Giving Feats instead of the "old" ASIs and "new" ASIs at Character Levels?

[Wasp]

Hi everyone

So I was wondering: How would the game change if you made the following change (in order to give players more feats and thereby create more diversity in character builds)?

1. The existing ASIs at class levels change to feats exclusively
2. We get new ASIs at character Levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19
3. Half Feats do not give their +1 in Attributes anymore

Or for discussion: Do you like the current systems (DM giving out feats as rewards or the feats/ASI system)? Or are there other (better) ideas to change the ASI / feat dynamic?

[Sulicius]

Just level up. You will get more ASIs or feats that way. People just want their cake and eat it too at lvl4.

The system works fine as is.

[Dr.Samurai]

Hi everyone

So I was wondering: How would the game change if you made the following change (in order to give players more feats and thereby create more diversity in character builds)?

1. The existing ASIs at class levels change to feats exclusively
2. We get new ASIs at character Levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19
3. Half Feats do not give their +1 in Attributes anymore

Or for discussion: Do you like the current systems (DM giving out feats as rewards or the feats/ASI system)? Or are there other (better) ideas to change the ASI / feat dynamic?
I would love this. Feats open up interesting options, but my barbarians need ASIs.

[Cheesegear]

Hi everyone

So I was wondering: How would the game change if you made the following change (in order to give players more feats and thereby create more diversity in character builds)?

1. The existing ASIs at class levels change to feats exclusively
2. We get new ASIs at character Levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19
3. Half Feats do not give their +1 in Attributes anymore

It doesn't punish synergistic multi-classing, which should be punished.

That said, it wouldn't create more diversity in character builds. You would end up with the same character builds, faster. You would only see 'diversity' once you hit 16+ as builds get 'completed' earlier.

A single-class Fighter, gets Crossbow Expert at Level 4, and gets +2 Dex. ...What diversity are you talking about, exactly? It's the exact same thing that people were doing already, but better. Then the single-class Fighter is forced to pick up even more Feats every other level that it wont use.

The Hexblade Paladin gets +2 Cha at Level 4, and Power Attack at Level 5...Cool. It's the same build you were already doing, faster and better.

You haven't changed anything. You've only accelerated the acquisition of power. ...So it's great for power-gamers...If that's your intention?


Or for discussion: Do you like the current systems (DM giving out feats as rewards or the feats/ASI system)?

I think Opportunity Cost is by design. I don't like it, but I can certainly see why it is the way it is. The negative consequence for taking a Feat, is you don't get the ASI, and vice versa. Now, under the projected direction of the game, yeah...They'll probably change something about the way Feats are gained, because Opportunity Cost gives people Feels Bad, and that's bad.


Or are there other (better) ideas to change the ASI / feat dynamic?

Not with the way the game currently is. If you make PCs more powerful, you also have to redo the entire Monster Manual, too, because the goalposts will have shifted.

A lot of people don't understand that.

Players: I want my character to be more powerful!
DM: ...Cool, I'll make the monsters better to compensate.
Players: But then my character wont be more powerful, you've just moved the goalpost!
DM: ...That's kind of how D&D has always worked. You know how CR works, right? The DM is always ahead of the players. What? You want your character to be more powerful, so you can what...One-shot Goblins?
Players: ...YES!

[Dr.Samurai]

@Cheesegear: I appreciate the point, but I'm not sure it applies generally. Maybe there are some feats that the concern applies to but certainly adding +2 to an ability score to any feat won't have you one-shotting goblins.

[JNAProductions]

Hi everyone

So I was wondering: How would the game change if you made the following change (in order to give players more feats and thereby create more diversity in character builds)?

1. The existing ASIs at class levels change to feats exclusively
2. We get new ASIs at character Levels 4, 8, 12, 16 and 19
3. Half Feats do not give their +1 in Attributes anymore

Or for discussion: Do you like the current systems (DM giving out feats as rewards or the feats/ASI system)? Or are there other (better) ideas to change the ASI / feat dynamic?

If you want to stick to that decision, allow for two half-feats to be taken as one feat slot.
So you could take Resilient and Actor in the same feat. Otherwise, half-feats are strictly worse than full feats.

Also, what about Fighters and Rogues, with their bonus ASI(s)?

[Angelalex242]

I'd say it's better to just make ASIs 'both/and'. You get a feat /and/ a +2 to whatever stat you want.

