Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer Creatures
Frozen Sick
D&D Beyond Basic Rules
Basic Rules (2014)
Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in- Marketplace
Monstrous Compendium Vol. 1: Spelljammer CreaturesFrozen SickD&D Beyond Basic RulesBasic Rules (2014)Sign in to view your library & saved favorites.
Sign in
I just wanted to chime in here, because I think it got lost back on page 2.
The complaint isn't just that the stat can't be increased (I don't even think that was really part of the complaint at all, actually). It's that by RAW, you cannot actually choose CHA as the stat and have the feat do anything at all. If CHA wasn't increased because it can't increase, then "the ability increased by this feat" is null and the feature breaks. It's not "the ability chosen to be increased". In other words, if you already have a 20 CHA, then you cannot benefit from this feat in any way unless you choose your lesser stat. Gorman is not wrong to point out that this is what RAW states and it does feel bad enough that DMs will hand wave that part and let you choose CHA anyway (clearly as some of you have pointed out that you think that's what the rules actually say).
I know Sage Advice Compendium used to say;
That was already addressed. It's not obviously RAW at all, it's definitely not RAI, and no one plays that way at their table
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No these feats like Inspiring Leader still let you "Increase your Wisdom or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20". It's a limit to the benefit you get.
CHA 20 + 1 =
2120The "modifier of the ability you increased with this feat" refers to the Ability Score Increase selected.
Both RAW & RAI.
No, I definitely agree that it's RAI...
But I posed this question in the discord to get some more conversation around it, and there seemed to be more consensus that RAW did not allow you to choose CHA for any effect. I'm inclined to agree after mulling over it. The "to a maximum of 20" prevents it from increasing. It did not increase and then get brought back down. And if it didn't increase, it can't be "the ability you increased with this feat".
Counterpoint: you can run a feat just like that on Beyond and it works fine, rather than it greying out an ability that's already at 20.
beyond does things wrong sometimes.
Yes, it does, but it's still a data point. It may not be a source of RAW, but it can still indicate RAI.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
To be clear, I came at this from an "it probably needs errata, because it doesn't seem to be written to work the way I think most people assume it works" point of view.
I would have written it:
However, I am against the suggestion from the OP that someone should be able to choose WIS for the boost and CHA for the feature. At least until I can see some real playtesting under that scheme for all feats where it would apply.
I am not against that, per se. It is not RAW and their DM has decided against it. For a house rule, it's fine. All feats should be balanced against using the player's highest attribute where it matters. At the most basic level, allowing the player to choose an attribute from the potentially abilities to increase, there is no reason to think it wouldn't be balanced. With this, you could boost Wis for Inspiring Leadership and choose to base the feat effect off of Charisma, but not Intelligence, for example. If you completely open up the attribute increase, you should probably preserve the initial choices for the feat effect, no Magic Initiate and casting with Constitution, for example. However, that's a discussion for another Thread.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Can you agree with me that modifying the rules for those kind of feats to something like "plus the modifier of one the abilities you can increase through this feat" would make planning simpler for newcomers to the game without altering the game's balance in any significant way?
No to agreeing with you. Making that type of mistake can actually teach you to look forward, always. If you are new, one would hope that the DM can adjust it so you don't feel the pain. If you have a DM that does not feel empathy for a new player, that is a different thread.
With so many rules lawyers and strong RAW people involved, what may read a simple common sense help tip can be analyzed and used as precedence in some unknow other point.
Consider the mistake OJT and move on.
What mistake? Are you even reading the conversation? Teaching me? What should it teach me? I have stated, times and again, that I wrote before play began, when I still could modify the character to my liking. Once more I read replies as if I did a mistake? What mistake? I took an informed decision. Are you going to tell me what character should I be playing and how?
I was discussing about a different thing now. Sorry, but by now I'm fed up with this kind of replies. If you are not willing to engage in a conversation where you have to keep in mind what other people write... leave me alone, I'm not interested.
Also, way to go on being helpful to new players "making that mistake will teach you". In my opinion it's better for a ruleset to guide new players in a way that stops them from making a mistake, when it's easy to do so. But, again, I am not talking about my case, which was different (not a new player, no mistake was made), the conversation has moved on.
Thanks for bringing this back up. Yes, I think RAW (badly) this is one of the outcomes that somebody could get at a table. Not my table, not your table probably... but it could happen. I remain convinced that these feats were sort of badly adapted to the new system where all feats provide a half increase and this is one way that happened.
No amount of twisting things around makes an ability that was at 20 and remains at 20 "increased". Or, at the very least, one could hardly argue against somebody taking this stance (it wouldn't be me, to be perfectly clear).
No modification is necessary
If you already have a CHA of 20 and choose Inspiring Leader -- at any level -- you can either boost another stat and tie the feature to that stat, or you can tie it to CHA and get no boost. Make a choice
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
There's a very common attitude that RAW is always the most restrictive interpretation of any ambiguous point, but it's not supported by the rules themselves.
The feat has you increase a stat, with a cap. It also gives you an ability that keys off the stat you increased. The idea that, if you pick a stat that's already maxed, you get absolutely nothing from the feat is just silly. If you managed to rearrange your base stats, perhaps with a wish, the stat you chose would get the feat bonus applied to it. (Very much an edge case, I admit, but I think it's clarifying.)
Trying to draw a distinction between "the stat you increased" and "the stat you chose to increase" is needless hair-splitting.
It would still provide character's level temporary hit points, not absolutely nothing. Just to clarify.
I come to this from a point buy systems background (avid reader/player of GURPS/Hero, on top of D&D), so for me, in order of logic the way I would interpret the rules would be:
Increase either Wisdom or CHA and use Inspiring Leader's temporary hit points calculation of your higher stat (no charismatic leader improvising a wise rallying of the troops)
Select the feat with a maxed out ability, don't get any increase but still be able to use your maxed out ability for temp hit points calculation
Select the feat only for the ability you can actually increase and use that ability for temp hit points calculation, even if it's lower than the other maxed out ability.
While infinite discussion can happen on RAI, I think RAW offer the third choice as the only viable one. A strict interpretation? Maybe. But rules should be clear in the language they use. And here's where I think a mistake has been made.
I think it would alter the game's balance, though "significant" is subjective. Were I tier-ranking the feats, it would probably jump those particular feats up one tier.
It would also give more (a small amount more) freedom to players, and it's up in the air if that makes things simpler for new players. It does make optimization more easy, and people will argue for decades over whether or not that is good/bad. And optimization is usually more relevant to less-new players.
I said "would you agree it would make planning simpler for newcomers to the game without altering the game's balance in a significant way". I did not ask if you agreed with me if the modifications was necessary.
Furthermore, as @sabin76 pointed out, the version you describe is, once more, an interpretation. And, RAW, at least for me, a plainly wrong one. I agree with you that it's most likely RAI.
I would not agree. 5e24 isn't Pathfinder. "Planning" isn't even necessary for character development, so there's no reason to make it "simpler"
Your proposed change would actually remove the need for even basic planning ahead with regard to the feats impacted though, because it would remove a decision point. It would do the opposite of what you seem to be advocating
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
PIPA - Planar Interception/Protection Aeormaton, warforged bodyguard and ex-wizard hunter (Warrior of the Elements monk/Cartographer artificer)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)