Starting CHA 20 and Inspiring Leader at 4th (2024)

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from gorman42 >>

If the ability doesn't increase, the rules explicitly state that you won't be able to use an ability on top of your level. The ability has to increase.

equal to your character level plus the modifier of the ability you increased with this feat

 

 

You did increase it. It was just already full, and couldn't get boosted past 20

When your "RAW" interpretation results in something that absolutely no one would play at their table, it's reasonable to question your own interpretation rather than telling everyone else they are wrong

 That's your interpretation. I think that, in English, it's pretty clear that an attribute that was at 20 and remains at 20 has not been increased.

One could legitimately think that having to discard half a feat of "value" for their character could be enough for not wanting to take it. It wouldn't be the first time that rules are written one way and people opt to play another.

I also repeat myself: I am pointing out an inconsistency in the rules. If, for you, the rules are crystal clear, good for you. For me, they clearly show lack of thought for about 9% of players generating characters with random rolls.

Quote from gorman42 >>

I also repeat myself: I am pointing out an inconsistency in the rules. If, for you, the rules are crystal clear, good for you. For me, they clearly show lack of thought for about 9% of players generating characters with random rolls.

Random rolls has nothing to do with it, frankly. You're just faced with this decision earlier -- other players will hit it in Tier 2 or 3, when they get their primary stat up to 20 too and then get to select their next feat

Quote from gorman42>>

Re-read them all. They all share the same problem. The rules clearly state that the governing ability has to be the ability increased by the feat. Since you cannot increase an ability above 20, if you have 20, you cannot use your 20 ability with the feat. As far as RAW are concerned I don't think any doubt can exist in this regard.
Note that this doesn't mean I think this is RAI, but I simply think that the designers did not think this through.

A Fey-Touched Sorcerer all of a sudden casting with their Intelligence? What happened to "Sorcerers don't learn magic; the raw, roiling power of magic is part of them"? It does not make sense, because it's an oversight. Again, IMO (but I think the points in favor are increasing, not diminishing).

The designers thought it through. However, the game is designed around point buy or standard array. Random Generation is a holdover, possibly permanently so, from older editions. 

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

They thought it through. However, the game is designed around point buy or standard array. Random Generation is a holdover, possibly permanently so, from older editions. 

 This is an interesting hypothesis. It would explain the inconsistency. But it would be quite an oversight (sorry if I repeat myself). 

Considering the history of the game, and the random generation option being listed as perfectly viable, it's to be expected that some groups will still be rolling their abilities. 

Ironically, I personally would have preferred for everybody (in our group) to do point buy.

Quote from gorman42 >>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

They thought it through. However, the game is designed around point buy or standard array. Random Generation is a holdover, possibly permanently so, from older editions. 

 This is an interesting hypothesis. It would explain the inconsistency. But it would be quite an oversight (sorry if I repeat myself). 

Considering the history of the game, and the random generation option being listed as perfectly viable, it's to be expected that some groups will still be rolling their abilities. 

Ironically, I personally would have preferred for everybody (in our group) to do point buy.

The whole thing is only an inconsistency under the idea that you go into building your character blindly. Had you planned your build ahead of time, you would have known not to fill your Cha score up before you got all the feats you wanted allocated to it.

And with the talk of the history of the game, preplanning builds was very much a thing you had to do. I'm in a PF1e game right now (better D&D 3.5e) and I have to know at least the direction I want to take my character or I'll end up losing out on important features.

It's not as bad as it was about that any longer (we don't have feats requiring 3+ other feats from various trees as prerequisites in 5e) but there's still a bit of preplanning to do in order to make a character build.

Quote from Athanar90 >

 

The whole thing is only an inconsistency under the idea that you go into building your character blindly. Had you planned your build ahead of time, you would have known not to fill your Cha score up before you got all the feats you wanted allocated to it.

And with the talk of the history of the game, preplanning builds was very much a thing you had to do. I'm in a PF1e game right now (better D&D 3.5e) and I have to know at least the direction I want to take my character or I'll end up losing out on important features.

