I've always felt tying Feats to ASI's and Class Levels was a terrible thing in 5e and am loathe to see it return in One D&D.
Why do I hate it? Mainly because it's boring. But it's boring because it almost always ends up having players choose the Ability Score Improvement over a Feat. I do not blame players for this. The system relies very heavily on Ability Score bonuses so it really shouldn't be a surprise that players want to increase those bonuses as soon as possible. And that's... you know... fine. But Feats are one of the few ways in which variety and player choice makes a difference in how a character interacts with the system and is represented in play. Yes, you can present boiled potatoes in a variety of ways: squishing them and, umm, not squishing them. But until you add stuff like salt and butter, or bacon bits or parsley or gravy or whatever, they're gonna taste like, well, boiled potatoes no matter what they look like on the plate.
But how many games get past 4th, let alone 8th levels? Wasn't there a survey that found most games die out before 10th? So whoop-de-doo, most people are going to be forced into a situation where they have to choose between the fun individuality and options of one, maybe two, Feats over being more effective at, well, everything else their class does.
And really, why? What is so necessary about tying ASI's into an either/or with Feats? It's just become something that I don't even see people questioning, as if it's now just "The Way."
It is not and nor does it need to be.
So if I could change just one thing about One D&D, it would be to divorce Feats from ASI's. How would I go about this?
I'm glad you asked.
Feats and ASI's would be given by character level, not class, and they'd be separate. A total of +10 to Ability Scores and five Feats across 20 levels. Ability Score increases would also need to be removed from Feats.
Some classes could then grant Bonus Feats from a limited pool, like, say, the Fighter and Rogue.
Voila! Much more player choice and variety in play-styles and way more fun interactions with the system than, "Oh, we've hit an even level that is a multiple of four. My primary Ability Score goes up and I am now better at all the stuff I do that is just like every other player who plays this class. Yay."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
They altered the balance in one dnd, but part of the reasoning is to have a simple effective option for players who aren't interested in feats. Also feats were an optional system to begin with in 5e.
The issue you want to remove, is the issue they want to be an option. And, feats are meant to generally give you more power in a specific area than the general power of an ASI. Having both would be a big increase in power, which they can't completely balance around since its the same edition, with backwards compatibility.
Lets say you want to be tougher, you can increase con, giving your more hp and better con saves, or maybe you pick heavy armor mastery. which reduces non magical damage per hit. Heavy master is a greater increase in survivability, usually, but straight up con is a good general answer as well, and doesnt require going through pages of feats.
Many people want a simple straightforward answer, some people like complex choices and customization. Even given the freedom to create or customize backgrounds in the UA, many players wanted to use backgrounds. Many players take the starting equipment over the gold, and buy what you need option. The current system seeks to give both player types a path.
There's two other advantage of tying ASI's/feats to class levels; one is that it allows them to give certain classes additional instances of them, helping the "vanilla" classes of Fighter and Rogue specialize in their own ways. The other is that it creates a subtle but notable trade-off for multiclassing, which is a good balance point considering some of the strong dip options out there (1 level of Barbarian for Rage on any frontliner using STR, 1 level of Rogue for Expertise for anyone who wants to skill monkey, 2 levels of Paladin on any full caster to get a lot of smiting power, etc). Delaying ASI progression makes it more of a trade-off, helps keep them from becoming too dominant as options.
There's two other advantage of tying ASI's/feats to class levels; one is that it allows them to give certain classes additional instances of them, helping the "vanilla" classes of Fighter and Rogue specialize in their own ways. The other is that it creates a subtle but notable trade-off for multiclassing, which is a good balance point considering some of the strong dip options out there (1 level of Barbarian for Rage on any frontliner using STR, 1 level of Rogue for Expertise for anyone who wants to skill monkey, 2 levels of Paladin on any full caster to get a lot of smiting power, etc). Delaying ASI progression makes it more of a trade-off, helps keep them from becoming too dominant as options.
As someone who multi-classes a good deal, this is spot on. A dip slows me down on getting my feat or ASI. Taking 3 levels, that can really hurt, as it nearly costs me a full feat or ASI. How much am I willing to delay? It's a significant choice to make. And honestly...People need to not worry so much about a choice being "boring", particularly a meaningful one like picking between ASI and feat. ASI is not automatic, many people value certain feats over the ASI.
I honestly dismiss out of hand any argument that starts with "There's nothing wrong with it, but it's boring." Boring is completely subjective.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I agree with Ace and crzyhawk. It’s a balance issue and a way for players to have to make meaningful choices. Instead of “here, have it all with no consequences”
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
The thing about "video game leveling trees" is that they're designed in part to serve a certain design function: they allow for the creation of consistent vectors of power growth that can be easily mapped out. And that's a strong point in their favor when you're designing a hard, crunchy system like D&D. The monster balancing and encounter design system is already very fiddly and imprecise. Imagine trying to balance it if say some spellcasters could get at spells with the kick of Fireball at level 3, but others might not get at them until level 10 or later if at all.
The "XP Pool" system is generally used more in soft and cinematic RPGs like the World of Darkness franchise, which are significantly less stat driven. They're more flexible because as I understand it the GM facing aspects are significantly less defined; there's no Monster Manual equivalent for Vampire or Werewolf even though combat is still a notable aspect of both games because the combat itself runs more heavily on "describe a course of action, then roll to see if you can pull it off" as opposed to D&D's thoroughly defined suite of combat options for players and DMs. Plus combat itself while still prevalent is not the essential cornerstone of play in such systems that it is with D&D.
