House rule: Stat bonus and a Feat

[Boci]

So one house rule I have been contemplating for 5e is to give character a feat and a the state bonus, rather than requiring them to choose. The only real limitations would be that you could not increase a stat with a feat if you select that stat to be increased. Would this have a bad effect on game balance? It seems like it could make gameplay fun, as players no longer have to choose between the raw power of a stat boost and the more interesting abilities of a feat.

[TopCheese]

So one house rule I have been contemplating for 5e is to give character a feat and a the state bonus, rather than requiring them to choose. The only real limitations would be that you could not increase a stat with a feat if you select that stat to be increased. Would this have a bad effect on game balance? It seems like it could make gameplay fun, as players no longer have to choose between the raw power of a stat boost and the more interesting abilities of a feat.

You could do that, should be fine but don't allow Variant Human. That might be a bit much.

Also for level 1 you should allow players to have 3 points to put into abilities. This will give a more diverse set of characters.

Strength Based Halfling barbarians are freaking awesome.

[dev6500]

So one house rule I have been contemplating for 5e is to give character a feat and a the state bonus, rather than requiring them to choose. The only real limitations would be that you could not increase a stat with a feat if you select that stat to be increased. Would this have a bad effect on game balance? It seems like it could make gameplay fun, as players no longer have to choose between the raw power of a stat boost and the more interesting abilities of a feat.

Only issue I have with your idea is that some of the feats that give a stat point do so because they are weaker than the others.

[Boci]

Only issue I have with your idea is that some of the feats that give a stat point do so because they are weaker than the others.

You can still take such feats, you just can't get +3 to a single stat, you would need to spread them out. Given than the +1 state feats tend to be about diversifying, it seems like any character taking such a feat would already have multiple stats they'd want to boost.


You could do that, should be fine but don't allow Variant Human. That might be a bit much.

Probably yeah. I think Id want to tweak the human then, because I do think the default human is a little dry, but that's another issue.


Also for level 1 you should allow players to have 3 points to put into abilities. This will give a more diverse set of characters.

Maybe, but that seems to be a different issue.

[Aetol]

You could do that, should be fine but don't allow Variant Human. That might be a bit much.

On the contrary, if feats are easier to come by then Variant Human won't be as overpowered as it is now.

[Theodoxus]

My current GM did that when we hit 8th level. It was a bit of a surprise - albeit pleasant. Gave me a chance to pick up a feat I wanted, but didn't really have the ASI expenditure for.

Certainly not game breaking (though I think he did it because we're in a no-magic-item campaign, and it's compensating that slight lack of power that's imposing).

[TopCheese]

On the contrary, if feats are easier to come by then Variant Human won't be as overpowered as it is now.

It isn't an OP/Not OK question. It is more of a question of how many they are getting.

With more feat game you don't really need the V Human.

[Ciraq]

I love the feats in 5e. They make choosing between ASI and a feat a big decision. In 4e, I had a house rule that gave all of my players certain tax feats at different levels, and then allow them their regular feat choices.

One thing to consider is the fact that martial characters would end up with a large number of feats, since they have an increased number of ASIs to begin with. Instead of letting your players choose a feat and the boosts whenever they get an ASI, perhaps you could give the bonus stats at certain levels. This would level the playing field a bit between all of your players.

[TopCheese]

I love the feats in 5e. They make choosing between ASI and a feat a big decision. In 4e, I had a house rule that gave all of my players certain tax feats at different levels, and then allow them their regular feat choices.

One thing to consider is the fact that martial characters would end up with a large number of feats, since they have an increased number of ASIs to begin with. Instead of letting your players choose a feat and the boosts whenever they get an ASI, perhaps you could give the bonus stats at certain levels. This would level the playing field a bit between all of your players.

There was like, three feat taxes I'm 4e (NAD defense, offense, and for giving non str defenders a decent MBA. You could give them all that at level 1 and be done with it.

