You SHOULD double up on ASIs/feats

[Greywander]

I've posted on this topic before and I was thinking about it again as I was considering a forge cleric build and my frustration with the MADness of weapon clerics. I don't think I can sum it up more succinctly than this old post of mine:

I've voiced my concerns with the ASI mechanic before, but it basically comes down to:

• You max out your primary stat early (8th level, sometimes even 4th level on e.g. a Custom Lineage). This makes the power curve wonky.
• Feats are usually delayed until 12th level or later so you can max out your primary stat. Even build-critical feats. Especially concept-critical feats.
• I never feel like I have enough feats. Goes double for MAD builds.
• MAD builds in general get kind of screwed over. They typically don't max both stats until 16th level, so they lag behind SAD builds.
• Optimized builds often have little room for tertiary stats.

To go a bit more in depth, feats are an optional rule. This means that the classes are balanced around spending all their ASIs on ability scores. The monk is supposed to max DEX and WIS, the paladin is supposed to max STR and CHA, and the barbarian is supposed to max STR and CON. You might think trading an ASI for a feat would be fair, since you take whichever is more valuable to you, the problem is that there is a disparity between SAD and MAD builds in the value of an ASI. SAD characters don't really have a secondary stat, per se; it's more like they have two tertiary stats. MAD characters are expected to max both their primary and secondary stats, while SAD characters will find better value in grabbing a feat over boosting any stat that isn't their primary.

You might say, "Just don't play with feats." But feats are fun. I want feats. They add another axis on which you can customize your character.

Doubling up and giving both an ASI and a feat at the same time solves the disparity. Both MAD and SAD end up with the same number of stat boosts (not including half feats), which means that the intended balance of a featless game is restored. While giving everyone more feats will make them stronger, giving everyone the same number of feats should retain some semblance of balance (though the feats themselves aren't very well balanced against each other). Diminishing returns are also in effect; if you take one feat over another it's because you value that feat more than the other, so being able to take both is less than twice the value.

There's a huge benefit to this, and that's that it removes the "penalty" for playing a MAD character. This means you'll see a lot more unconventional multiclass builds, such as monk/wizard, or any two casters with different casting stats. You'll also see more non-Hexblade bladelocks. In fact, Hexblade in general is diminished in value as a dip. Because every character now gets enough ASIs to guaranty that they can max two stats with points to spare, it really isn't important to be SAD anymore. If you are SAD, then you have the freedom to spread your points out however you wish, shoring up a weak save, improving your skill checks, or just fulfilling your character concept (e.g. a charismatic "televangelist" cleric, when normally clerics can't spare any points for CHA).

But won't this screw with the balance? Well, sort of. The most important thing is keeping the PCs at least somewhat balanced against each other. But, as noted above, diminishing returns are also in effect, both for feat picks and for ASI picks. I still like the method I proposed in the same old thread, which also slowed down the power progression so you wouldn't spike as early:

So, as a simple alternative, what I'm proposing is that an ASI give a +1 to two different stats, and you also get a feat on top. This has the following benefits over the vanilla system:

• Slows down primary ability score progression so that you're building it up for most of your adventuring career instead of capping it early.
• SAD and MAD builds progress at the same rate.
• Get build- and/or concept-critical feats early.
• Everyone gets more feats, but MAD builds especially. A lot of feats that get passed over due to lack of budget might see more use in play.
• Since you're not giving up ASIs for feats, and you have more opportunities to take half feats, you get a little more room for tertiary stats.

Since writing that, I've come up with a couple additional rules for this. First, if you take a half feat, then your two +1s have to also be different from whatever the half feat gave you. This means there's less incentive to take half feats that boost a primary or secondary stat, giving you greater freedom to explore other half feats.

Second is that we have to acknowledge that with only 5 ASIs (except fighter and rogue) and only being able to put at most +1 towards a stat each time, any stat below a 15 can never be maxed out. Maybe that's a feature, but sometimes something will happen during a campaign that causes your character to radically shift focus. Maybe your rogue finds religion, or your barbarian swears an oath of vengeance, or what have you. Point is, you might need to rapidly reorient your character's stats to match their new direction.

So the second rule change is that there is a cap, which starts at 15 at character creation (which, coincidentally, is the point buy maximum) and increases by 1 at every ASI (maxing out at 20 when you get the fifth ASI). For stats that are below this cap, you can double up for a +2 (but not a +3) so long is you don't exceed the cap. Any stat at or above the cap is limited to getting a +1 at each ASI. Do note that it's still possible to push a stat to 20 before 19th level, you just have to have that stat start higher than 15 and raise it consistently with every ASI. All this does is allow a lower stat to "catch up".

Now, I'm not saying this would be right for every table, because each table is different and some can be quite eccentric. But I will say that I think this is better than what we currently have, and would serve as a better default from which you can implement whatever houserules you need. Even if you don't want to use this specific iteration of the concept, I think most games would still be better off if they gave both an ASI and a feat at the same time.

