weapon master feat, whatever it is called), that's how you've applied your strength. Your strength should still increase. It's a bit like ... no matter if you become and expert at ice hockey, or if you practise traditional fencing, your strength will increase. Just because one gives you proficiency in ice hockey equipment (heavy armor?) and the other makes you better with a sword, both would still include physical exercise and getting stronger.

That is, ability scores should increase passively, because of all the hard work you do. The feats represent your particular area of expertise. Taking both isn't perfect from that PoV, of course; taking an armor proficiency and increasing your intelligence doesn't make a lot of sense. But you get my point? The Spell Sniper feat, for instance, probably comes from casting spells a lot. That means either heavy use of Cha, Int or Wis. Therefore, those ability scores should increase when you take a feat like that.

I could see a system where you scrap ABI completely, only have feats, but all feats have ABI's connected to them. For that to be fun and varied, there would have to be quite a few more feats, though.

[Daishain]

I could see a system where you scrap ABI completely, only have feats, but all feats have ABI's connected to them. For that to be fun and varied, there would have to be quite a few more feats, though.
Not necessarily, each feat could have multiple ability advances to choose among. For instance, spell related feats could advance any of the mental attributes, and heavy armor master could advance either strength or constitution.

[rollingForInit]

Not necessarily, each feat could have multiple ability advances to choose among. For instance, spell related feats could advance any of the mental attributes, and heavy armor master could advance either strength or constitution.

True! I looked through the feats, and it could probably work with the feats that exist now. The only one I might leave without an ABI would be Lucky, because it feels pretty powerful no matter what type of character you have, and there's no ability score that feels appropriate. Giving it a "choose any ability score to increase" would probably make it something everyone took, always.

[Cybren]

or you could just give a player a feat and a +1 to any score whenever they would gain an ABI.

[Shadow]

or you could just give a player a feat and a +1 to any score whenever they would gain an ABI.

This is something that our group has discussed, with a slight difference.

For our next game, we're considering the following:
Each time your class table grants an ABI, you have two options.
Option 1: Increase one ability score by +1 and either
(a) a feat of your choice
--or--
(b) a second +1 to any ability score

This will grant slightly more +1s than normally allowed (but not by all that much), and will help to alleviate the fact that they are normally mutually exclusive.
We haven't decided, but we're considering it.

[Cybren]

OR:
y'know
the thing
in the OP
that I posted

[Shadow]

OR:
y'know
the thing
in the OP
that I posted

needlessly complicated

[Cybren]

What an engaging, helpful, and developed critique.

[Steel Mirror]

This is something that our group has discussed, with a slight difference.

For our next game, we're considering the following:
Each time your class table grants an ABI, you have two options.
Option 1: Increase one ability score by +1 and either
(a) a feat of your choice
--or--
(b) a second +1 to any ability score

This will grant slightly more +1s than normally allowed (but not by all that much), and will help to alleviate the fact that they are normally mutually exclusive.
We haven't decided, but we're considering it.The thing I would worry about on that one is the number of feats that also give an ability score increase, making them far superior to choosing (b) even if it's not a feat you would otherwise consider taking.

[Shadow]

The thing I would worry about on that one is the number of feats that also give an ability score increase, making them far superior to choosing (b) even if it's not a feat you would otherwise consider taking.

Obviously we're removing the +1s from those feats. If they wanted a second +1, they need to choose that option.

[Steel Mirror]

Obviously we're removing the +1s from those feats. If they wanted a second +1, they need to choose that option.Ah! In that case you will end up with a lot of underpowered feat options, swinging things in the other direction. Few enough people take Resilient or Observant or Tavern Brawler as it is, for example, removing the stat boost makes them just abysmal.

But if you are fine with that, the system should be ok.

[Shadow]

Ah! In that case you will end up with a lot of underpowered feat options, swinging things in the other direction. Few enough people take Resilient or Observant or Tavern Brawler as it is, for example, removing the stat boost makes them just abysmal.

But if you are fine with that, the system should be ok.