5e feats don't really give that many new options. The two most well designed feats are Shield Master and Tavern Brawler. They both add on to what you can already do BUT they also give you something new and cool to do. Shield Master and Tavern Brawler's bonus action uses are fantastic. Plus they are thematically awesome.

Sentinel and Polemastet rely on you dealing damage and using your 1 reaction per round in order to be a defender. These are both things you already do in excess.

GWM and sharpshooter just causes issues.

[Ketiara]

Personally I like having to make the hard choice, knowing you lack something because of the choice you made (IMO) makes me more invested in the char.

My current issue: Paladin, do I want 20 str/16Cha along with pole-arm feat or 18/18... If I could have it all, sure it would be cool to be powerful but i would have lost all the time spend contemplating what road to go, and how it would effect my char. And while doing all this I gave my char more depth/personality etc. and right now I'm feeling more invested in the char than I think I would if everything was handed to me on a silver plate.

just my 2cp


EDIT: I now realize that this wasn't your question, so never mind me :D

[Boci]

Personally I like having to make the hard choice, knowing you lack something because of the choice you made (IMO) makes me more invested in the char.

I sort of get that, but I dislike this particular choice because only one of the options is in anyway interesting. I'm fine with the choice of switch archetype to choose, which feat, whether to multiclass or go straight, because each options presents its own opportunities and both are interesting. By contrast for a feat vs. an ability score boost, only the former is really interesting.

You are correct that choices help define a character, and with characters receiving more feats, homebrewing a couple more to maintain the diversity of available choices would be an idea.

[Coidzor]

So humans get a +2 to one ability score, +1 to the other five ability scores, and a feat, while half-orcs get +2 Str, +1 Con, +1 to any(but probably Str or Con), and a feat and so on?

Not sure why you're handing out the +1, though.

Or are you saying that instead of a feat or an ASI, the character gets +2 to one ability score or +1 to two different ability scores AND a feat at 4th level+?

Seems fine to me to uncouple gaining feats from the ASI opportunity cost for a higher power game.

[Aetol]

So humans get a +2 to one ability score, +1 to the other five ability scores, and a feat, while half-orcs get +2 Str, +1 Con, +1 to any(but probably Str or Con), and a feat and so on?

Not sure why you're handing out the +1, though.

Or are you saying that instead of a feat or an ASI, the character gets +2 to one ability score or +1 to two different ability scores AND a feat at 4th level+?

Seems fine to me to uncouple gaining feats from the ASI opportunity cost for a higher power game.

I understand it's the second one.

[Boci]

So humans get a +2 to one ability score, +1 to the other five ability scores, and a feat, while half-orcs get +2 Str, +1 Con, +1 to any(but probably Str or Con), and a feat and so on?

Not sure why you're handing out the +1, though.

Or are you saying that instead of a feat or an ASI, the character gets +2 to one ability score or +1 to two different ability scores AND a feat at 4th level+?

Seems fine to me to uncouple gaining feats from the ASI opportunity cost for a higher power game.

Its the second. The extra +1 was from the feats that give +1 to a state. I was clarifying that a sorcerer could not get +3 to Charisma by giving it +2 and then taking the actor feat.

[MaxWilson]

So one house rule I have been contemplating for 5e is to give character a feat and a the state bonus, rather than requiring them to choose. The only real limitations would be that you could not increase a stat with a feat if you select that stat to be increased. Would this have a bad effect on game balance? It seems like it could make gameplay fun, as players no longer have to choose between the raw power of a stat boost and the more interesting abilities of a feat.

Define "bad effect". It will make Nth level characters more powerful, but you're obviously okay with that because you're doing it on purpose. It's similar to the difference between high- and low-magic games--you'll have to adjust your expectations for "appropriate CR" appropriately and get used to eyeballing the encounter balance table instead of trusting it to be correct (which you shouldn't do anyway).

What kinds of "bad" effects would concern you?