It's not as bad as it was about that any longer (we don't have feats requiring 3+ other feats from various trees as prerequisites in 5e) but there's still a bit of preplanning to do in order to make a character build.

 
First of all, I was planning before starting to play. I should haven given up a +5 in my character’s primary ability, for three levels, in order to get a feat at level 4? I can get other feats. This does not in any way excuse an illogical design. The feat in 5e made sense; this one, trying to offer more flexibility to players, ends up limiting them more in certain situations and, as written, becomes ridiculous to get for characters with a maxed CHA (a trait shared with several other feats, btw, as we’ve seen in this discussion).

it’s funny how defending a badly written rule easily turns into accusing a player of not playing the game “right” or not thinking ahead. Let’s not even start in understanding how this should fit with a simplification effort, design wise.

Double post, sorry. The forum was acting up. 

Quote from gorman42 >>

 
First of all, I was planning before starting to play. I should haven given up a +5 in my character’s primary ability, for three levels, in order to get a feat at level 4? I can get other feats. This does not in any way excuse an illogical design. The feat in 5e made sense; this one, trying to offer more flexibility to players, ends up limiting them more in certain situations and, as written, becomes ridiculous to get for characters with a maxed CHA (a trait shared with several other feats, btw, as we’ve seen in this discussion).

Edge cases do not and should not determine game design. You don't have to give up a +5 in your ability to get a Feat, but you made the choice to keep the +5 at the expense of not benefiting from further increases to Charisma until late game.

It's your choice as to whether to lose the +1 at level 4 or start at +4 instead of +5. You will have to make choices throughout the game and having to make choices doesn't make the game poorly designed. Choices with consequences are part of healthy game design.

If you want to use Charisma for Inspiring Leadership, pick Charisma. If you don't want to lose out on a +1 to an attribute without changing how it works, make sure Charisma starts at less than 20.

It's your choice.

Quote from gorman42 >>

For once (literally) in my life I got lucky with stats rolls and got an 18.

Go back to this. You rolled stats and got lucky.  Getting one 18 in six rolls with 4D6 drop lowest is really lucky, less than a 10% chance of happening. Enjoy it. Stop complaining about not being even more fortunate.

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

Quote from gorman42 >>

 
First of all, I was planning before starting to play. I should haven given up a +5 in my character’s primary ability, for three levels, in order to get a feat at level 4? I can get other feats. This does not in any way excuse an illogical design. The feat in 5e made sense; this one, trying to offer more flexibility to players, ends up limiting them more in certain situations and, as written, becomes ridiculous to get for characters with a maxed CHA (a trait shared with several other feats, btw, as we’ve seen in this discussion).

Edge cases do not and should not determine game design. You don't have to give up a +5 in your ability to get a Feat, but you made the choice to keep the +5 at the expense of not benefiting from further increases to Charisma until late game.

It's your choice as to whether to lose the +1 at level 4 or start at +4 instead of +5. You will have to make choices throughout the game and having to make choices doesn't make the game poorly designed. Choices with consequences are part of healthy game design.

If you want to use Charisma for Inspiring Leadership, pick Charisma. If you don't want to lose out on a +1 to an attribute without changing how it works, make sure Charisma starts at less than 20.

It's your choice.

Quote from gorman42 >>

For once (literally) in my life I got lucky with stats rolls and got an 18.

Go back to this. You rolled stats and got lucky.  Getting one 18 in six rolls with 4D6 drop lowest is really lucky, less than a 10% chance of happening. Enjoy it. Stop complaining about not being even more fortunate.

I think, at this point, there's a serious misunderstanding. I am not replying to people because I am complaining about my current character. My current character is in play, I've had a fantastic first session and I'm looking forward to the second. I roleplayed the hell out of their CHA 20, with all the table happy with how I handled it. That's not the point, by now.

What I'm stating and I've not seen one argument to the contrary that was in any way convincing is that this bunch or rules concerning feats and half increases is badly written, poorly explained and clearly the result of modifying something in a working system (5E) without thinking fully about the consequences.