Yes, Fighters and Rogues benefit more from that then other classes. That's just the benefit to picking fighter or rogue.

It also means you can get +3 to a stat at once with a relevant half feat. That's fine too.

[bkwrm79]

I like the idea, but that might be too much. Still, I like the idea of stat progression AND taking at least a couple feats.

Half feats need to either give the +1 or be taken in pairs.

There might also be a way to rebalance a couple feats that are probably worth 3 pts. If you get "+2 and a Feat" it could also be "+2, +1 and a Half-Feat" or "+1 and a Top Feat".

[Skrum]

I'm more of a fan of giving characters a feat at level 1. This is a possibility for vhumans and TCL so it's technically "in the game" already.

But sure, this would work. Certainly make characters more powerful, which seems to be your intention. It'd favor martials in T1-T2 almost certainly, so.... I rarely oppose giving martials a boost.

[kazaryu]

It doesn't punish synergistic multi-classing, which should be punished.

That said, it wouldn't create more diversity in character builds. You would end up with the same character builds, faster. You would only see 'diversity' once you hit 16+ as builds get 'completed' earlier.

A single-class Fighter, gets Crossbow Expert at Level 4, and gets +2 Dex. ...What diversity are you talking about, exactly? It's the exact same thing that people were doing already, but better. Then the single-class Fighter is forced to pick up even more Feats every other level that it wont use.

The Hexblade Paladin gets +2 Cha at Level 4, and Power Attack at Level 5...Cool. It's the same build you were already doing, faster and better.

You haven't changed anything. You've only accelerated the acquisition of power. ...So it's great for power-gamers...If that's your intention?



this seems like a rather close minded way of looking at it.

yes, you would obviously see more diversity. one of the biggest weaknesses of diverse multiclass options is how MAD they are compared to the relative rarity of ASI's, which is further driven by the fact that ASI's are mutually exclusive with feats. by decoupling them, yes, you benefit power builds. but you benefit non-optimized builds FAR more, by making them actually viable.

Now, if you're in a player group that only ever plays optimized builds, then sure, you're not going to see more diversity. but, in such a group...you're never going to see much diversity. because its impossible to make every option equally powerful. if you shift the balance, all you'll do is shift the META. at which point you have an equally un-diverse set of options...they just happen to be different from the current META.

[Angelalex242]

Not at all. Every character will pick up feats it can use, in a backup capacity.

My Paladin doesn't NEED Alert. Alert still offers +5 to imitative and surprise proofing.
My Paladin doesn't NEED Lucky...

You get the idea.

[Rukelnikov]

Now, if you're in a player group that only ever plays optimized builds, then sure, you're not going to see more diversity. but, in such a group...you're never going to see much diversity. because its impossible to make every option equally powerful. if you shift the balance, all you'll do is shift the META. at which point you have an equally un-diverse set of options...they just happen to be different from the current META.

I disagree. If you play in a group that only uses popular powerful builds, maybe, but I'd expect a group of optimizers to be very creative.

3.x is a perfect example of that, for all it's problems it has been by far the most diverse and creativity inducing edition and it's also the one with the most room for optimization.

The notion that optimization means lack of diversity I think is fundamentally wrong.

[Dame_Mechanus]

I'd say it's better to just make ASIs 'both/and'. You get a feat /and/ a +2 to whatever stat you want.

Yes, Fighters and Rogues benefit more from that then other classes. That's just the benefit to picking fighter or rogue.

It also means you can get +3 to a stat at once with a relevant half feat. That's fine too.

I mean, I operate on a broad assumption that the only game balance that matters is "everyone is having fun in this game and they feel cool while I can create challenging encounters I expect them to beat," so that works for me.

[Rukelnikov]

I mean, I operate on a broad assumption that the only game balance that matters is "everyone is having fun in this game and they feel cool while I can create challenging encounters I expect them to beat," so that works for me.

You will always be able to challenge the players as a DM, there are no ifs there.

The issues may come when challenging one PC mean making stuff trivial or impossible for the others.

And also, if you award XP for defeating enemies, challenging them may result in a faster leveling than you may want.

[Dame_Mechanus]

You will always be able to challenge the players as a DM, there are no ifs there.

Well, yes. That should be a rule of DMing if it isn't already. "Gygax's Warning: Killing PCs is easy. Making them enjoy it is not."

My point wasn't whether or not there were ways to challenge them but whether there are ways to make them feel challenged even when I have every intention of them ultimately winning.