I have no strong preference for one system or the other in a vacuum, but they're different tools that are used to develop distinct systems, so a comparison between the two is rather apples to oranges. It's not something that could really be implemented in D&D without fundamentally changing the whole game into a different one.
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
Imagine trying to balance it if say some spellcasters could get at spells with the kick of Fireball at level 3, but others might not get at them until level 10 or later if at all.
I never said anything about Spells. The question was about feats, ASI's and Class Level Abilities.
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
Imagine trying to balance it if say some spellcasters could get at spells with the kick of Fireball at level 3, but others might not get at them until level 10 or later if at all.
I never said anything about Spells. The question was about feats, ASI's and Class Level Abilities.
But the system you're proposing they shift to doesn't make that distinction; all progression is drawn from the XP pool by definition if you're throwing out levels.
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
Imagine trying to balance it if say some spellcasters could get at spells with the kick of Fireball at level 3, but others might not get at them until level 10 or later if at all.
I never said anything about Spells. The question was about feats, ASI's and Class Level Abilities.
But the system you're proposing they shift to doesn't make that distinction; all progression is drawn from the XP pool by definition if you're throwing out levels.
Not at all. You don't have a grasp what I'm saying. It would have been better for you to ask me to clarify the things you didn't understand.
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
Imagine trying to balance it if say some spellcasters could get at spells with the kick of Fireball at level 3, but others might not get at them until level 10 or later if at all.
I never said anything about Spells. The question was about feats, ASI's and Class Level Abilities.
But the system you're proposing they shift to doesn't make that distinction; all progression is drawn from the XP pool by definition if you're throwing out levels.
Not at all. You don't have a grasp what I'm saying. It would have been better for you to ask me to clarify the things you didn't understand.
You literally said "just use the point system". "Just", as in "only". By definition, if you are only using points, then the only way features will advance is by spending the points. If you had something different in mind that's fine, but don't try and pin the blame on me because your own words point it in a very particular direction.
Edit: Additionally, you referred to "abilities you get at a level". That's... exactly what spells are. Number known, power level, and number of uses are all based on your character's level. Their details are listed in a separate section, but they are very much class features. Note that most of the time you don't get an actual class feature at the same level you get access to a new tier of spells.
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
Imagine trying to balance it if say some spellcasters could get at spells with the kick of Fireball at level 3, but others might not get at them until level 10 or later if at all.
I never said anything about Spells. The question was about feats, ASI's and Class Level Abilities.
But the system you're proposing they shift to doesn't make that distinction; all progression is drawn from the XP pool by definition if you're throwing out levels.
Not at all. You don't have a grasp what I'm saying. It would have been better for you to ask me to clarify the things you didn't understand.
You literally said "just use the point system". "Just", as in "only". By definition, if you are only using points, then the only way features will advance is by spending the points. If you had something different in mind that's fine, but don't try and pin the blame on me because your own words point it in a very particular direction.
Edit: Additionally, you referred to "abilities you get at a level". That's... exactly what spells are. Number known, power level, and number of uses are all based on your character's level. Their details are listed in a separate section, but they are very much class features. Note that most of the time you don't get an actual class feature at the same level you get access to a new tier of spells.
Given what the thread was about I read it as just talking about a point system for feats/asis and how they are tied to class levels.
There's two other advantage of tying ASI's/feats to class levels; one is that it allows them to give certain classes additional instances of them, helping the "vanilla" classes of Fighter and Rogue specialize in their own ways. The other is that it creates a subtle but notable trade-off for multiclassing, which is a good balance point considering some of the strong dip options out there (1 level of Barbarian for Rage on any frontliner using STR, 1 level of Rogue for Expertise for anyone who wants to skill monkey, 2 levels of Paladin on any full caster to get a lot of smiting power, etc). Delaying ASI progression makes it more of a trade-off, helps keep them from becoming too dominant as options.
As someone who multi-classes a good deal, this is spot on. A dip slows me down on getting my feat or ASI. Taking 3 levels, that can really hurt, as it nearly costs me a full feat or ASI. How much am I willing to delay? It's a significant choice to make. And honestly...People need to not worry so much about a choice being "boring", particularly a meaningful one like picking between ASI and feat. ASI is not automatic, many people value certain feats over the ASI.
I honestly dismiss out of hand any argument that starts with "There's nothing wrong with it, but it's boring." Boring is completely subjective.
While true I think that points more to fundamental flaws in the multi class system than a need to tie them to class levels. As for fighters and rogues something else could always be given to them at those levels.
Its not going to happen though, maybe in a true 6e but not in this 5.5 backwards compatible stuff.
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
Imagine trying to balance it if say some spellcasters could get at spells with the kick of Fireball at level 3, but others might not get at them until level 10 or later if at all.
I never said anything about Spells. The question was about feats, ASI's and Class Level Abilities.
But the system you're proposing they shift to doesn't make that distinction; all progression is drawn from the XP pool by definition if you're throwing out levels.
Not at all. You don't have a grasp what I'm saying. It would have been better for you to ask me to clarify the things you didn't understand.
You literally said "just use the point system". "Just", as in "only". By definition, if you are only using points, then the only way features will advance is by spending the points. If you had something different in mind that's fine, but don't try and pin the blame on me because your own words point it in a very particular direction.
Edit: Additionally, you referred to "abilities you get at a level". That's... exactly what spells are. Number known, power level, and number of uses are all based on your character's level. Their details are listed in a separate section, but they are very much class features. Note that most of the time you don't get an actual class feature at the same level you get access to a new tier of spells.
I literally said use the point system in regards to ASI, class level abilities and Feats which is what the topic is about. If you are going to jump in a conversation, get your facts straight and most importantly don't simply argue just to argue.