If the designers feel that there's logic behind the current rules, ie. they have considered the impact of them once characters reach 20 in an ability, I would expect:

1. A clear warning in Step 3 of Creating a Character. People generating randomly, if they get lucky, must be careful because they risk "losing out" on some aspects of feats.
2. A clear warning in Gaining a Level, drawing attention to the fact that not all increases can be taken at face value and that some *might* hurt the character growth down the line.
3. Clearer wording in feats. If you can get a feat even if you cannot increase an ability score you want to use with it, it should be clearly spelled out. Currently, plus the modifier of the ability you increased with the feat is at best misleading. The player with a 20 in the governing ability of a feat might wonder if he gets an ability bonus at all, since the ability did not increase. One way or the other, clearer wording is needed.

In the absence of all of this, I'm left with serious doubts about the designers' intent and how much they thought this through.

D&D 2024 was born (among other things) out of the decision to streamline and simplify. It succeeds in many aspects toward this goal. In this case, in my opinion, it fails badly. You cannot tell me that a new player, feeling lucky for a good initial roll or their character's advancement to high tiers, would be satisfied to discover, several levels later, that no, they should have not opted to get 20 in their character's governing ability, because now, ha ha, gotcha!, they will lose out on aspects of their character's development.

But again, and hopefully for the last time, the above is NOT my case. I did not discover about this *after* play had started. I discovered about it before. I wrote here asking for clarification, I *sort of* gotten it. I discussed with the DM, we reached an agreement. Play has started, I'm having fun and I'm not complaining. But I'm not a new player, I've been playing since 1984. Others might find themselves in this situation with a far less clear idea of game design, character's development and so on and so forth.

PS

As a personal aside, and this has nothing to do with the argument above, bear in mind that, for some tables, balance is not necessarily always the objective. I've already stated that I would have preferred for our group to opt for point buy ability generation. The DM explicitly wanted the dice. He, and other players, specifically wanted to submit themselves to fate's whims. So all the pointing out toward "you've already been luck" really doesn't matter: it was the explicit desire of the table that some players could get lucky and be far better in some aspects (and worse in others, if unlucky). Nobody ever thought "lucky rolls will be balanced out later in the game when feats will become less useful". But please, do not reply to this. It's secondary. What I'm interested in discussing is before this PS. Thank you.

Quote from gorman42 >>

What I'm stating and I've not seen one argument to the contrary

You have, actually. Multiple arguments, including one in the very post you just responded to

You're just not listening to them

Quote from gorman42 >>

I think, at this point, there's a serious misunderstanding. I am not replying to people because I am complaining about my current character. My current character is in play, I've had a fantastic first session and I'm looking forward to the second. I roleplayed the hell out of their CHA 20, with all the table happy with how I handled it. That's not the point, by now.

What I'm stating and I've not seen one argument to the contrary that was in any way convincing is that this bunch or rules concerning feats and half increases is badly written, poorly explained and clearly the result of modifying something in a working system (5E) without thinking fully about the consequences.

If the designers feel that there's logic behind the current rules, ie. they have considered the impact of them once characters reach 20 in an ability, I would expect:

1. A clear warning in Step 3 of Creating a Character. People generating randomly, if they get lucky, must be careful because they risk "losing out" on some aspects of feats.
2. A clear warning in Gaining a Level, drawing attention to the fact that not all increases can be taken at face value and that some *might* hurt the character growth down the line.
3. Clearer wording in feats. If you can get a feat even if you cannot increase an ability score you want to use with it, it should be clearly spelled out. Currently, plus the modifier of the ability you increased with the feat is at best misleading. The player with a 20 in the governing ability of a feat might wonder if he gets an ability bonus at all, since the ability did not increase. One way or the other, clearer wording is needed.

In the absence of all of this, I'm left with serious doubts about the designers' intent and how much they thought this through.

D&D 2024 was born (among other things) out of the decision to streamline and simplify. It succeeds in many aspects toward this goal. In this case, in my opinion, it fails badly. You cannot tell me that a new player, feeling lucky for a good initial roll or their character's advancement to high tiers, would be satisfied to discover, several levels later, that no, they should have not opted to get 20 in their character's governing ability, because now, ha ha, gotcha!, they will lose out on aspects of their character's development.

