Increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. This feat can't increase an ability score above 20.
Repeatable. You can take this feat more than once.
But to me, the wording is slightly ambiguous. It becomes clearer when I underline this phrase:
Increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. This feat can't increase an ability score above 20.
So for RAW, I could technically increase my Charisma to 22 if my Charisma was 20 before. It wasn't above 20, right?
But I think it should be worded Increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or increase two ability scores of your choice by 1, to a maximum of 20.
It should specify a maximum, like the other feats.
The way this is read is "This feat can't increase an ability score [to be] above 20." Capping ASI boosts at 20 is the RAW reading of the rule, and grammatically, the "to be" is not necessary to convey their point. That said, including the "to be" or rephrasing as you noted in your post would be the more clear way of writing, as you correctly note the potential inadvertent reading of their phrasing.
increasing from 21 to 22 is technically increasing above 20.
I think he was saying that the wording of the feat could be construed to argue that a stat at 20 could be given a +2, raising it to 22, or two stats at 20 could be given +1's to push them to 21.
While I agree that gramatically it could be argued to mean it works this way, I think that is the much less common way to take the phrase, and looking for a loophole. In this instance, I think this section of the DMG would apply: Players Exploiting the Rules.
The Ability Scores section of the Basic Rules / PHB also defines 20 as the highest an adventurer's stat can go unless a feature states otherwise. While being funny about the wording like this could possibly be argued by some trying to exploit the rules, that pretty well shows that normal circumstances are meant to cap at 20. And ASIs are normal circumstances, you get them from level 4.
Increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. This feat can't increase an ability score above 20.
So for RAW, I could technically increase my Charisma to 22 if my Charisma was 20 before. It wasn't above 20, right?
You're misreading the underlined sentence, and I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not intentional.
I do see what you're getting at—the phrase "can't increase an ability score above 20" could be read one of two ways. The first way is the way you're trying to imply—that the rule is stating what category of thing the increase cannot be applied to and that category is "ability scores of 21 or higher". But the correct reading is the sentence is describing in what is an invalid result of the feat—the rule is stating you cannot apply an increase that results in an ability score finishing at a value of 21 or higher.
We know this is the correct reading because it is inline with every other rule in the game. Your reading is at odds with every other rule in the game on the matter.
The ASI feat is as follows:
Prerequisite: Level 4+
Increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. This feat can't increase an ability score above 20.
Repeatable. You can take this feat more than once.
But to me, the wording is slightly ambiguous. It becomes clearer when I underline this phrase:
Increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. This feat can't increase an ability score above 20.
So for RAW, I could technically increase my Charisma to 22 if my Charisma was 20 before. It wasn't above 20, right?
But I think it should be worded Increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or increase two ability scores of your choice by 1, to a maximum of 20.
It should specify a maximum, like the other feats.
The way this is read is "This feat can't increase an ability score [to be] above 20." Capping ASI boosts at 20 is the RAW reading of the rule, and grammatically, the "to be" is not necessary to convey their point. That said, including the "to be" or rephrasing as you noted in your post would be the more clear way of writing, as you correctly note the potential inadvertent reading of their phrasing.
increasing from 21 to 22 is technically increasing above 20.
I think he was saying that the wording of the feat could be construed to argue that a stat at 20 could be given a +2, raising it to 22, or two stats at 20 could be given +1's to push them to 21.
While I agree that gramatically it could be argued to mean it works this way, I think that is the much less common way to take the phrase, and looking for a loophole. In this instance, I think this section of the DMG would apply: Players Exploiting the Rules.
The Ability Scores section of the Basic Rules / PHB also defines 20 as the highest an adventurer's stat can go unless a feature states otherwise. While being funny about the wording like this could possibly be argued by some trying to exploit the rules, that pretty well shows that normal circumstances are meant to cap at 20. And ASIs are normal circumstances, you get them from level 4.
It was, 22 is above 20 so you can't increase an ability score this way.
You're misreading the underlined sentence, and I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt that it's not intentional.
I do see what you're getting at—the phrase "can't increase an ability score above 20" could be read one of two ways. The first way is the way you're trying to imply—that the rule is stating what category of thing the increase cannot be applied to and that category is "ability scores of 21 or higher". But the correct reading is the sentence is describing in what is an invalid result of the feat—the rule is stating you cannot apply an increase that results in an ability score finishing at a value of 21 or higher.
We know this is the correct reading because it is inline with every other rule in the game. Your reading is at odds with every other rule in the game on the matter.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here