And what are spells if not “class level abilities”?
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
Imagine trying to balance it if say some spellcasters could get at spells with the kick of Fireball at level 3, but others might not get at them until level 10 or later if at all.
I never said anything about Spells. The question was about feats, ASI's and Class Level Abilities.
But the system you're proposing they shift to doesn't make that distinction; all progression is drawn from the XP pool by definition if you're throwing out levels.
Not at all. You don't have a grasp what I'm saying. It would have been better for you to ask me to clarify the things you didn't understand.
You literally said "just use the point system". "Just", as in "only". By definition, if you are only using points, then the only way features will advance is by spending the points. If you had something different in mind that's fine, but don't try and pin the blame on me because your own words point it in a very particular direction.
Edit: Additionally, you referred to "abilities you get at a level". That's... exactly what spells are. Number known, power level, and number of uses are all based on your character's level. Their details are listed in a separate section, but they are very much class features. Note that most of the time you don't get an actual class feature at the same level you get access to a new tier of spells.
I literally said use the point system in regards to ASI, class level abilities and Feats which is what the topic is about. If you are going to jump in a conversation, get your facts straight and most importantly don't simply argue just to argue.
And what are spells if not “class level abilities”?
Dude he has clarified what he meant, what is this weird obsession to hammer him over his wording. This s how this conversation should have gone.
I think it should be point buy, ,y,z.
what spells that would be weird.
I didn't mean spells i meant just ASIs/feats./class level abilites
What do you mean by class level abilities.
I mean this.
Oh okay, i misunderstood you.
Instead you keep trying to bully someone over how they worded things.
When I first read about the background feats for OneDnD, I thought they wanted to shift all feats to become half-feats: aka some feat benefit and a single ability score increment.
This would force players to intermingle their ability score advances with some other advantages, instead of only focusing on improving the ASM. To actually support such a system you would need to make the following changes:
Vastly increase the number of feats available
Increase the number of feats you get over your 20 character levels
You want to increase the selection of feats so there's some actual choice that also grants some level of flexibility for you to acquire the ASIs that you want. However when tied to half-feats, that also means your character gets access to a lot of additional benefits/actions/options that can help make characters feel more unique.
If we stick to the current advancement plan, you would only get 5x ASIs / half-feats for most classes (+1 from the background), which with a system like point buy where you can maximum acquire 15 in any ability score would mean you can only invest in half-feats that increase your primary ability score if you want it to 20. That would be very limiting and not much fun. So an easy solution would be to increase how many half-feats you acquire over the 20 character levels.
An interesting thing to consider is "upgrade-able" feats requiring an entry-feat, possibly with a choice of specialization. Think in the lines of:
Tough granting +1 CON, +1 HP per player level.
Then you can choose between one of three expanded versions for the next feat:
Resistance (+1 STR/DEX/CON, gain resistance to one of piercing/slashing/bludgeoning),
Healer ( +1 CON/WIS, whenever you take a short rest and use Hit Dice, you may reroll any dice that lands on the lower half of the die range and use the new roll, whenever you use a WIS (medicine) check and succeeds, you can expend a use from a Healer's Kit to have the target regain health equal to 1d6 + WIS + 2 if you're proficient + 3 additional if you have expertise, you can use this up to a number of times equal to your proficiency bonus per long rest),
Hearty (+1 CON +15 HP)
This is just a rough example of what that could look like. If the system already only use half-feats, we might as well take some advantage to make specializations because there's room for it.
How exactly this system would look, would require a much more extensive rebalancing than what is feasible for OneDnD, which is basically 5.5e. Still, the concept hit me like an interesting approach for a possible later edition.
__________
Returning to the current framework on feats, I think a big reason for why ASIs are favored over feats (in many occasions) is because feats rarely provide an equivalent increase in capabilities, and rarely do they scale well into later tiers of play. There's a small handful of good feats and some occasionally good feats, but the rest is... not that great.
A favorite I like to wail on is the [feat]Charger[/feat] feat (sorry to anyone who loves the feat).
In tier 1 play, the feat makes somewhat sense as it provides a rather significant damage boost, atop granting you access to weapon swings when engaging over a longer distance. The sad part is that the feat is mostly a one-off benefit, as you generally don't want to invite opportunity attacks by using it to run away and charge back in to re-enable the damage boost.
Once we get access to the Extra Attack feature in tier 2, the entire purpose of running out and back in for the damage boost is also completely negated by giving up your second attack. You're also likely to have other features fighting for your bonus action. The extra distance from shoving can be entirely substituted by the Extra Attack feature at the cost of 5 ft. of movement but saving your bonus action. So effectively the feat has significantly dropped off once we get out of tier 1 play.
You could easily have worded the feat in such a way that you wouldn't have to use the Dash action to activate it in the first place. You could also have made the feat so you could possibly make a drive-by hack'n'slash, utilizing your attack action and your base movement speed with similar conditions.
That's also a reason why some of the most popular feats are either considered OP (GWM, PAM, SS), or they just grant a very good general benefit, or a very specific benefit that removes some hindrances/limits to certain builds: like War Caster/Crossbow Expert/Magic Initiate/Fighting Initiate.
