D&D (2024) 75 Feats -- not nearly enough

[Justice and Rule]

You just characterized a decision you don't understand* as "bad".
*) by your own testimony

I "don't understand" it because it's a bad design decision. I've never heard a good argument for it, hence I "never understood". I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than not grokking casual idioms.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You just characterized a decision you don't understand* as "bad".
*) by your own testimony

Who is the judge in this court?

 

[CapnZapp]

Who is the judge in this court?

I am not aware of any court.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I am not aware of any court.

Then where's the idea of a post on an internet forum is testimony coming from?

 

[dave2008]

Never understood why it had to be a choice and not just let people have both. It was one of my first changes because it was always a bad choice to have to make.

There is really no need for ASI in 5e, from a mechanical perspective. In fact, I argue they are detrimental. One of the reasons why we went all feats. They are also uninteresting IMO.

 

[CapnZapp]

Then where's the idea of a post on an internet forum is testimony coming from?

IANAL. I'm not using the word in the strict sense you seem to assume. If you like "your own admissal" or even "your own words" better, please mentally replace.

 

[Justice and Rule]

75 is not too many but it is probably enough for the PHB. The bigger problem is the way feats are done in 5e and I have my doubts that this will be solved in the new PHB.
In my opinion, apart from a very small number of exceptions in the current game, it is not clear that any feat is worth more than a +2 to an ability.

Unless they can address this issue, there will be a problem with feats.
The other issue is the value of one feat versus another.

For certain classes it means more than others. Martials, in particular, probably get more benefits from feats because (so far in 5E, at least) feats have had big implications on how they interact with combat. +1 to hit is always good, but the +1 to damage is less meaningful. For Spellcasters, they get other effects like an extra spell memorized and increasing their Spell DC, which is very important. If you aren't maxed out in your spellcasting stat, you probably are better served unless there is some specific effect you are looking at (like maybe a Warcasting battle Cleric).

There is really no need for ASI in 5e, from a mechanical perspective. In fact, I argue they are detrimental. One of the reasons why we went all feats. They are also uninteresting IMO.

I think making it a choice is the mistake. Given how low the array is, I'm okay with ASIs as a benefit from level. I just think players should always get both, so that you can customize your character in two ways rather than one. Making you choose between the two always feels bad.

 

[dave2008]

For certain classes it means more than others. Martials, in particular, probably get more benefits from feats because (so far in 5E, at least) feats have had big implications on how they interact with combat. +1 to hit is always good, but the +1 to damage is less meaningful. For Spellcasters, they get other effects like an extra spell memorized and increasing their Spell DC, which is very important. If you aren't maxed out in your spellcasting stat, you probably are better served unless there is some specific effect you are looking at (like maybe a Warcasting battle Cleric).



I think making it a choice is the mistake. Given how low the array is, I'm okay with ASIs as a benefit from level. I just think players should always get both, so that you can customize your character in two ways rather than one. Making you choose between the two always feels bad.

Doesn't feel bad to me. It makes a certain amount of sense to me from a verisimilitude perspetive. If you have to train to raise your stat, you can train to learn a feat. However, I don't really care that much. Though as I type this I realize actually don't like getting an ASI automatically - I want it to be a choice.

 

[Belen]

That sounds like a good argument for having these feats.

However it also sounds like a good argument for placing these niche campaign feats in supplements rather than the core PHB...

They have to provide a balance. You want a well-rounded PHB. If you dedicate the PHB to crunch and optimization, then you are providing the impression that this is the focus of a good game and good player.

I think that including optimized and non-optimized options is good design for a system that intends to support multiple styles of gameplay.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

For certain classes it means more than others. Martials, in particular, probably get more benefits from feats because (so far in 5E, at least) feats have had big implications on how they interact with combat. +1 to hit is always good, but the +1 to damage is less meaningful. For Spellcasters, they get other effects like an extra spell memorized and increasing their Spell DC, which is very important. If you aren't maxed out in your spellcasting stat, you probably are better served unless there is some specific effect you are looking at (like maybe a Warcasting battle Cleric).

I think martials should just get a bit more feats. Casters have enough.

I think making it a choice is the mistake. Given how low the array is, I'm okay with ASIs as a benefit from level. I just think players should always get both, so that you can customize your character in two ways rather than one. Making you choose between the two always feels bad.

Since increasing main stats is nearly always the best choice, I am not sure why you think that taking away the hard choice between feat or main stat increases choices...

Since level 4+ feats always come with one stat boost (as of now), it seems like a healthy middle ground. Pick a feat with not always the optimal stat boost or ASI. I'd actually make ASI +2 one stat, +1 to a different one. Maybe always one of them. needs to be used on one of your lower scores, so ASI get spread around a bit.