The issues may come when challenging one PC mean making stuff trivial or impossible for the others.

And also, if you award XP for defeating enemies, challenging them may result in a faster leveling than you may want.

Also why I mentioned challenging encounters rather than just one broad challenge. Like, my general guide is to work with players to understand what they're looking for from the game and try to create scenarios wherein all of the characters feel like their abilities are useful and interesting. If the Paladin can handle the boss while the rest of the party handles the minions (or vice versa), that makes for a fun encounter, just like if the Paladin is working with two other party members to take down a challenging enemy while the Rogue and Wizard are trying to work together to stop a dam from bursting and causing untold damage to the nearby town.

To use an example from the comic, the giant ambush in Utterly Dwarfed is a good example of what I'm thinking of - everyone is doing different things and trying to solve different problems throughout the encounter, but as a result no one overshadows anyone else. Yes, you have characters taking on enemies of wildly different power levels or solving problems with different kinds of tests, but the ultimate victory hinges on everyone.

[kazaryu]

I disagree. If you play in a group that only uses popular powerful builds, maybe, but I'd expect a group of optimizers to be very creative.

3.x is a perfect example of that, for all it's problems it has been by far the most diverse and creativity inducing edition and it's also the one with the most room for optimization.

The notion that optimization means lack of diversity I think is fundamentally wrong.

optimization, by definiton, reduces options. it excludes all options that are not optimal. as a result, a group that only plays optimized builds is going to inherently be less diverse than a group that doesn't. Thats isn't debatable, its the definition of optimization. Now, group to group what constitutes an 'optimized' build might change. because different groups have different game styles, and the 'optimal' options change with it. but even in 3.x, the category of 'optimized' builds is a subset of 'viable' builds.

What you're talking about isn't 'optimization'. its 'players building based on mechanics, rather than narrative' in which case...yeah, absolutely you can get a lot of diversity there. Because it opens options that would otherwise tend to be restricted by narrative (i.e. fiendlock/devotion paladin multiclass).

Now, from a non-relative standpoint, yes. in a system where there are a LOT of possible combinations even the relatively few combinations that form 'optimized' builds can be diverse, but my point was that relative to the total possible combinations provided by the system, the number of 'optimized' builds is always going to be a restricted subset.

[Rukelnikov]

snip

I agree with everything.


optimization, by definiton, reduces options. it excludes all options that are not optimal. as a result, a group that only plays optimized builds is going to inherently be less diverse than a group that doesn't. Thats isn't debatable, its the definition of optimization. Now, group to group what constitutes an 'optimized' build might change. because different groups have different game styles, and the 'optimal' options change with it. but even in 3.x, the category of 'optimized' builds is a subset of 'viable' builds.

The category of "optimized builds" generally include interactions no one thought of before, that's how we got stuff like the diplomancer, and thus how they drive creativity.


What you're talking about isn't 'optimization'. its 'players building based on mechanics, rather than narrative' in which case...yeah, absolutely you can get a lot of diversity there. Because it opens options that would otherwise tend to be restricted by narrative (i.e. fiendlock/devotion paladin multiclass).

Optimization is intentionally putting yourself in a certain constraint and trying to see how to make the most of it. Like, im gonna optimize a breath weapon using character, or I'm gonna optimize a dart thrower, or blowgun user. Which leads to stuff usually far more diverse since non optimizers will rarely if ever go for a blowgun build for instance.


Now, from a non-relative standpoint, yes. in a system where there are a LOT of possible combinations even the relatively few combinations that form 'optimized' builds can be diverse, but my point was that relative to the total possible combinations provided by the system, the number of 'optimized' builds is always going to be a restricted subset.

The number of X builds will always be a subset of the possible builds by definition.

[Phhase]

optimization, by definiton, reduces options. it excludes all options that are not optimal. as a result, a group that only plays optimized builds is going to inherently be less diverse than a group that doesn't. Thats isn't debatable, its the definition of optimization. Now, group to group what constitutes an 'optimized' build might change. because different groups have different game styles, and the 'optimal' options change with it. but even in 3.x, the category of 'optimized' builds is a subset of 'viable' builds.

What you're talking about isn't 'optimization'. its 'players building based on mechanics, rather than narrative' in which case...yeah, absolutely you can get a lot of diversity there. Because it opens options that would otherwise tend to be restricted by narrative (i.e. fiendlock/devotion paladin multiclass).

