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
Really not following you now. Do you think it would make planning harder for newcomers? How?
So, in your opinion, there's a meaningful difference between "Choose a stat. Increase it by one to a max of 20 and ability that keys off the chosen stat" and "Increase a stat by one to a max of 20. Ability that keys off the increased stat"?
D&D 5 isn't written with the level of rigor that allows that kind of distinction. To be honest, even in systems that are written to that level of rigor, I still don't think one can draw that distinction.
In a system with that level of rigor, restrictions and dependence are, and must be, spelled out explicitly. "Increase a stat, to a max of 20" and "Choose a stat that is lower than 20 and increase it" are different things in such a system. So, if you want to interpret 5e as a rigorously-written system, then you have to interpret the feat as the former.
(Admittedly, rigorous systems also have rules of how to treat no-ops. But, barring an explicit rule that you cannot attempt a no-op, I think one must assume that one can, and it just doesn't do anything.)
I think there's a meaningful difference in English. "plus the modifier of the ability you increased with this feat" loses meaning if you cannot increase an ability through the feat. I am not in any way saying that I would be ruling like this, were I the DM. I'm just saying it is ambiguous and could be written better.
I also think it gels badly with a system still allowing for random generation of abilities, because that increases the likelihood of an uninformed player finding out three levels later that their instinctive choice (I've been lucky, I get to start with the maximum for my primary ability) is sort of gonna hurt them somehow.
This second point is subjective, obviously. I am in no position to assume what percentage of players will feel one way or the other.
What I cannot understand is the "it's not gonna hurt them", though. Because said player is going to see his friends get a feat AND an ability increase and they are going to miss out on the ability increase portion and only getting Bolstering Performance. How can this feel identical for them?
Again, I've great familiarity with point buy systems. I probably prefer them, too. So I might be biased in reading rules through that lens. But it's almost impossible for me to accept that this portion of the rules couldn't have been written better.
There are more than two possibilities, "easier" and "harder"
You're not making planning "easier". You're eliminating it entirely. If you think planning ahead for your build is a good idea, this ain't the way to achieve it
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)
I doubt that the proposed modification would eliminate planning entirely. It's a statement that should be accompanied by a full explanation as to reasons why.
Upthread another user suggested many feats one could opt for. I pointed at Elemental Adept, there's War Caster. Stating that changing the way these handful of feats work would eliminate planning altogether seems quite plainly untrue.
I don't see how. The feats should already be balanced around using them with your highest applicable stat. If you have multiple stats where the +1 is advantageous, but you don't choose the highest, I suspect any "balance issues" don't stem from the flexibility of the feat and rather from how you got those multiple high abilities.
Or are you concerned about someone advancing to a 12 or 14 Wisdom and using their 20 Charisma for Inspiring Leadership?
It may cause more opportunities for missteps though if you can improve an attribute that doesn't benefit you as much. I don't think it's as much of a balance issue as a carrot to use the attribute that is highest, which is likely to be your primary attribute or at least one important to your character.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Even if you make the sacrifice and have a 19 in CHA until level 4, you are still above the expected curve for stats.
Any sufficiently widespread magic is indistinguishable from technology.
The second funniest thing to make a D&D party do is explain morality
Try your hand at the Ultimate Skill Build Challenge!
I probably nitpick and scrutinize too much
(I did say that "signficant" is subjective.)
As per this whole thread, it would let you pile more power/versatility on top of a 20 stat, while putting the +1 in a different stat. Most likely this is a tier 3+ thing, without rolled stats, but it's still not zero impact. Basically, there's less opportunity cost to choosing the feat at high level.
The stat you increased is the stat you chose to increase, even if the increase didn't go through. With the existence of the choice, there really isn't ambiguity.
From prior experience, I don't think there's such a thing as a rule that couldn't theoretically be written clearer. Somebody will always read it wrong. And yeah, 5e is definitely written in loose style, which is often a source of legitimate ambiguity. I just don't think this one is a real problem of clarity. One can interpret it the other way, but only by trying.
The problem of wasting the stat bump is real, but not, IMO, a big deal in practice. It'd be fine if it let you separate the bump from the ability -- a slight increase in power, but only a slight one.
But that’s not how it’s explained in the rules. They clearly state the ability you increased. Not the one you chose to increase (and couldn’t).
I know I’m nitpicking, and I’ve already listed in order of preference how I would handle it myself, but this is exactly why I think it should be written better. :-)
Not relevant anymore, if you read the discussion.
Forfeiting the + 1 is not a "big ask." If you want the Inspiring Leader feat and you want to use your CHA when using it, then say you are increasing CHA (which then is negated because it's already 20). Then you use your CHA 20...and then you're not an idiot. The feat gives a +1 to a stat to make you better at the feat, to make it more useful. But if you already have a 20, you're the best you can be at it already.
Fair. I was taking your statements perhaps a bit more "significantly" than you intended. I do think there is the potential that the designers may have attribute restrictions as guides for players rather than restrictions. If anything, I would add guidance for new players somewhere to look for feats that increase your primary attribute (if this text isn't already present) and that would do nothing to change this thread.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Gorman, I think you're wrong there. That *is* how it's explained in the rules. It says "Increase your Wisdom or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20" The clause after the comma covers the situation if the score is already 20. Since the feat only increases the score by 1, then saying to maximum of 20 isn't necessary (unless of course the writer wants to cover the case where it's already 20). You'd be right if the RAW only said "Increase your Wisdom or Charisma score by 1."
As I’ve stated, understanding that, for the spirit of the rules, an ability that was at 20 before you taking the feat and remained at 20 after taking the feat ha been increased… well, it requires a bit of mental gymnastics. That’s why I say it could be written better. We’re running in circles by now, aren’t we? :-)
I don't think it requires mental gymnastics, the RAW is clear as day to me. I think most readers feel the same way. I think it's only the folks who want to make a case about being cheated of a +1, that are trying to sow confusion.
We’re back to this? Not interested, sorry.
everyone who disagrees with me is a bad actor is not persuasive.
You seem to be the only one having trouble with those "mental gymnastics", is the thing
In fact, I just did a quick search of the forums. Now, the DDB search functionality is... poor, and I didn't go sifting through the results past the first few pages, but in the history of this site, it seems like no one else has ever started a thread about this. You may be the first person to read the interaction between a half-feat and a stat of 20 and ask the question, "Hey, does that mean I can't use that feat with the stat at all?"
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)
Rolling for your stats is probably the fairly big minority, getting a 18 putting your +2 in that stat and then taking a 1/2 feat where it requires you use the stat you put it in narrows the time it comes up even more. Especially since in 2014 this style of feat was much rarer. And the RAW reading is based on a pretty precise reading of the stat that was increased. And most people who did hit all those marks recognize the RAI and don't bother from that point on as the vast vast vast majority of people are not on the forums. Heck its a fairly small group of us, its much rarer for me not to recognize a user name than to recognize one.