I dislike charger but part of the reason I dislike it is that on a technical level you can use it every round in most cases. You just need to move 10 feet in a straight line, not a straight line at the target. I don't know how to create a visual grid in this post. But lets say there is a monster 20 feet out, you run forward get charger off and are standing right in front of it. Now next round you step 5 feet to the left, you are still within its reach so no AoO, now move 10 feet to the right, you are still within its reach and you have moved 10 feet in a straight line, attack, and you get the charger benefit. And you can still attack twice at level 5. This makes the straight line part a non limit in most cases unless the enemies form a line. so it is mechanically but maybe not thematically balanced around being used every round at all levels. If that makes it balanced, I am fine with that. But rename it to something like acrobatic attacker and drop the straight line component. And describe it as a feat where you excel at using your movement to enhance your attack.
most feats offer something worth an ASI, (or in one dnd a half asi)its just not always the things players are that interested in focusing on over other options. Also note, because of the stat cap, Asi get less attractive the more you have taken, unless your class is very MAD.
the ones considered 'good' are mostly because players like damage. Each feat should be stronger/more useful than an asi in its specific situation, or its not a great feat. Most are.
I dislike charger but part of the reason I dislike it is that on a technical level you can use it every round in most cases. You just need to move 10 feet in a straight line, not a straight line at the target. I don't know how to create a visual grid in this post. But lets say there is a monster 20 feet out, you run forward get charger off and are standing right in front of it. Now next round you step 5 feet to the left, you are still within its reach so no AoO, now move 10 feet to the right, you are still within its reach and you have moved 10 feet in a straight line, attack, and you get the charger benefit. And you can still attack twice at level 5. This makes the straight line part a non limit in most cases unless the enemies form a line. so it is mechanically but maybe not thematically balanced around being used every round at all levels. If that makes it balanced, I am fine with that. But rename it to something like acrobatic attacker and drop the straight line component. And describe it as a feat where you excel at using your movement to enhance your attack.
I get what you mean. It seems like they missed in the movement requirement that you have to move in a straight line in the direction of the target.
I don't get what you mean that "you can still attack twice at level 5." The point of my complaint against Charger is that it specifically requires you to take the Dash-action and use a Bonus action. This means you wont get to use your Attack action and thus wont utilize the Extra Attack feature to gain two attacks. It cannot be circumvented by multiclassing Rogue to use Cunning Action to Dash, as Charger itself also uses your Bonus action. You can technically circumvent it by getting Haste, but that comes at the cost of an entire weapon attack as well, so you're weighing 5 flat damage on a maybe-hit for an entire new weapon attack. That's usually a situation where the flat 5 loses out.
I have not found a common enough situation where I want the Charger feat over a +2 to weapon stat or +2 to caster stat (for hybrids).
most feats offer something worth an ASI, (or in one dnd a half asi)its just not always the things players are that interested in focusing on over other options. Also note, because of the stat cap, Asi get less attractive the more you have taken, unless your class is very MAD.
the ones considered 'good' are mostly because players like damage. Each feat should be stronger/more useful than an asi in its specific situation, or its not a great feat. Most are.
The trouble I find is that ASIs grant an increase to your main contribution to the party: STR/DEX = weapon damage, CON = tanking (but hardly ever a primary focus), INT/WIS/CHA = spell casting and supplementary skills (basically moving the plot along in situations that ain't combat). The game is very reliant on the attributes to cover your base actions/functions and also your resistance to negative implications (be it damage, spell afflictions, conditions).
You are right that many feats are quite good in their slice of the world where they can excel. The issue is finding a balance where that situation happens often enough that a generalist improvement (through an ASI) is not better. I often find myself saying "This feat is not bad. But is it worth delaying my main attribute?" - and I often come up with "No, it's not". (This could be made mostly redundant either by separating ASIs and feats or completely combining them all into half-feats - yes for a 6th edition. Basically remove the opportunity cost or intertwine the two choices. As for accommodating new players, you could always make a section of recommended basic feats - so if they don't want to scour the entire feat list, they can select from a list of maybe 15, 20, 30 feats possibly with some tags that can make them quickly disregard feats that doesn't align with their character. And I'd wager most new players quickly wrap their head around their character progression and can move on to consider feats - especially in a time where they can access the information readily from their PC.)
I find that ASIs only gets less attractive once you've hit your stat cap in your main stat (STR/DEX for weapon attackers, INT/WIS/CHA for casters) and basically never for hybrids (half-casters, Hexblades, Bladesingers, Eldritch Knight - possibly others worth mentioning that I don't recall).
'
A couple of reasons for my line of thinking may be because I've mainly played campaigns that are mostly combat focused, the resources I've found online tend to favor combat-orientated improvements, and that spell casters usually can fix many situations through spells and/or their spell casting attribute overlaps with a utility skill that can cover some of the road. One reason why my group mainly has a combat focus is that skill-orientated campaigns are difficult to make that includes all players as valuable assets. If you run an intrigue and investigation-type campaign, then you mainly require DEX, INT, CHA as the primary contributions to the plot. Your Barbarian is unlikely going to have a great time, outside whatever combat do happen. If there is situations that enables the Barbarian through need of grapple/athletic checks there is a risk that it feels shoehorned in. Your players could create their characters based on the campaign setting, but then you're also kinda pigeonholing your players. Another reason for my line of thinking, is that I find many utility skills generally becomes less attractive the higher tier play you get into. The enemy you'd often face at level 10+ is not really someone you can talk to, make diplomacy with - unless the campaign is specifically geared to allow it. You're generally not gonna talk your way out of a Dragon's Hoard or a Lich's Tomb. Neither is it very necessary to stealth for information-gathering or using sleight-of-hand, just to name some. Feats that complement these skills are thus not as impactful at this point. Not to say that these skills are useless in any sense, but the game tend to favor combat as a unifying game mechanic across all classes. Which in turn also tend to make players favor ways to improve their contributions in combat, with a spread across the party to cover for skills - for instance the party can generally get by with one player covering WIS for perception/survival/tracking to notice stuff/alert of ambush, INT for knowledge which can move the plot along, CHA for non-hostile NPC handling also to move the plot along. Most of this can be handled through base ability score, proficiency (often from base class features) and possibly supplemented through spell casting like Guidance, Enhance Ability, Skill Empowerment and Inspiration (like from a Bard). In other words; the party mostly only requires one person to clear the skill check or enable a utility tool (like Teleport), whilst everyone should contribute to combat.