Now, from a non-relative standpoint, yes. in a system where there are a LOT of possible combinations even the relatively few combinations that form 'optimized' builds can be diverse, but my point was that relative to the total possible combinations provided by the system, the number of 'optimized' builds is always going to be a restricted subset.

Seems there's a bit of a difference here about what people mean when they say "Optimization". "Building based on mechanics"...is optimizing FOR something isn't it? You can build to be good at everything (c.f. Factotum) but that too comes with tradeoffs. It's not quite a solved problem.

[Skrum]

It's not quite a solved problem.

It can't be a "solved" problem because 1) people want to play different character archetypes, and 2) DMs allow different resources at their table. 3x being highly optimizable did not lead to any and all players making Pun Pun. No one would sincerely suggest to a player who wants to make some version of Robin Hood that they should play a wizard instead, because optimization.

IMO, optimization is about coming up with a character concept and then finding a way to express that concept in the game. The unspoken part is most people don't want to play weak, ineffectual characters that generally fail to contribute. Making a concept effective is where a lot of the optimization lies.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Seems there's a bit of a difference here about what people mean when they say "Optimization". "Building based on mechanics"...is optimizing FOR something isn't it? You can build to be good at everything (c.f. Factotum) but that too comes with tradeoffs. It's not quite a solved problem.

I think you've kind of hit a nail on the head here, because there are really two stripes of "optimization."

The first kind of optimization - the kind that people tend to bring up and/or think of as limiting options - is the kind where you go through RAW to build the character who does the best at everything. You pick Bard because it can do everything, you pick the optimal stat lineup for Bard by maxing DEX, CON, and CHA at the expense of everything else, you pick the best possible spells for a Bard, and so forth. Your character has made all of the best choices, and if someone else were to come along with the same philosophy, they would make the exact same choices because they're the best in the broadest possible set of circumstances. Maybe it's more limited in some variables - for example, you didn't pick Bard but you picked Wizard - but the point was still to make The Best [Class X] with no weaknesses.

(Note: Bard and Wizard here are used purely as examples, you do not need to tell me that Paladins or Rogues or Druids are better. It's not the point.)

This kind of optimization results in a certain degree of homogenization simply because... well, that's what "best" means in the first place. Once someone figures out the best Fighter, you just follow the same steps to build the best Fighter.

The other kind of optimization, though, is a bit more open. You start with a broad mechanical idea, like "I want to build a Bard who dual-wields scimitars." You then focus on taking all of the feats, ability increases, spells, and so forth that make you the best possible version of that idea. This might involve taking abilities that are far afield from the aforementioned theoretical "best" version of a given class, because you're not optimizing the class but this particular variation on same. It's even possible that some choices which would be optimal in the abstract are actively deleterious to your very particular build, like finding an ability that actually makes you a better singer rather than a melee fighter.

Since the entirety of this optimization is based around your idea for a mechanical setup that may or may not be related to the "best" version of a given class, it can result in a fair amount of diversity simply because sometimes you latch on to rather obscure parts of a class flavor or identity and produce something weird and novel. Of course, sometimes you can also stumble into the "best" build by doing so and it can cause unintentional issues - if one of your players wants to be a Druid who maximizes her spellcasting ability in animal form and another wants to be an optimized sword-and-board fighter, you might have some balance problems with that group.

[Wasp]

Thanks for the feedback. My thinking was that more feat options due to not competing with ASIs would allow you to take more interesting feats than just the "necessary" feats for a build like Sharpshooter, GWM/PAM or War Caster...

And yeah, I do dislike the thought that I miss out on feats and ASI at lvl 4 if I decide to multiclass before that... :smallwink:

[furby076]

I like feats. So, a couple options that come to mind
1) You get stat/Feat every 4th character level, not pc level. You can multi-class and not have to worry about delaying getting your stat/feat
2) Anytime you get an option for stat/feat (4th, 8th level) you can take both. So you increase stats and get a feat

I'd enjoy this as I think feats are wonderful. As long as the rules apply to everyone, it's very easy to balance from a game perspective

[furby076]

Not with the way the game currently is. If you make PCs more powerful, you also have to redo the entire Monster Manual, too, because the goalposts will have shifted.



I don't think this is an issue really. Every game is different. There are so many variables between group to group and the rules are bendable enough that every DM can fairly easily roll with it and tweak. In the group I'm in, the first 5-8 sessions were a cake walk. It was the DMs first time with 5e. He eventually ramped it up to the point it became deadly and we would have deaths here and there. The point is, he shifted how he designs encounters to suit our group. He has quite a few house rules (e.g., we play short, long, full rest; you have to get special training to give a downed player a potion).

