I have a player who is considering taking a feat with his next ASI. The feat he wants to take would increase an ability score he already has maxed out. He has been talking with me about the possibility of finding another (minor) benefit he could take to replace the ability score improvement part of the feat (such as expertise in a skill associated with that ability score).

Has anyone else had a request like this come from one of your players before? How did you handle it? I do want to be accommodating to my player, but do not want to make it seem unfair to other players who planned out things like this ahead of time to get the score increases with the feat to help increase their scores. 

I'd suggest allowing them to take an ASI in a different score of the same "category" (mental/physical). There are specific feats and class abilities for expertise, so I'd shy away from that.

I'd treat this the same way as getting a proficiency that you already have -- you can move it to another stat.

If they are taking the feat for the ASI, then they aren't really in a place to be taking a feat.  You take feats for the added benefit, not the ASI granted really since it is a 1/2 ASI . I agree with Pantagruel, they don't get anything "extra" for taking a feat that makes their ASI redundant.

I want to say that they should get no other benefit, but if it was one of my players I wouldn't want them to feel like they're getting punished so I'd let them move the +1 to another stat, but I'd try to pick a stat that seems appropriate as a replacement, as Naivara mentioned. But I'd do that knowing that it's not balanced and is really just me being gentle as a DM

Essentially what letting them pick a different stat does is allow them to retcon a previous ASI. Which means they got a few levels (probably 4) where they got a +2 ASI instead of the +1/+1 ASI they would have had if they're planned ahead, but they're legal now -- this is always a place they could have reached by their current level.

I think moving it to another stat is probably the best option.

Have him find one of the Tomes or Manuals that grant maxing to 22 eg.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/tome-of-leadership-and-influence

https://www.dndbeyond.com/magic-items/manual-of-bodily-health

RAW they get nothing, the feats that grant a +1 say that specifically 

• Increase your Intelligence or Wisdom score by 1, to a maximum of 20.

if they want the feat then those are the breaks, you are free to do anything you want outside of the rules but the feats are clear on what happens.

I don’t think it’s a major problem since they’re getting the rest of the feat but I don’t think allowing them to shift a +1 to another stat would be an issue either. Especially considering  that adding +1 to an ability score may not actually change their score modifier until they can get the next ASI anyways.

You get nothing.   You most definitely do not get to 'move it' to another stat.

We are now playing Character Optimizer, instead of Dungeons & Dragons? 

I thought "game play" was solving adventures, defeating monsters, and having fun building an emergent narrative in a social environment - not a soporific round of some Attributes and Accountancy mini-game.

Most mature Players I know would consider having a more capable team member as being to everyone's benefit. Even rules lawyers, who take pride in their Character build optimization can do just that: take pride in their Character optimization. There is no call for them to police everyone else's Character development choices, and feel "disappointed" if we don't punish other Players for not having fully memorized the rules. If I had such a person who was "very disappointed" at my table, I'd tell them to mind their own business. 

According to Pantagruel666's logic, this doesn't even make the Character illegal, it just plays with retconning a past ASI choice. 

In my opinion, the Player in the OP really doesn't have the right to ask for special consideration, and I'd be a bit annoyed if they were one of my Players and had done so, but I might very well have suggested it myself, and stressed to the Players that they are responsible for such situations in the future.

Quote from Vedexent >>

We are now playing Character Optimizer, instead of Dungeons & Dragons? 

I thought "game play" was solving adventures, defeating monsters, and having fun building an emergent narrative in a social environment - not a soporific round of some Attributes and Accountancy mini-game.

Most mature Players I know would consider having a more capable team member as being to everyone's benefit. Even rules lawyers, who take pride in their Character build optimization can do just that: take pride in their Character optimization. There is no call for them to police everyone else's Character development choices, and feel "disappointed" if we don't punish other Players for not having fully memorized the rules. If I had such a person who was "very disappointed" at my table, I'd tell them to mind their own business. 

According to Pantagruel666's logic, this doesn't even make the Character illegal, it just plays with retconning a past ASI choice. 

In my opinion, the Player in the OP really doesn't have the right to ask for special consideration, and I'd be a bit annoyed if they were one of my Players and had done so, but I might very well have suggested it myself, and stressed to the Players that they are responsible for such situations in the future.

 I mean it's fine if you want to play this way and with a newer player maybe no more than level 8 maybe.  But frankly if we let this happen, I see it being a little bit of a slope for PCs to fall down.  Maybe the bard sees that he hasn't used a new spell he got and wants to exchange it out before the level up even if that is 4-6 sessions away, or someone wnats to replace a cantrip they barely use.  This is all stuff that can come from this.  Sure it is a slippery slope argument, but you know what they say "If you give a mouse a cookie..." Letting players just recon stuff can be fine for most tables, but it should be something the table is okay with Vs just the DM and the player affected.  Btw things I just mentioned is stuff I am okay with as a DM especially with new players, but is something like you I would want my veteran players to shy away from.

This is why GMs are judges and arbiters: to prevent the "slope for PCs to fall down". If the situation gets out of hand, that's on the GM. Pick up your cookies, and put them in tin, so the mice can't get them. It's really not hard allow this sort of thing once: advance the option optionally to all Players one time only, and right now, and then close this option off in the future.