But again, and hopefully for the last time, the above is NOT my case. I did not discover about this *after* play had started. I discovered about it before. I wrote here asking for clarification, I *sort of* gotten it. I discussed with the DM, we reached an agreement. Play has started, I'm having fun and I'm not complaining. But I'm not a new player, I've been playing since 1984. Others might find themselves in this situation with a far less clear idea of game design, character's development and so on and so forth.

PS

As a personal aside, and this has nothing to do with the argument above, bear in mind that, for some tables, balance is not necessarily always the objective. I've already stated that I would have preferred for our group to opt for point buy ability generation. The DM explicitly wanted the dice. He, and other players, specifically wanted to submit themselves to fate's whims. So all the pointing out toward "you've already been luck" really doesn't matter: it was the explicit desire of the table that some players could get lucky and be far better in some aspects (and worse in others, if unlucky). Nobody ever thought "lucky rolls will be balanced out later in the game when feats will become less useful". But please, do not reply to this. It's secondary. What I'm interested in discussing is before this PS. Thank you.

If your complaints are about how the game is designed, the time to complain about that was really back in '22-'23 when it was being playtested. Additionally, for the sake of simplifying the rules, 5e and 5.5e have both done fine. The plain language model works for most people and most cases and it's definitely less complicated than previous editions were. Your complaint with general feats all being half-ASI-feats now and that having effects on gameplay isn't even a new thing; the Fey Touched and Shadow Touched feats from Tasha's (pre-5.5e) had the same condition attached, where you had to use the stat you increased with the feat for the casting of the selected spells, and I'm sure there's other examples, but those seem like obvious ones at the moment.

Quote from AntonSirius >>

Quote from gorman42 >>

What I'm stating and I've not seen one argument to the contrary

 

You have, actually. Multiple arguments, including one in the very post you just responded to

You're just not listening to them

 Ok, sure. 

Quote from Athanar90 >>>

If your complaints are about how the game is designed, the time to complain about that was really back in '22-'23 when it was being playtested. 

 

Wait, what? So once a game is released... no more discussing its game design, no more pointing out inconsistencies? If somebody buys the books today, for the first time, they lose all the rights to discussing their design because they were not there for their playtest?

That's novel to me. Or maybe just downright ridiculous.
We can agree to disagree, that would be fine for me. But the constant shifting the blame on me for "not planning ahead" (untrue and provably so just by reading what I wrote) or, now, for not being there for the playtesting it's absurd.

Quote from gorman42 >>

What I'm stating and I've not seen one argument to the contrary that was in any way convincing is that this bunch or rules concerning feats and half increases is badly written, poorly explained and clearly the result of modifying something in a working system (5E) without thinking fully about the consequences.

If the designers feel that there's logic behind the current rules, ie. they have considered the impact of them once characters reach 20 in an ability, I would expect:

1. A clear warning in Step 3 of Creating a Character. People generating randomly, if they get lucky, must be careful because they risk "losing out" on some aspects of feats.
2. A clear warning in Gaining a Level, drawing attention to the fact that not all increases can be taken at face value and that some *might* hurt the character growth down the line.
3. Clearer wording in feats. If you can get a feat even if you cannot increase an ability score you want to use with it, it should be clearly spelled out. Currently, plus the modifier of the ability you increased with the feat is at best misleading. The player with a 20 in the governing ability of a feat might wonder if he gets an ability bonus at all, since the ability did not increase. One way or the other, clearer wording is needed.

In the absence of all of this, I'm left with serious doubts about the designers' intent and how much they thought this through.

Ha. D&D has never given "clear warnings" about its weird little inefficiencies or other quirks. The game is (and always has been) full of these things. This is not remotely new to 5.24; you're just running into a new version of a particular feat you want.

If you want full, optimal utilization, you're gonna need to pick a different feat.

There are many cases where, for example, a class feature will partially overlap with a feat. Or a feat will boost a stat you don't care to boost, or not boost a stat you do want to boost. Feats and features will often partially fill a hole in your characters's toolkit but not perfectly fill it. This is a consequence of having chunky class features (and really all of the character build elements being chunky), which is a pretty usual consequence of a class/level system, which D&D has always been. It's never going to be as good at building just the right character as a point-buy system or other things. (To be fair, I think it sucks, and all class/level systems like D&D are kinda trash, but it is what it is and it dominates the market. C'est la vie.)