With that, I think I've fixed all the glaring loopholes uncovered in the original thread. What do you think? Would you be interested in using this in your game? Can you see a way to improve it? Can you find a way to exploit it that I haven't caught yet? Is there a different iteration of this concept that you would use/are using? TBH, I'd be pretty excited if I got to use this as a player, as it would vastly open up my build options and allow a lot more character concepts to come online earlier.

[Sigreid]

Do you know that in the DMG where it talks about rewards, it also talks about feat training (extra feats) is listed as a prime option?

[sambojin]

It does somewhat give casters a boost that they didn't need. Those extra feats are godsends, and while your casting stat raises a little slower, chucking extra points into Dex for initiative or Con for concentration rolls is never a bad thing.

Say a very min-maxed +2/+1 druid with 8Str/15Dex /16Con(+1) /8Int /17(+2)Wis /8Cha

At lvl4 you grab Resilient (Con), and +1 Dex and Wis. Already looking like an amazing character.

At lvl8 you grab Warcaster and +1 Dex and Wis.

At lvl12 you grab whatever feat (Alert?) and another +1 Dex and Wis.


I mean, it's great for MAD builds, but it may be even better for SAD full caster builds, and they're exactly the ones that don't need the help. Good main caster stat is a bit of a given by lvl12, but getting good Dex/init or Con or concentration saves (or a whole host of utility feats) alongside it is amazing.

I'm just giving the min-maxed example. I like your system because there's not as much opportunity cost for trying out other builds, but it does give vanilla OP builds just as much (or more) help as it does for other classes. This doesn't make it a bad thing, and it makes MAD builds (or fun feat'y / multiclassed builds) a lot more viable, I'm just not sure if they'll keep up. They'll be better, but so will the single classed full casters, and they have a far higher ceiling with slot scaling alongside their stats and feats than the others would.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Generous stat rolling, level 1 feats, marks of prestige. These three ingredients combined to make the perfect feeling game... For our group at least.

If we also doubled down as you say PCs would be substantially stronger. One approach or the other I'd say

I'll admit it would have been fun though, my SKT character had 4 18's after modifiers and seeing all those 20s would have been plenty satisfying.

[Sparky McDibben]

I've done this for years, and it works pretty well with the right players.

I don't have to hold back on my encounter design, and players tend to play more aggressively because they have all these neat toys to play with.

[strangebloke]

Generous stat rolling, level 1 feats, marks of prestige. These three ingredients combined to make the perfect feeling game... For our group at least.

If we also doubled down as you say PCs would be substantially stronger. One approach or the other I'd say

I'll admit it would have been fun though, my SKT character had 4 18's after modifiers and seeing all those 20s would have been plenty satisfying.

This is how we play too. A large number of abilities is really fun for most characters, really liberating, especially if you're using a chassis that's conventionally pretty restrictive like barbarian.

And yeah, I don't know. Something I'm going to try soon, is doubling HP but only giving HP every other level. So the players have insane abilities, but are relatively fragile.

[Skrum]

And yeah, I don't know. Something I'm going to try soon, is doubling HP but only giving HP every other level. So the players have insane abilities, but are relatively fragile.

Heh, i was just thinking today about giving characters max HP for their hit dice when leveling up. Barbs get 12+con, warlocks get 8+con, etc. I like this because it emphasizes the different hit die a little more. Barbs get A LOT more hp than a wizard, as they should. When averages are used (seemingly pretty common), barbs only get 3 more HP per level, plus any differences in con, over the squishy casters. Bugs me.

But that's probably too many HP. 5e characters are comically hard to kill as it is.

[AHF]

It does somewhat give casters a boost that they didn't need. Those extra feats are godsends, and while your casting stat raises a little slower, chucking extra points into Dex for initiative or Con for concentration rolls is never a bad thing.

Say a very min-maxed +2/+1 druid with 8Str/15Dex /16Con(+1) /8Int /17(+2)Wis /8Cha

At lvl4 you grab Resilient (Con), and +1 Dex and Wis. Already looking like an amazing character.

At lvl8 you grab Warcaster and +1 Dex and Wis.

At lvl12 you grab whatever feat (Alert?) and another +1 Dex and Wis.


I mean, it's great for MAD builds, but it may be even better for SAD full caster builds, and they're exactly the ones that don't need the help. Good main caster stat is a bit of a given by lvl12, but getting good Dex/init or Con or concentration saves (or a whole host of utility feats) alongside it is amazing.

I'm just giving the min-maxed example. I like your system because there's not as much opportunity cost for trying out other builds, but it does give vanilla OP builds just as much (or more) help as it does for other classes. This doesn't make it a bad thing, and it makes MAD builds (or fun feat'y / multiclassed builds) a lot more viable, I'm just not sure if they'll keep up. They'll be better, but so will the single classed full casters, and they have a far higher ceiling with slot scaling alongside their stats and feats than the others would.

Unless I was reading the OP wrong, he said there would be a cap on all stats of 15 at character creation so your example of a 17 violates his rule. In your scenario, the Druid has an 18 Wisdom at level 4. If I am reading it right, his would mean a max of 16 at level 4.

[animorte]

I don't think there's anything wrong with bumping the power level a bit like that. That is, if the DM is experienced enough to adjust accordingly so that the game is still a fun challenge for everybody.