Maybe the bard sees that he hasn't used a new spell he got and wants to exchange it out before the level up even if that is 4-6 sessions away, or someone wnats to replace a cantrip they barely use.  

Um... this is allowed in UA and I allow it in my campaign (well, for a Sorcerer). They can change 1 spell per long rest. I see nothing wrong with it.

There is nothing wrong with nothing extra happening. Most feats say “to a maximum of 20” and they don’t just put those rules in the book for no reason.

But that isn’t as fun and the game is about having fun. if you do give them a homebrew ability I wouldn’t make it something super powerful. I feel like even giving proficiency to a skill is too powerful. You could tell them nothing happens, then boom next session they find a new, rules approved, magic item instead. Perhaps one with charges that once it runs out of charges, loses its magical property.

or allow the score to go to 21, then at a high level they get an ability or item that allows that score to increase +1 for 1 minute, once a day...that’s really powerful but really it’s all up to you and whatever is fun. Looking back at every campaign I’ve been apart of, sometimes they don’t last long or end prematurely and I’d think to myself “wish I would have given Scott that extra ability or item they wanted” and it wouldn’t have broken the game anyway. A homebrew ability is kinda like playtest content. You can tell the player their new ability or score increase is playtest and subject to change or be taken away entirely if it proves to be too powerful.

I don’t know, it’s a tough balance. Sticking to the rules is the easiest and nothing can go wrong but can sometimes be unsatisfying feeling like you’re missing out on something.

Quote from BioWizard >>

Maybe the bard sees that he hasn't used a new spell he got and wants to exchange it out before the level up even if that is 4-6 sessions away, or someone wnats to replace a cantrip they barely use.  

 

Um... this is allowed in UA and I allow it in my campaign (well, for a Sorcerer). They can change 1 spell per long rest. I see nothing wrong with it.

 Sure it's now allowed in UA, but per the rules for the past so many years that wasn't the case.  But my point was if you don't care then don't care, but ignore one rule and you lead to the need/want for other rules to be hand waved.  Like I said about the cantrips, if every class can just switch them out willy nilly, then that takes away from the flexibility built into the Artificer for example.

I think the point is being confused and interwoven with another.

”I think I made a mistake on a decision earlier in the campaign can anything be done”

is a very different to 

“I want to take this feat but i don’t get 100% of the benefit, can we fix that so I get an equivalent”

No one takes a feat that has an ASI for the ASI alone, they want the ability the feat allows, the ASI is just there to balance out some of the less game changing ones to make it more of a decision for the player. If the player wants that feat because of what it offers then that’s why they pick it, the ASI is a bonus. 

Plus if they already have 1 or possibly 2 (some feats ASI gives a choice of ability to increase after all) abilities that are already on 20, they are not exactly hurting in the stat department.

Also while this has become 90% of the conversation it’s worth considering that the OP didn’t actually ask to move to another stat and do this! It was the first reply that did.

To the original suggested change personally I don’t think gaining +1 in a stat = getting upto +6 on a skill check for getting proficiency in a related skill, especially as they already have +5 in that skill. 

Just to get a better understanding - what level is the character and what’s the feat?

The thing is you do not have to worry about the full-game balance across all classes in your game. You only need to worry about balance in your own individual campaign. I don't even allow Artificers in my campaign and nobody has asked to even play one, nor do I think anyone will want to even to replace a dead PC (much less likely to happen now that they are about to hit 5th level) with an artificer, so it really doesn't matter to me if something I allow my Sorcerer to do would step on the toes of some theoretical artificer no one will ever play in my game. Frankly some of the things the Sorcerer has asked to do , and I have allowed, might step on the toes of bards or wizards, but I don't have them in my game either. So why should I care?

On the other hand, I have a beastmaster ranger, so I am going to be VERY strict about things like pets or NPC sidekicks, because I don't want some wolf that, say, the rogue befriended on the trail, to follow them around being as good and useful in combat as the class-defining feature of the ranger.

It's the same thing with Feats. So far there have not been any issues, but if someone tried to take a Feat that I thought stepped on the toes of another character, I would not allow it. Great example: the Sorcerer is a "Fate spinner" (homebrew subclass). His whole shtick is that he bends chance and fate. He has one class ability that lets him force a re-roll once per rest, but he also has the Lucky feat which also allows that. This is in concept for him... but if suddenly the Cleric got the same Feat, it would step on his toes. I would not allow it, not to be mean to the Cleric, but because it would take away what would be unique about the sorcerer. But not about ALL sorcerers, just about THIS sorcerer in my current game.

To me that is the thing... you want to let the PCs be cool, but not have them step on each other's toes. If you have an artificer in your game and the UA options ape the artificer's special talents, then yes, disallow the UA option. But if you have no artificer, who cares if this would "step on the toes" of someone who doesn't even exist? I mean even if there are NPCs, who cares? You're the one playing the NPCs, and as a DM, it should not bother you that NPCs are being upstaged by PCs. In fact, that is usually what is supposed to happen.

Back to the OP, so long as moving that point to another stat is not going to break another PC's shtick or unbalance the game in some way, I'd allow it. As Pantagruel said, you can just treat it as a retcon of an earlier stat adjustment from a prior level. And I wouldn't just limit this to new players -- because even a vet player of one class, may not realize the implications of certain stats on a new class he or she has never played.