Anyway, the only reason this particular case is coming up for you is because you're using a legacy system for stat generation. Since you're having fun with that, I suggest a different feat. Durable, Resilient, Skill Expert, Keen Mind, and Observant are all ones I might recommend, not knowing your build. Maybe even Chef, if you're really set on giving out (different) temp HP.

Quote from gorman42 >>

Quote from Athanar90 >>>

If your complaints are about how the game is designed, the time to complain about that was really back in '22-'23 when it was being playtested. 

 

 

Wait, what? So once a game is released... no more discussing its game design, no more pointing out inconsistencies? If somebody buys the books today, for the first time, they lose all the rights to discussing their design because they were not there for their playtest?

That's novel to me. Or maybe just downright ridiculous.
We can agree to disagree, that would be fine for me. But the constant shifting the blame on me for "not planning ahead" (untrue and provably so just by reading what I wrote) or, now, for not being there for the playtesting it's absurd.

My point here was more that your complaints aren't going to do a thing. The game is the way it is at this point and you're just complaining fruitlessly.

Quote from gorman42 >>

I think, at this point, there's a serious misunderstanding. I am not replying to people because I am complaining about my current character. My current character is in play, I've had a fantastic first session and I'm looking forward to the second. I roleplayed the hell out of their CHA 20, with all the table happy with how I handled it. That's not the point, by now.

Okay, you have made you choice. There are opportunity costs of that choice that you have paid and will pay. This is D&D, but it is also life in general.

Quote from gorman42 >> 

What I'm stating and I've not seen one argument to the contrary that was in any way convincing is that this bunch or rules concerning feats and half increases is badly written, poorly explained and clearly the result of modifying something in a working system (5E) without thinking fully about the consequences.

You have seen multiple arguments to the contrary. What you want is a system where you are equally optimized regardless of the choices you make. As I understand it, Pathfinder 2e is good for that, but one of the biggest complaints I hear is that it doesn't feel like any choices matter. You wind up playing the same character with a slightly different flavor. Imagine if every way to build a Sorcerer felt the same. The numbers are the same, but maybe the damage type on a special attack changes.

In D&D, there are opportunity costs, which means if you make a choice, you may get locked out of something else. Hard lockouts are rare, but you can't, for example be a level 3 Arcane Trickster/level 3 Thief because those are both subclasses of Rogue and you can only pick one. Soft lockouts can occur due to attribute choices preventing you from multiclassing or picking certain feats. Subobtimal choices are plentiful, usually these choices suboptimal in combination with others (Playing a Barbarian/Cleric/Sorcerer is not going to be great).

You made a choice to have a 20 Charisma. That locks you out of increasing Charisma with Inspiring Leader. Now you have to choose whether to increase Charisma by +0 and use Charisma for the effect or increase Wisdom by +1 and use that for your ability. You have hit a rare edge case that was partially caused by your own choices. This does not reflect poorly on the feat design. It was perfectly reasonable to ask your DM to work around it, but they denied the request. That's the end of it. You made a choice that put you in this situation and at level 4, you will have to make a choice about what you are going to do with the feat.

Quote from gorman42 >> 

If the designers feel that there's logic behind the current rules, ie. they have considered the impact of them once characters reach 20 in an ability, I would expect:

1. A clear warning in Step 3 of Creating a Character. People generating randomly, if they get lucky, must be careful because they risk "losing out" on some aspects of feats.
2. A clear warning in Gaining a Level, drawing attention to the fact that not all increases can be taken at face value and that some *might* hurt the character growth down the line.
3. Clearer wording in feats. If you can get a feat even if you cannot increase an ability score you want to use with it, it should be clearly spelled out. Currently, plus the modifier of the ability you increased with the feat is at best misleading. The player with a 20 in the governing ability of a feat might wonder if he gets an ability bonus at all, since the ability did not increase. One way or the other, clearer wording is needed.