I dislike charger but part of the reason I dislike it is that on a technical level you can use it every round in most cases. You just need to move 10 feet in a straight line, not a straight line at the target. I don't know how to create a visual grid in this post. But lets say there is a monster 20 feet out, you run forward get charger off and are standing right in front of it. Now next round you step 5 feet to the left, you are still within its reach so no AoO, now move 10 feet to the right, you are still within its reach and you have moved 10 feet in a straight line, attack, and you get the charger benefit. And you can still attack twice at level 5. This makes the straight line part a non limit in most cases unless the enemies form a line. so it is mechanically but maybe not thematically balanced around being used every round at all levels. If that makes it balanced, I am fine with that. But rename it to something like acrobatic attacker and drop the straight line component. And describe it as a feat where you excel at using your movement to enhance your attack.
I get what you mean. It seems like they missed in the movement requirement that you have to move in a straight line in the direction of the target.
I don't get what you mean that "you can still attack twice at level 5." The point of my complaint against Charger is that it specifically requires you to take the Dash-action and use a Bonus action. This means you wont get to use your Attack action and thus wont utilize the Extra Attack feature to gain two attacks. It cannot be circumvented by multiclassing Rogue to use Cunning Action to Dash, as Charger itself also uses your Bonus action. You can technically circumvent it by getting Haste, but that comes at the cost of an entire weapon attack as well, so you're weighing 5 flat damage on a maybe-hit for an entire new weapon attack. That's usually a situation where the flat 5 loses out.
I have not found a common enough situation where I want the Charger feat over a +2 to weapon stat or +2 to caster stat (for hybrids).
most feats offer something worth an ASI, (or in one dnd a half asi)its just not always the things players are that interested in focusing on over other options. Also note, because of the stat cap, Asi get less attractive the more you have taken, unless your class is very MAD.
the ones considered 'good' are mostly because players like damage. Each feat should be stronger/more useful than an asi in its specific situation, or its not a great feat. Most are.
The trouble I find is that ASIs grant an increase to your main contribution to the party: STR/DEX = weapon damage, CON = tanking (but hardly ever a primary focus), INT/WIS/CHA = spell casting and supplementary skills (basically moving the plot along in situations that ain't combat). The game is very reliant on the attributes to cover your base actions/functions and also your resistance to negative implications (be it damage, spell afflictions, conditions).
You are right that many feats are quite good in their slice of the world where they can excel. The issue is finding a balance where that situation happens often enough that a generalist improvement (through an ASI) is not better. I often find myself saying "This feat is not bad. But is it worth delaying my main attribute?" - and I often come up with "No, it's not". (This could be made mostly redundant either by separating ASIs and feats or completely combining them all into half-feats - yes for a 6th edition. Basically remove the opportunity cost or intertwine the two choices. As for accommodating new players, you could always make a section of recommended basic feats - so if they don't want to scour the entire feat list, they can select from a list of maybe 15, 20, 30 feats possibly with some tags that can make them quickly disregard feats that doesn't align with their character. And I'd wager most new players quickly wrap their head around their character progression and can move on to consider feats - especially in a time where they can access the information readily from their PC.)
I find that ASIs only gets less attractive once you've hit your stat cap in your main stat (STR/DEX for weapon attackers, INT/WIS/CHA for casters) and basically never for hybrids (half-casters, Hexblades, Bladesingers, Eldritch Knight - possibly others worth mentioning that I don't recall).
'
A couple of reasons for my line of thinking may be because I've mainly played campaigns that are mostly combat focused, the resources I've found online tend to favor combat-orientated improvements, and that spell casters usually can fix many situations through spells and/or their spell casting attribute overlaps with a utility skill that can cover some of the road. One reason why my group mainly has a combat focus is that skill-orientated campaigns are difficult to make that includes all players as valuable assets. If you run an intrigue and investigation-type campaign, then you mainly require DEX, INT, CHA as the primary contributions to the plot. Your Barbarian is unlikely going to have a great time, outside whatever combat do happen. If there is situations that enables the Barbarian through need of grapple/athletic checks there is a risk that it feels shoehorned in. Your players could create their characters based on the campaign setting, but then you're also kinda pigeonholing your players. Another reason for my line of thinking, is that I find many utility skills generally becomes less attractive the higher tier play you get into. The enemy you'd often face at level 10+ is not really someone you can talk to, make diplomacy with - unless the campaign is specifically geared to allow it. You're generally not gonna talk your way out of a Dragon's Hoard or a Lich's Tomb. Neither is it very necessary to stealth for information-gathering or using sleight-of-hand, just to name some. Feats that complement these skills are thus not as impactful at this point. Not to say that these skills are useless in any sense, but the game tend to favor combat as a unifying game mechanic across all classes. Which in turn also tend to make players favor ways to improve their contributions in combat, with a spread across the party to cover for skills - for instance the party can generally get by with one player covering WIS for perception/survival/tracking to notice stuff/alert of ambush, INT for knowledge which can move the plot along, CHA for non-hostile NPC handling also to move the plot along. Most of this can be handled through base ability score, proficiency (often from base class features) and possibly supplemented through spell casting like Guidance, Enhance Ability, Skill Empowerment and Inspiration (like from a Bard). In other words; the party mostly only requires one person to clear the skill check or enable a utility tool (like Teleport), whilst everyone should contribute to combat.
so, I'm not sure if you are aware of the UA or 2024 changes, but charger no longer requires a dash or a bonus action. Its now, if you move 10 feet before you attack you can do d8 additional damage once per turn.
unlike the poster above I have no problem with this. D8 is around the amount of pure damage a dps feat needs to give per round to compete with an ASI.