That's exactly why we haven't decided yet.
We're also considering sometihng a little more complicated (but not nearly as complicated as the OP) and separating the feats into major/minor.
Under that system, the same applies as above, but only minor feats are available with the +1. If you wanted a major feat, it would eat your entire ABI just as it does now.
And that system would also solve the issue of certain feats being underpowered in comparison to others.

Like I said, we're still considering what to do with it to make it less mutually exclusive.

[pwykersotz]

It's interesting. Sort of a combination between action points and feats. A couple things though...

1. I would avoid using the same 'currency' for both permanent resources such as ability score increases and feats and temporary resources, like die roll success or extra lives.

2. As archaeo said, it might be simpler to just double up and let them have both a feat and an increase at the appropriate levels. You could also say that the ability score increase comes online 2 levels earlier than normal but the feat comes at class progression, allowing for a more gradual growth.

3. Perhaps you could break down the feats (a lot of work, I know) into values that are all worth 1 BP. For example, Sharpshooter. There are three segments, assign each part a value of 1 and let the party take it whenever they earn a single one. This makes feats a bit more gradual like you were saying, and also lets players mix and match in new and interesting ways.

But in terms of overall concept, it's very neat. I'm certain that you'll have fun with it if you implement it.

[Daishain]

3. Perhaps you could break down the feats (a lot of work, I know) into values that are all worth 1 BP. For example, Sharpshooter. There are three segments, assign each part a value of 1 and let the party take it whenever they earn a single one. This makes feats a bit more gradual like you were saying, and also lets players mix and match in new and interesting ways.

Now that could be interesting, there are plenty of cases where there is an individual bullet point of a feat that I'm interested in, but the other features may or may not be of use. Of course, you would have to rank some such features as costing more, such as ritual caster.

[Easy_Lee]

Concept sounds cool to me. I'd personally just decouple attribute boosts from feats, adding a feat selection every X character levels, more if the class gets bonus attribute boosts.. Much simpler, same basic effect. Your concept may be more fun.

[Cybren]

Shadow, I'm curious what you think makes this overly complicated?

It's interesting. Sort of a combination between action points and feats. A couple things though...

1. I would avoid using the same 'currency' for both permanent resources such as ability score increases and feats and temporary resources, like die roll success or extra lives.

2. As archaeo said, it might be simpler to just double up and let them have both a feat and an increase at the appropriate levels. You could also say that the ability score increase comes online 2 levels earlier than normal but the feat comes at class progression, allowing for a more gradual growth.

3. Perhaps you could break down the feats (a lot of work, I know) into values that are all worth 1 BP. For example, Sharpshooter. There are three segments, assign each part a value of 1 and let the party take it whenever they earn a single one. This makes feats a bit more gradual like you were saying, and also lets players mix and match in new and interesting ways.

But in terms of overall concept, it's very neat. I'm certain that you'll have fun with it if you implement it.
1) yeah, I dislike that as well, it was a thought but one I rather quickly decided I didn't like.
2) that's both a much greater increase in power level and also doesn't address some of the granularity issues. Like, what if someone wants to gain proficiency in one skill? One of the ideas was that BP would let you do some customization with things behind what feats were capable of.
3) I like this idea in theory, though I'm not sure how many fears with multiple bullet points are actually worth having all three parts of. Like, it may turn out that one of the abilities is just the only good one and now it becomes way cheaper to get.

[TheOOB]

I'm not sure I like the idea, I think it will be a balance nightmare IMO, and point based systems always end up either terribly unbalanced, or being bland. I do support the idea that characters can can some extra skill/tool/language proficiencies for free as they level.

[Cybren]

I'm not sure I like the idea, I think it will be a balance nightmare IMO, and point based systems always end up either terribly unbalanced, or being bland. I do support the idea that characters can can some extra skill/tool/language proficiencies for free as they level.

I'm not sure I know what "balanced" means but functionally the present system for feats is point based: 1 point gets you a feat or an ability score improvement. That's it.

[infinitetech]

hmm, needs testing and tuning, but good premise...