In the absence of all of this, I'm left with serious doubts about the designers' intent and how much they thought this through.

 

1. Is completely unnecessary. You aren't losing out.
2. You aren't hurting your character growth.
3. This could be handled by a sage advice response at most. 

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5 >>

1. This could be handled by a sage advice response at most. 

Is there a place where one can ask for sage advice responses? I'm not familiar with the process (never felt I needed it, with 5e and BECMI I used to play ages ago).

Quote from Athanar90 >

My point here was more that your complaints aren't going to do a thing. The game is the way it is at this point and you're just complaining fruitlessly.

Because you kept on framing this as me complaining. I was and am past complaining, I have made my informed choices, I'll live with it and I don't see them impairing my fun with the game (as stated, CHA 20 it's a beauty to role play, at least for me). I was and am just trying to understand why things are the way the are, since they make little sense to me.

I don't want to sound aggressive or too defensive, but put yourself in my shoes. I came here, I asked a question, I explained that, following the answers I made a decision. And then I've been accused of going in uninformed, without a plan, etc. When all I was doing was trying to be informed and planning.

Quote from kenclary >>

There are many cases where, for example, a class feature will partially overlap with a feat. Or a feat will boost a stat you don't care to boost, or not boost a stat you do want to boost. Feats and features will often partially fill a hole in your characters's toolkit but not perfectly fill it. This is a consequence of having chunky class features (and really all of the character build elements being chunky), which is a pretty usual consequence of a class/level system, which D&D has always been. It's never going to be as good at building just the right character as a point-buy system or other things. (To be fair, I think it sucks, and all class/level systems like D&D are kinda trash, but it is what it is and it dominates the market. C'est la vie.)

Anyway, the only reason this particular case is coming up for you is because you're using a legacy system for stat generation. Since you're having fun with that, I suggest a different feat. Durable, Resilient, Skill Expert, Keen Mind, and Observant are all ones I might recommend, not knowing your build. Maybe even Chef, if you're really set on giving out (different) temp HP.

 It's ok, I mean... as I've stated I would have preferred for point buy to happen for the whole party. But the DM was adamant in wanting rolls. And then I got lucky (first time ever, really).
On the other hand (but I'm sorta repeating myself here), it would have been nice if the random rolling option was presented as a legacy one, with a warning about leading to unpredictable results in character development. Maybe, then, the DM would have been more inclined to go with point buy. As others stated, though, this "inconsistency" (the way I see it) would simply have reared its head further ahead in the campaign, at higher tiers (but it's not a given we'll reach them and/or keep playing).

I'll give a proper look at all the feats you suggested (thank you!), although, probably, I should just pick Elemental Adept (character is a Sorcerer) and be done with it. Roleplay potential of getting Skill Expert and getting Expertise with Persuasion is quite attractive, though. Choices....

Quote from gorman42 >>

with a warning about leading to unpredictable results in character development.

It didn't, though

As I said before, people run into "I already have a 20 in this stat, but the feat and associated feature I want are tied to that stat so if i pick it, I can't increase it further" fairly frequently. They just do later in character development than you did

As Smite said, that's not a problem of design, or an oversight. That's simply you being forced to make a choice and prioritize what's more important to you as a player

Quote from gorman42>>

Quote from SmiteMakesRight_3_5>>

1. This could be handled by a sage advice response at most. 

Is there a place where one can ask for sage advice responses? I'm not familiar with the process (never felt I needed it, with 5e and BECMI I used to play ages ago).

I don't know the current process, if there is one. Previously it was via Twitter to the (now former) Lead Rules Designer and the responses that made it to the Sage Advice Compendium (SAC, 2014) and Sage Advice & Errata (SAnE, 2024) were official. The answers on Twitter varied in reliability and accuracy but are sometimes referenced for intent but are increasingly less relevant.

Theoretically, they could be looking at forums for questions asked here. There may be an email or Twitter account I am not aware of for questions. I haven't checked the Discord, but I am not optimistic about finding an avenue there. There is a D&D Beyond Support page, but it doesn't seem to handle rules questions.