Also the vast majority of feats they have shown us in the UA for 2024 have a single attribute point attached.
Some of the people discussing here are doing it in the context of all the 2024 phb UA they released
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've always felt tying Feats to ASI's and Class Levels was a terrible thing in 5e and am loathe to see it return in One D&D.
Why do I hate it? Mainly because it's boring. But it's boring because it almost always ends up having players choose the Ability Score Improvement over a Feat. I do not blame players for this. The system relies very heavily on Ability Score bonuses so it really shouldn't be a surprise that players want to increase those bonuses as soon as possible. And that's... you know... fine. But Feats are one of the few ways in which variety and player choice makes a difference in how a character interacts with the system and is represented in play. Yes, you can present boiled potatoes in a variety of ways: squishing them and, umm, not squishing them. But until you add stuff like salt and butter, or bacon bits or parsley or gravy or whatever, they're gonna taste like, well, boiled potatoes no matter what they look like on the plate.
But how many games get past 4th, let alone 8th levels? Wasn't there a survey that found most games die out before 10th? So whoop-de-doo, most people are going to be forced into a situation where they have to choose between the fun individuality and options of one, maybe two, Feats over being more effective at, well, everything else their class does.
And really, why? What is so necessary about tying ASI's into an either/or with Feats? It's just become something that I don't even see people questioning, as if it's now just "The Way."
It is not and nor does it need to be.
So if I could change just one thing about One D&D, it would be to divorce Feats from ASI's. How would I go about this?
I'm glad you asked.
Feats and ASI's would be given by character level, not class, and they'd be separate. A total of +10 to Ability Scores and five Feats across 20 levels. Ability Score increases would also need to be removed from Feats.
Some classes could then grant Bonus Feats from a limited pool, like, say, the Fighter and Rogue.
Voila! Much more player choice and variety in play-styles and way more fun interactions with the system than, "Oh, we've hit an even level that is a multiple of four. My primary Ability Score goes up and I am now better at all the stuff I do that is just like every other player who plays this class. Yay."
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
They altered the balance in one dnd, but part of the reasoning is to have a simple effective option for players who aren't interested in feats. Also feats were an optional system to begin with in 5e.
The issue you want to remove, is the issue they want to be an option. And, feats are meant to generally give you more power in a specific area than the general power of an ASI. Having both would be a big increase in power, which they can't completely balance around since its the same edition, with backwards compatibility.
Lets say you want to be tougher, you can increase con, giving your more hp and better con saves, or maybe you pick heavy armor mastery. which reduces non magical damage per hit. Heavy master is a greater increase in survivability, usually, but straight up con is a good general answer as well, and doesnt require going through pages of feats.
Many people want a simple straightforward answer, some people like complex choices and customization. Even given the freedom to create or customize backgrounds in the UA, many players wanted to use backgrounds. Many players take the starting equipment over the gold, and buy what you need option. The current system seeks to give both player types a path.
There's two other advantage of tying ASI's/feats to class levels; one is that it allows them to give certain classes additional instances of them, helping the "vanilla" classes of Fighter and Rogue specialize in their own ways. The other is that it creates a subtle but notable trade-off for multiclassing, which is a good balance point considering some of the strong dip options out there (1 level of Barbarian for Rage on any frontliner using STR, 1 level of Rogue for Expertise for anyone who wants to skill monkey, 2 levels of Paladin on any full caster to get a lot of smiting power, etc). Delaying ASI progression makes it more of a trade-off, helps keep them from becoming too dominant as options.
As someone who multi-classes a good deal, this is spot on. A dip slows me down on getting my feat or ASI. Taking 3 levels, that can really hurt, as it nearly costs me a full feat or ASI. How much am I willing to delay? It's a significant choice to make. And honestly...People need to not worry so much about a choice being "boring", particularly a meaningful one like picking between ASI and feat. ASI is not automatic, many people value certain feats over the ASI.
I honestly dismiss out of hand any argument that starts with "There's nothing wrong with it, but it's boring." Boring is completely subjective.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
I agree with Ace and crzyhawk. It’s a balance issue and a way for players to have to make meaningful choices. Instead of “here, have it all with no consequences”
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
I would go with one better. Just use the point system. Basic D&D did it with the immortals to get heir special abilities and Superhero games did it for theirs.
I would go further than feats and ASI, I would also include those abilities you get at certain levels. Basically you either start off with a flat number of points, where you can buy those ASI, Feats, and level abilities, which are assigned a number of points. And that's it. Once it's spent you may not get everything because you don't have the point, but you don't have to wait years of leveling to get what you want.
The alternative is to give PC's a few points to buy some of those things, but every level they go up they get additional points to buy a couple of more things.
But that will never happen. WotC adopted the video game leveling tree so that you can't unlock something until you get a certain level.
The thing about "video game leveling trees" is that they're designed in part to serve a certain design function: they allow for the creation of consistent vectors of power growth that can be easily mapped out. And that's a strong point in their favor when you're designing a hard, crunchy system like D&D. The monster balancing and encounter design system is already very fiddly and imprecise. Imagine trying to balance it if say some spellcasters could get at spells with the kick of Fireball at level 3, but others might not get at them until level 10 or later if at all.