So the MM doesn't have to be changed at all. If the game gets too easy because everyone gets both stats and feat, something else is up.

[kazaryu]

The category of "optimized builds" generally include interactions no one thought of before, that's how we got stuff like the diplomancer, and thus how they drive creativity. yes, and once the optimal 'diplomancer' build is located, it becomes the go-to choice for anyone trying to dominate social interactions. assuming you're in a group that exclusively optimizes. all other ways of building a party face are no longer optimal, and therefore no longer used.




Optimization is intentionally putting yourself in a certain constraint and trying to see how to make the most of it. Like, im gonna optimize a breath weapon using character, or I'm gonna optimize a dart thrower, or blowgun user. Which leads to stuff usually far more diverse since non optimizers will rarely if ever go for a blowgun build for instance. while i will admit that it is possible to optimize for non-optimal things, that is clearly not what was being referred to originally. the only limitations inherent to optimization is your games status quo (i.e. how much does your game interact with each pillar. enemy types the DM favors, environments the DM favors, number of encounters between long rests, etc.)

you *can* put extra limitations on the character, in order to force you to engage with different mechanics (likely because true optimization has become boring, due to being solved), but doing so is not an inherent trait of optimizing. Optimizing is, at its core, 'making the most effective/efficient character for the game im going to play'

This actually supports my original point. That the change suggested by the OP could increase diversity of play. someone claimed that since the change just made existing builds stronger, you wouldn't actually see anything new with such a change. i pointed out that while, its true, this does buff existing power builds...but it buffs many sub-optimal builds far more. since so many of them are either super MAD, or they're reliant of having stacks of feats, and therefore don't come online until really late in the game.




The number of X builds will always be a subset of the possible builds by definition. yes...thats my point. by 'optimizing' you are inherently limiting possible builds, not increasing diversity. and that holds true even in the case of 'non-optimal optimization'.


Seems there's a bit of a difference here about what people mean when they say "Optimization". "Building based on mechanics"...is optimizing FOR something isn't it? You can build to be good at everything (c.f. Factotum) but that too comes with tradeoffs. It's not quite a solved problem. building based on mechanics doesn't have to mean optimizing. optimization is a possible step you can choose to add to however you design your character, regardless of if they're built for mechanics or for narrative. as I admitted to above, you *can* 'optimize' any build. even one where most of the big character decisions were made for the narrative, not the mechanics. for example a cleric player could play life domain for character reasons, but still optimize things like spell selection and ASI's. the character wouldn't be 'optimal'. but they would be optimal within the scope of what they were 'forced' into. On the flip side, you can build for mechanics entirely, without really optimizing. a good example of that would be my first ever character. it was a barbarian/rogue multiclass. i wanted Sneak attack and cunning action on a barbarian, but i didn't really worry much about optimizing. i ended up taking 4 levels of rogue for the ASI, simply because i wanted the asi. there was no optimization involved. still a fun character, but his narrative was definitively secondary.


It can't be a "solved" problem because 1) people want to play different character archetypes, and 2) DMs allow different resources at their table. 3x being highly optimizable did not lead to any and all players making Pun Pun. No one would sincerely suggest to a player who wants to make some version of Robin Hood that they should play a wizard instead, because optimization. i think you may have missed something. Noone is suggesting that *because* a game is optimizeable, everyone will, at all times, optimize. This branch of the discussion (seems to have) branched off from an exchange where it was suggested that optimization increases diversity, and I claimed that it didnt. From my persepctive at least, the discussion is simply within the context of 'if you're playing in a group that focuses exclusively on optimized characters'



IMO, optimization is about coming up with a character concept and then finding a way to express that concept in the game. The unspoken part is most people don't want to play weak, ineffectual characters that generally fail to contribute. Making a concept effective is where a lot of the optimization lies.this is true. optimization is a process, not a switch. so you can optimize a character to a point, but stop before making them fully 'optimal'.

[Phhase]

I think you've kind of hit a nail on the head here, because there are really two stripes of "optimization."

