Are feats better or worse than ability point increases and proficiencies? How many proficiencies or ability point increases are they worth?
Edit: From what I've gathered from this thread: feats provide various functions that are either uncommon or unique to them, but they can also contradict class themes. I think that a set of feats should be integrated into each class, based on their themes, as class feature options; class features like martial archetype are already like feats.
I would say 'proficiencies' throws this off a little as you don't gain them in the same way as the other two, and the only way to gain them outside of class abilities is via feats (or DM allowing downtime developments but that doesn't seem to be as common as it should be).
I also think, proficiencies can't really be compared to the other two, because of the different way, they are acquired. As far as feats and ability increases go, I think, for most characters, it's best to have a combination of the two. Most characters benefit from maximizing their main ability stat, but this doesn't mean they don't benefit from feats as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
The basic answer to this is “YES” 😁 The problem is 2 fold - first as stated above proficiencies are gained either through feats or through downtime ( yes that actually is a real thing even in 5e) activities. The second is that stats and build designs as well as character concepts are sooooo variable that feats may best for one character while stat boosts are essential for a different one. So there is no single solid answer for this.
Just off the top of my head based on absolutely nothing at all, I'm gonna take a wild shot in the dark here and guess that a feat is worth roughly 2 ability point increases.
Don't ask me how I arrived at that conclusion, some mysteries are just best left unsolved.
It's very variable. Some feats are game breaking (Great weapon master, Sharpshooter) while others are basically just fluff (Linguist, Brawler).
In general, you always want your main ability score to be maxed out at 20 as early as possible. Over the course of a long campaign the benefits will really add up.
I am in the camp of maxing the primary stat(s) first, which for some classes (I play a Monk) means taking a feat isn't viable, as it will delay or outright prevent me from getting Dex and Wis up. That said, a LOT of builds can do really well with a single stat maxed, opening the door for Feats, especially half-feats that grant a single ASI with them. It depends heavily on your build, what is best, but as most have said, the Proficiencies are likely lowest priority, as access is more limited and they don't usually benefit quite as much as a feat or ASI would.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
This isn’t a black and white “yes” or “no” question. It’s different for every character, it’s even different for two fighters!
Does your character have two ability scores that are important or useful that have odd numbers? Then maybe the best thing to do is increase both of them by 1 and get two +1 bonuses.
Does your party have a spell caster who focuses a lot on area of effect spells that last several rounds like Spike Growth, Grease, or Moonbeam? Then maybe a feat that helps you move your opponents into the area of effect of those spells is the best choice.
Do you want to focus on doing huge amounts of single target damage? Maybe the Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter feat is the best choice.
Do you want to be proficient in as many skills as possible? Maybe one of the feats that gives you proficiency in a skill or two is the best choice.
Are you finding that your attacks aren’t hitting very often? Maybe increasing your primary ability score is the best choice.
Do you want to add some spell casting to your character? Maybe Ritual Casting or Magic Initiate is the best choice.
I didn’t go into it much, but a lot of it also depends on the other characters in your party. Synergies between different PCs also matters when making decisions about how to build your character. Most of the time building a “perfect” character who doesn’t fit in with the rest of the party is less effective than building a character who makes the rest of the party more effective.
Are feats better or worse than ability point increases and proficiencies? How many proficiencies or ability point increases are they worth?
It's very hard to definitively say an ASI is better than a feat or vice versa. It really depend's on what you want, feats have various different purposes and a lot of them work better in certain campaigns and situations then they do in others. If you want your ability scores or a specific ability score to be high/higher, then ASI's are the way to go.
As others have said, it's hard to compare these two to proficiencies, since there are many different types of them (armor, weapons, tools, saving throws, and skill proficiencies), and you can get them in different ways. Overall though, I think most proficiencies, especially ones like skill proficiencies, don't match up power-wise to ASI's or feats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
It's very variable. Some feats are game breaking (Great weapon master, Sharpshooter) while others are basically just fluff (Linguist, Brawler).
In general, you always want your main ability score to be maxed out at 20 as early as possible. Over the course of a long campaign the benefits will really add up.
I learned years ago that nothing is really gamebreaking - I don’t have to be the worlds best man-maxed to wipe out your “gamebreaking” character if it is doing serious damage to my campaign - all I need to do is flip it and send it back as an opponent NPC ala Acquisitions Inc.