The "XP Pool" system is generally used more in soft and cinematic RPGs like the World of Darkness franchise, which are significantly less stat driven. They're more flexible because as I understand it the GM facing aspects are significantly less defined; there's no Monster Manual equivalent for Vampire or Werewolf even though combat is still a notable aspect of both games because the combat itself runs more heavily on "describe a course of action, then roll to see if you can pull it off" as opposed to D&D's thoroughly defined suite of combat options for players and DMs. Plus combat itself while still prevalent is not the essential cornerstone of play in such systems that it is with D&D.
I have no strong preference for one system or the other in a vacuum, but they're different tools that are used to develop distinct systems, so a comparison between the two is rather apples to oranges. It's not something that could really be implemented in D&D without fundamentally changing the whole game into a different one.
I never said anything about Spells. The question was about feats, ASI's and Class Level Abilities.
But the system you're proposing they shift to doesn't make that distinction; all progression is drawn from the XP pool by definition if you're throwing out levels.
Not at all. You don't have a grasp what I'm saying. It would have been better for you to ask me to clarify the things you didn't understand.
You literally said "just use the point system". "Just", as in "only". By definition, if you are only using points, then the only way features will advance is by spending the points. If you had something different in mind that's fine, but don't try and pin the blame on me because your own words point it in a very particular direction.
Edit: Additionally, you referred to "abilities you get at a level". That's... exactly what spells are. Number known, power level, and number of uses are all based on your character's level. Their details are listed in a separate section, but they are very much class features. Note that most of the time you don't get an actual class feature at the same level you get access to a new tier of spells.
Given what the thread was about I read it as just talking about a point system for feats/asis and how they are tied to class levels.
While true I think that points more to fundamental flaws in the multi class system than a need to tie them to class levels. As for fighters and rogues something else could always be given to them at those levels.
Its not going to happen though, maybe in a true 6e but not in this 5.5 backwards compatible stuff.
And what are spells if not “class level abilities”?
Dude he has clarified what he meant, what is this weird obsession to hammer him over his wording. This s how this conversation should have gone.
I think it should be point buy, ,y,z.
what spells that would be weird.
I didn't mean spells i meant just ASIs/feats./class level abilites
What do you mean by class level abilities.
I mean this.
Oh okay, i misunderstood you.
Instead you keep trying to bully someone over how they worded things.
When I first read about the background feats for OneDnD, I thought they wanted to shift all feats to become half-feats: aka some feat benefit and a single ability score increment.
This would force players to intermingle their ability score advances with some other advantages, instead of only focusing on improving the ASM. To actually support such a system you would need to make the following changes:
You want to increase the selection of feats so there's some actual choice that also grants some level of flexibility for you to acquire the ASIs that you want. However when tied to half-feats, that also means your character gets access to a lot of additional benefits/actions/options that can help make characters feel more unique.
If we stick to the current advancement plan, you would only get 5x ASIs / half-feats for most classes (+1 from the background), which with a system like point buy where you can maximum acquire 15 in any ability score would mean you can only invest in half-feats that increase your primary ability score if you want it to 20. That would be very limiting and not much fun. So an easy solution would be to increase how many half-feats you acquire over the 20 character levels.
An interesting thing to consider is "upgrade-able" feats requiring an entry-feat, possibly with a choice of specialization.
Think in the lines of:
Then you can choose between one of three expanded versions for the next feat:
This is just a rough example of what that could look like. If the system already only use half-feats, we might as well take some advantage to make specializations because there's room for it.
How exactly this system would look, would require a much more extensive rebalancing than what is feasible for OneDnD, which is basically 5.5e. Still, the concept hit me like an interesting approach for a possible later edition.
__________
Returning to the current framework on feats, I think a big reason for why ASIs are favored over feats (in many occasions) is because feats rarely provide an equivalent increase in capabilities, and rarely do they scale well into later tiers of play. There's a small handful of good feats and some occasionally good feats, but the rest is... not that great.
A favorite I like to wail on is the [feat]Charger[/feat] feat (sorry to anyone who loves the feat).
In tier 1 play, the feat makes somewhat sense as it provides a rather significant damage boost, atop granting you access to weapon swings when engaging over a longer distance. The sad part is that the feat is mostly a one-off benefit, as you generally don't want to invite opportunity attacks by using it to run away and charge back in to re-enable the damage boost.
Once we get access to the Extra Attack feature in tier 2, the entire purpose of running out and back in for the damage boost is also completely negated by giving up your second attack. You're also likely to have other features fighting for your bonus action. The extra distance from shoving can be entirely substituted by the Extra Attack feature at the cost of 5 ft. of movement but saving your bonus action.
So effectively the feat has significantly dropped off once we get out of tier 1 play.
You could easily have worded the feat in such a way that you wouldn't have to use the Dash action to activate it in the first place. You could also have made the feat so you could possibly make a drive-by hack'n'slash, utilizing your attack action and your base movement speed with similar conditions.
That's also a reason why some of the most popular feats are either considered OP (GWM, PAM, SS), or they just grant a very good general benefit, or a very specific benefit that removes some hindrances/limits to certain builds: like War Caster/Crossbow Expert/Magic Initiate/Fighting Initiate.