The first kind of optimization - the kind that people tend to bring up and/or think of as limiting options - is the kind where you go through RAW to build the character who does the best at everything. You pick Bard because it can do everything, you pick the optimal stat lineup for Bard by maxing DEX, CON, and CHA at the expense of everything else, you pick the best possible spells for a Bard, and so forth. Your character has made all of the best choices, and if someone else were to come along with the same philosophy, they would make the exact same choices because they're the best in the broadest possible set of circumstances. Maybe it's more limited in some variables - for example, you didn't pick Bard but you picked Wizard - but the point was still to make The Best [Class X] with no weaknesses.

(Note: Bard and Wizard here are used purely as examples, you do not need to tell me that Paladins or Rogues or Druids are better. It's not the point.)

This kind of optimization results in a certain degree of homogenization simply because... well, that's what "best" means in the first place. Once someone figures out the best Fighter, you just follow the same steps to build the best Fighter.

The other kind of optimization, though, is a bit more open. You start with a broad mechanical idea, like "I want to build a Bard who dual-wields scimitars." You then focus on taking all of the feats, ability increases, spells, and so forth that make you the best possible version of that idea. This might involve taking abilities that are far afield from the aforementioned theoretical "best" version of a given class, because you're not optimizing the class but this particular variation on same. It's even possible that some choices which would be optimal in the abstract are actively deleterious to your very particular build, like finding an ability that actually makes you a better singer rather than a melee fighter.

Since the entirety of this optimization is based around your idea for a mechanical setup that may or may not be related to the "best" version of a given class, it can result in a fair amount of diversity simply because sometimes you latch on to rather obscure parts of a class flavor or identity and produce something weird and novel. Of course, sometimes you can also stumble into the "best" build by doing so and it can cause unintentional issues - if one of your players wants to be a Druid who maximizes her spellcasting ability in animal form and another wants to be an optimized sword-and-board fighter, you might have some balance problems with that group.
Well said, pretty much exactly what I was getting at.

yes, and once the optimal 'diplomancer' build is located, it becomes the go-to choice for anyone trying to dominate social interactions. assuming you're in a group that exclusively optimizes. all other ways of building a party face are no longer optimal, and therefore no longer used.


Is there truly only one ontologically perfect build for all situations possibly served by that build archetype though? Surely due to the shifting nature of what you'll be facing, niche sub-variants exist to cover certain corner cases more optimally than the main branch? Small variants to be sure, but the point is, is it really an end-all-be all with no niche situations where minor tweaks from baseline could better serve?

[Sulicius]

I don't think this is an issue really. Every game is different. There are so many variables between group to group and the rules are bendable enough that every DM can fairly easily roll with it and tweak. In the group I'm in, the first 5-8 sessions were a cake walk. It was the DMs first time with 5e. He eventually ramped it up to the point it became deadly and we would have deaths here and there. The point is, he shifted how he designs encounters to suit our group. He has quite a few house rules (e.g., we play short, long, full rest; you have to get special training to give a downed player a potion).

So the MM doesn't have to be changed at all. If the game gets too easy because everyone gets both stats and feat, something else is up.

You do notice a big difference when pc’s become more powerful than they should be at their level. I agree that the most important thing to me is that the PC’s are balanced between each other, not against the world. This balance is more dependent on perceived agency than actual numbers. If this balance works, then the players usually have fun.

What bothers me is that for som reason people believe they need feats as fast as possible in order to enjoy the game. They want their character concept to be fully realized at the lvl4, whatever that takes. The game isn’t built that way. You can become the character with all of those feats when you reach level 12, no problem. You still have tons of adventures to go on after that.

Sadly, most play is done between levels 1 and 8, so many players never get those “builds” they are working on. So players see all of these character options they never get to use, and they start asking for more. Stuff like OP. Feats at level one. No trade-offs for, multiclassing. Freestanding ASI’s.

And so DM’s have to look into these house rules. Do they limit the available feats at level 1? What do they allow? They have to do research, read through all the feats, interpret them RAI. If they allow everything, will the players all just take the OP feats?

As a result, powerful or effective “builds” come online far earlier, increasing the capability and power of the PC’s. These increases that the game is counting on are available later can dominate lesser challenges.

Which is turn forces the DM to rethink their encounters, as they want to challenge the players accordingly. If they don’t, then the game will become too easy for the players, and they rush through content the DM prepared.

Now the DM has to spend time to implement this and time to balance each challenge (like those in published adventures) to keep up. Certain CR monsters become useless earlier, reducing the easy options the DM has. The DM has to spend more time, as he can trust the base encounter advice from the book even less than before.