I have very little concern with my players building something that could be too strong or too specific. I can generally find a solution to whatever problems may arise.

[Rilmani]

For a homebrew solution, how would you feel about turning your cleric’s spellcasting progression into the Artificer’s progression? You want to be a weapons cleric and most weapons clerics aren’t aiming for spells they can use every round (like shield), so maybe your DM would be amenable? Artificer spell progression in exchange for Fighter feat progression. You’d still have the Cleric spell list, you’d still be a Prepared spellcaster, you’d still have your domain spells and features… You’d just be able to better mix up your feats/ASIs between 4, 6, and 8.


…I could see a cautious DM reducing your hit die or your proficiencies in exchange though.

[Greywander]

I mean, it's great for MAD builds, but it may be even better for SAD full caster builds, and they're exactly the ones that don't need the help.

Well, here's my logic for why I don't think this is the case. Currently, a generic MAD build spends four ASIs maxing primary and secondary stats and gets one feat. Generic SAD build spends two ASIs maxing primary stat and gets three feats. With this modification, MAD build can still max primary and secondary stats and gets four additional feats, while SAD only gets two extra feats and doesn't have as meaningful places to put their extra stat points.

In essence, SAD builds suffer more from diminishing returns than MAD builds do. SAD gets less value out of raising a secondary stat compared to MAD. SAD also already has three feats, while MAD only has one. MAD's second and third feat will have higher value than SAD's fourth and fifth feat (because feats chosen later must have less value than feats chosen earlier), but MAD also gets a fourth and fifth feat on top of that.

If we really wanted to get into the nitty gritty of it, we could examine whether feats benefit martials or casters more. My suspicion is that martials benefit more due to being able to stack feats like PAM, GWM, HAM, and Fighting Initiate, all at the same time. Meanwhile, something like Fey Touched only makes a difference when you cast the spells provided, and doing so means you aren't casting another spell. So I think feats tend to make martials "taller" (i.e. more powerful) while feats tend to make casters "wider" (i.e. more versatile).

In any case, if a player wants to be powerful, I think it's fine. Let me put it this way: if a player chooses to stack a bunch of optimization feats, e.g. Alert, Lucky, Tough, Resilient, etc., then maybe it's because that's what they want out of the game. If other players choose not to do that, then it's because they want something different out of the game. They shouldn't have a problem existing at the same table because they're not actually stepping on each other's toes. In fact, they're covering each other's weaknesses. Well, in a perfect world, anyway. In practice it might not be that smooth, but I think that's more an issue of the dynamic between players than the characters they're playing as.

If we also doubled down as you say PCs would be substantially stronger. One approach or the other I'd say

Yeah, if you already have a solution that works for you, that's great. There's no need to do both.

On that note, if you use the change I proposed in the OP, you probably don't need the free feat at 1st level, even though that's a houserule I've advocated for in the past. That said, 1st level characters tend to have little to differentiate themselves from other characters of the same class, so the choice of a feat adds another drop of customization at a point where you need it most.

Unless I was reading the OP wrong, he said there would be a cap on all stats of 15 at character creation so your example of a 17 violates his rule. In your scenario, the Druid has an 18 Wisdom at level 4. If I am reading it right, his would mean a max of 16 at level 4.

Sorry I wasn't really clear about this. The cap of 15 at character creation doesn't actually do anything, since it only applies when you get an ASI. It was just meant to say, "it starts here, and then increases by this much at these points". By coincidence, 15 also happens to be the max you can get from point buy, but once racials are applied you can get up to 17. I even mentioned that you could push a stat to 20 a little early if you start with it higher than 15.

I mean, you could enforce a cap of 15 at character creation, racials included. But that then means you need all five ASIs to max an ability score. This would actually make for a nice power curve from 1 to 20, as opposed to vanilla where you spike at 4 and 8, then plateau with no where left go. But it does have interesting implications for multiclassing...

For a homebrew solution, how would you feel about turning your cleric’s spellcasting progression into the Artificer’s progression? You want to be a weapons cleric and most weapons clerics aren’t aiming for spells they can use every round (like shield), so maybe your DM would be amenable? Artificer spell progression in exchange for Fighter feat progression. You’d still have the Cleric spell list, you’d still be a Prepared spellcaster, you’d still have your domain spells and features… You’d just be able to better mix up your feats/ASIs between 4, 6, and 8.


…I could see a cautious DM reducing your hit die or your proficiencies in exchange though.

I don't see how this is better than just multiclassing into something martial. No way I'd give up 6th+ level spells and slots just for a couple extra feats. The whole issue is how much easier it is to just go with a caster cleric, while weapon clerics have to jump through extra hoops just to have equal combat performance. It doesn't make sense to give up half my class features just to make a weapon cleric as easy as a caster cleric.

You know what would be interesting, though? A forge cleric/artificer gestalt (battle smith? armorer?). It's such a thematic combo, but by vanilla ASI rules it's a terrible multiclass. A gestalt might get to double up on ASIs anyway, though, so this houserule might not be needed. Hmm, and there's actually another set of homebrew I've written up, a variant on multiclassing where it acts more like a "choose your own gestalt" that I'd probably prefer to just a straight gestalt.