I dislike charger but part of the reason I dislike it is that on a technical level you can use it every round in most cases. You just need to move 10 feet in a straight line, not a straight line at the target. I don't know how to create a visual grid in this post. But lets say there is a monster 20 feet out, you run forward get charger off and are standing right in front of it. Now next round you step 5 feet to the left, you are still within its reach so no AoO, now move 10 feet to the right, you are still within its reach and you have moved 10 feet in a straight line, attack, and you get the charger benefit. And you can still attack twice at level 5. This makes the straight line part a non limit in most cases unless the enemies form a line. so it is mechanically but maybe not thematically balanced around being used every round at all levels. If that makes it balanced, I am fine with that. But rename it to something like acrobatic attacker and drop the straight line component. And describe it as a feat where you excel at using your movement to enhance your attack.
most feats offer something worth an ASI, (or in one dnd a half asi)its just not always the things players are that interested in focusing on over other options. Also note, because of the stat cap, Asi get less attractive the more you have taken, unless your class is very MAD.
the ones considered 'good' are mostly because players like damage. Each feat should be stronger/more useful than an asi in its specific situation, or its not a great feat. Most are.
I get what you mean. It seems like they missed in the movement requirement that you have to move in a straight line in the direction of the target.
I don't get what you mean that "you can still attack twice at level 5." The point of my complaint against Charger is that it specifically requires you to take the Dash-action and use a Bonus action. This means you wont get to use your Attack action and thus wont utilize the Extra Attack feature to gain two attacks. It cannot be circumvented by multiclassing Rogue to use Cunning Action to Dash, as Charger itself also uses your Bonus action. You can technically circumvent it by getting Haste, but that comes at the cost of an entire weapon attack as well, so you're weighing 5 flat damage on a maybe-hit for an entire new weapon attack. That's usually a situation where the flat 5 loses out.
I have not found a common enough situation where I want the Charger feat over a +2 to weapon stat or +2 to caster stat (for hybrids).
The trouble I find is that ASIs grant an increase to your main contribution to the party: STR/DEX = weapon damage, CON = tanking (but hardly ever a primary focus), INT/WIS/CHA = spell casting and supplementary skills (basically moving the plot along in situations that ain't combat). The game is very reliant on the attributes to cover your base actions/functions and also your resistance to negative implications (be it damage, spell afflictions, conditions).
You are right that many feats are quite good in their slice of the world where they can excel. The issue is finding a balance where that situation happens often enough that a generalist improvement (through an ASI) is not better.
I often find myself saying "This feat is not bad. But is it worth delaying my main attribute?" - and I often come up with "No, it's not".
(This could be made mostly redundant either by separating ASIs and feats or completely combining them all into half-feats - yes for a 6th edition. Basically remove the opportunity cost or intertwine the two choices. As for accommodating new players, you could always make a section of recommended basic feats - so if they don't want to scour the entire feat list, they can select from a list of maybe 15, 20, 30 feats possibly with some tags that can make them quickly disregard feats that doesn't align with their character. And I'd wager most new players quickly wrap their head around their character progression and can move on to consider feats - especially in a time where they can access the information readily from their PC.)
I find that ASIs only gets less attractive once you've hit your stat cap in your main stat (STR/DEX for weapon attackers, INT/WIS/CHA for casters) and basically never for hybrids (half-casters, Hexblades, Bladesingers, Eldritch Knight - possibly others worth mentioning that I don't recall).
'
A couple of reasons for my line of thinking may be because I've mainly played campaigns that are mostly combat focused, the resources I've found online tend to favor combat-orientated improvements, and that spell casters usually can fix many situations through spells and/or their spell casting attribute overlaps with a utility skill that can cover some of the road.
One reason why my group mainly has a combat focus is that skill-orientated campaigns are difficult to make that includes all players as valuable assets. If you run an intrigue and investigation-type campaign, then you mainly require DEX, INT, CHA as the primary contributions to the plot. Your Barbarian is unlikely going to have a great time, outside whatever combat do happen. If there is situations that enables the Barbarian through need of grapple/athletic checks there is a risk that it feels shoehorned in. Your players could create their characters based on the campaign setting, but then you're also kinda pigeonholing your players.
Another reason for my line of thinking, is that I find many utility skills generally becomes less attractive the higher tier play you get into. The enemy you'd often face at level 10+ is not really someone you can talk to, make diplomacy with - unless the campaign is specifically geared to allow it. You're generally not gonna talk your way out of a Dragon's Hoard or a Lich's Tomb. Neither is it very necessary to stealth for information-gathering or using sleight-of-hand, just to name some. Feats that complement these skills are thus not as impactful at this point. Not to say that these skills are useless in any sense, but the game tend to favor combat as a unifying game mechanic across all classes. Which in turn also tend to make players favor ways to improve their contributions in combat, with a spread across the party to cover for skills - for instance the party can generally get by with one player covering WIS for perception/survival/tracking to notice stuff/alert of ambush, INT for knowledge which can move the plot along, CHA for non-hostile NPC handling also to move the plot along. Most of this can be handled through base ability score, proficiency (often from base class features) and possibly supplemented through spell casting like Guidance, Enhance Ability, Skill Empowerment and Inspiration (like from a Bard). In other words; the party mostly only requires one person to clear the skill check or enable a utility tool (like Teleport), whilst everyone should contribute to combat.
so, I'm not sure if you are aware of the UA or 2024 changes, but charger no longer requires a dash or a bonus action. Its now, if you move 10 feet before you attack you can do d8 additional damage once per turn.
unlike the poster above I have no problem with this. D8 is around the amount of pure damage a dps feat needs to give per round to compete with an ASI.
Also the vast majority of feats they have shown us in the UA for 2024 have a single attribute point attached.
Some of the people discussing here are doing it in the context of all the 2024 phb UA they released