Power increase of pc’s = more effort for the DM

In my opinion: more effort for the DM = bad

These DM’s already spend hours on worldbuilding, creating NPC’s, reading up on lore, drawing maps, painting miniatures and finding fitting music. Anything extra the DM has to do is at the cost of something else.

My advice: focus on things that make the game easier for the DM. Help with scheduling, be a monster wrangler or the one to mark down the initiative order. Do that and your DM will not burn out as fast, and you will reach lvl12 so you have the feats you want.

Do you really have no time to wait and earn your feats and powerups?

[kazaryu]

Is there truly only one ontologically perfect build for all situations possibly served by that build archetype though? Surely due to the shifting nature of what you'll be facing, niche sub-variants exist to cover certain corner cases more optimally than the main branch? Small variants to be sure, but the point is, is it really an end-all-be all with no niche situations where minor tweaks from baseline could better serve? this whole time, i've maintained that the primary driver behind whats 'optimal' is the gameworld. specifically, what the players are likely to interact with. and for a given set of assumptions about what the players are going to find, yes, there will be a ontologically optimal build for a given archetype. There will be a statistically optimal way to play a both a melee and ranged DPR. and an ideal setup for a face, etc. and thats because classes are asymmetrical in their design. a game-state that leans into specific classes strengths will inherently make that class stronger. For example, in a game where you expect to face a lot of undead a cleric is likely to be the optimal choice for a support character, because channel divinity is amazing vs undead. However, if the game is likely to have a balance of enemies, clerics lose that advantage. Of course the actual 'optimal' build may only be that by a slim margin. close enough that most parties wouldn't care about the difference. but one of them would still, on average, do better than the other.

now, if when you talk about 'niche situations' you're referring to variations within a single game. like, the randomly a demon fight occurs in a primarily humanoid centric campaign? sure, building vs fiends is different than building vs humanoids. but building for niche situations is, by definiton, not optimal. thats like...say you're in a zombie apocalypse game (specifically one thats advertised as party vs the horde), and instead of playing a cleric you choose to go bard as the support. Just in case you happen to run into one band of humanoids that have gone all...Neegan. like, sure, the bard is probably better at dealing with neegan and his goons...that one time you mess with them. but overall the clerics channel divinity is gonna be far more useful. (note: im not saying that this is what you're talking about, im just trying to address both sides of what it seems like you're talking about).

[Guy Lombard-O]

I don't favor simply giving away feats for free if it's simply built into the rules as a regular procedure. That, as others have said, just invalidates too much of the CR/Monster Manuel system.

But if you give feats as boons for missions accomplished and goals achieved, I think that's a better, more fun and more rewarding plan.

That said, if you really want to give both an ASI and a feat at certain levels as a built-in addition to the leveling system, then I'd at least suggest that you exclude certain feats from that selection process. Things like GWM, PAM and Sharpshooter shouldn't be had for free. And if you really want to see more diversity, giving only C and D tier feats at certain levels for free would at least make those choices involve new and relatively un-played options see some love.

[Kane0]

Could we go in the opposite direction? Make no feats half-feats, at level 1 if you want a feat you give up +2 or +1/+1 from race to get it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Edit: DM boons feel like a better way to increase the power curve if you want it, same as enabling per-game stuff like gestalt.

[Goobahfish]

So, I like the intent, not the implementation.

Honestly, I feel like having ASI/feats as the only thing you get at level 4 is really, really lame.

There is an inherent tension in the game.
Option 1) Get stat X to 20 ASAP. If you are MAD, get stat Y to 20 ASAP. Ooh... level 12... feats to play with.
Option 2) Broken Feat X > +2 Str so get that first.

Obviously WOTC want to have 'easy mode for noobs' (i.e. no feats) which isn't a bad thing.

So lets assume that we have a different fix for Broken Feat X (rather than worry about power creep etc).

I think getting ASIs at character level (say +1/2 levels) would be neat (makes multiclassing less of a pain). I think Fighters and Rogues getting bonus Feats would be neat. I think most feats being 'half-feats' would be neat (including some old ones).

One thing I really like about 5e is the 20 max stat cap. It means that at a certain point, the obvious choice (moar strength) is forbidden. I would almost be inclined to drop the cap to 18 just to encourage more feats/more well-rounded heroes. It would achieve a similar outcome (more feats would be selected) and if anything drop player power.

[Sindeloke]

There is an inherent tension in the game.
Option 1) Get stat X to 20 ASAP. If you are MAD, get stat Y to 20 ASAP. Ooh... level 12... feats to play with.
Option 2) Broken Feat X > +2 Str so get that first.

I think the idea of a "broken feat," here, is the core of the issue.

Some feats are supposed to Enable A Playstyle. Magic Initiate is a good example of this, and Sentinel is trying to be, although it simply isn't substantial enough to actually enable what it's supposed to. This type of feat plays best with 5e's stated goal of "feats as significant, character-defining resources;" because their power budget is higher than 3.path or 4e feats, each one can give you enough of a particular role or theme to actually, genuinely enable that playstyle all by itself.

Trading an ASI for these offers players an interesting choice, because there's no objectively right answer to "do I get slightly better at what I'm already good at or learn to be good at something new," but it's not really necessary from a balance perspective. A party with a wizard and a Ritual Casting rogue is not different, as far as CR is concerned, from a party with a wizard and a Tome warlock.

On the other hand, some feats are supposed to be Class Features. Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, and Resilient are archetypal class feature feats. (On the low end, so are Elemental Adept and Savage Attacker.) These don't define your character's approach to life and give you new options in and out of combat the way something like Magic Initiate does; instead, they enable you to be better at the thing you're already doing, making your numbers bigger and your damage easier and more frequent. They're either "feat taxes" or "broken" depending on what a person thinks the game's target numbers are supposed to be, but they feel obligatory either way, which is the reason fighters get two extra.

Trading an ASI for one of these feats is a boring no-brainer non-choice, because they either provide objective, measurable, mechanically superior damage (/defense/ability check) numbers or they don't, but for the same reason, it is absolutely necessary from a balance perspective, because the game assumes your numbers will be in a certain range, and doubling up would obviously push you out of it.

Personally, I think we should toss every single feat in the second category in the bin, set them on fire, and forget they ever existed, and incorporate whatever necessary features they provided to the base game as inherent aspects of weapons, combat rules, or class chassis themselves, so I'm very supportive of the idea of ASIs being automatic by level and feats being granted by class. But of course, that's a lot easier said than done, especially with complications like Actor or Mage Slayer that are trying to be both types of feat at once.

[Goobahfish]

Personally, I think we should toss every single feat in the second category in the bin, set them on fire, and forget they ever existed, and incorporate whatever necessary features they provided to the base game as inherent aspects of weapons, combat rules, or class chassis themselves, so I'm very supportive of the idea of ASIs being automatic by level and feats being granted by class.

I can't say I disagree.

Magic Initiate, Ritual Caster, Actor, most of the Skill Feats... these are the ones that I actually consider when building a character.

Anything that looks like Weapon Focus from 3.5... (shudders).

Most feats (IMO) should really be a replacement for a 1-level dip. I.e. an optimiser would never be inclined to take a 1 level dip because it makes more sense just to take Feat X instead.

I.e. you get a Channel Divinity and one use of it. You gain an Invocation (this already exists). A bit of metamagic (this already exists). An extra superiority dice (this already exists). Some Ki and a single feature to use it. A spell and two cantrips (this already exists).

You get the idea.

The other abilities should just be level 11 fighting styles. Or magical secret things.

[Wasp]

I hate that as a ranged character I feel I have to take Sharpshooter and/or Crossbow Expert to be effective. Or as a melee character Polearm Master or Great Weapon Master. Maybe even Warcaster for a Gish Type. I hate that I feel I have to take VHuman or Custom Lineage to get those feats early or that I have to stay in a class for 4 levels to get to those feats somewhat early.

I mean, I know I don't *have* to - but I feel inefficient and suboptimal if I don't. And I hate that I have to postpone ASIs because of it and may not even get any in the level range i usually play if I start multiclassing.

And that was leading me to this idea - even though it probably doesn't even provided a solution for that...

[Damon_Tor]

3. Half Feats do not give their +1 in Attributes anymore

Many would need to be improved significantly, then.

[Kaviyd]

The bonus feats suggested in the UA Heroes of Krynn Revisited article might be a good starting point for bonus feats granted by character level rather than class level. That article offers a choice of Skilled or Tough (among other campaign dependent options by setting and/or background) at 1st level and a few more options at 4th level. Adding more options at these lowest levels and introducing more options at 8th level, 12th level, and so on would complete the system. Of course, the need for additional bonus feats diminishes as the PCs reach levels where their primary stat has been increased to 20.