What about expertise/double proficiency? Is that typically better than feats?
The same answer I gave at the start is still true for this as well, besides Rogue and Bard the only way to acquire expertise is through feats so essentially gaining expertise IS a feat so they aren't either/or.
What about expertise/double proficiency? Is that typically better than feats?
The same answer I gave at the start is still true for this as well, besides Rogue and Bard the only way to acquire expertise is through feats so essentially gaining expertise IS a feat so they aren't either/or.
Because expertise can be given as both a class feature and a feat, expertise overlaps as both
What about expertise/double proficiency? Is that typically better than feats?
The same answer I gave at the start is still true for this as well, besides Rogue and Bard the only way to acquire expertise is through feats so essentially gaining expertise IS a feat so they aren't either/or.
Because expertise can be given as both a class feature and a feat, expertise overlaps as both
They are similar in power level (ASI's or feats to expertise). I honestly think that a feat or ASI is slightly better, especially at low levels, where an ASI can get a +1 bonus too many skills (along with loads of other things), and expertise only gives you an additional +2 compared to a regular proficiency.
It's harder to compare feats to expertise/double proficiencies, but I generally think most feats/ASI's are slightly better. It is very subjective though, so feel to disagree with me.
Feats give options. Either the player can chose something that complements his character or use them to flavor their character more according to the characters background.
Some feats are key to specific character power, you cannot gain with a simple +2 to a stat.
Feats give options. Either the player can chose something that complements his character or use them to flavor their character more according to the characters background.
Some feats are key to specific character power, you cannot gain with a simple +2 to a stat.
Would feats be obsolete if more class features offered more options and were more varied (while still reflecting the class and it's main them)?
martial archetype,
the hunter-ranger's defensive tactics and "superior hunters defense"
Feats give options. Either the player can chose something that complements his character or use them to flavor their character more according to the characters background.
Some feats are key to specific character power, you cannot gain with a simple +2 to a stat.
Would feats be obsolete if more class features offered more options and were more varied (while still reflecting the class and it's main them)?
martial archetype,
the hunter-ranger's defensive tactics and "superior hunters defense"
Way of the open hand monk's open hand technique
One of the things that feats do is allow characters to push a bit outside of their classes themes to have more varied characters, adding those things would be nice from a mechanical perspective to add some extra to martials which many think they need but wouldn't affect the worth of feats.
I still don't get what makes feats so great? Is there something mechanically that makes them better or more versatile? What is it?
I don't think anyone is saying they're 'great' so much as just a worthwhile mechanic of the wider game. From an entirely mechanical perspective they run the gamut from being powerful to 'fluff' but in a game which is as much driven by creativity and 'flavour' they allow players to diversify beyond the extent of their class limitations in a mostly balanced way. Ability scores and proficiencies on the other hand are also necessary mechanics but they don't add as much in the way of variety.
Two Way of the Shadow Monks : - One has 0 feats, so he has opted for a higher charisma than you might expect of a monk and some overall decent stats. He gained his shadow powers from a mysterious dark entity which is his story but otherwise he has nothing any other shadow monk doesn't have. - The other also gained his powers from a mysterious dark entity, his stats are mostly what you'd imagine from a monk however he has been granted some limited dark magic and has trained his strikes so that he can push away adversaries to maintain safer distances. (Magic Initiate Warlock and Crusher Feats)
Both of these are valid forms of character but one has is mostly mechanically identical to any other of the same class/subclass (beyond background etc) while the other has been able to make their character a bit more unique and varied.
It seems like a bigger question is, why do you appear to think so poorly of feats?
Are feats better or worse than ability point increases and proficiencies? How many proficiencies or ability point increases are they worth?
Edit: From what I've gathered from this thread: feats provide various functions that are either uncommon or unique to them, but they can also contradict class themes. I think that a set of feats should be integrated into each class, based on their themes, as class feature options; class features like martial archetype are already like feats.
I would say 'proficiencies' throws this off a little as you don't gain them in the same way as the other two, and the only way to gain them outside of class abilities is via feats (or DM allowing downtime developments but that doesn't seem to be as common as it should be).
I also think, proficiencies can't really be compared to the other two, because of the different way, they are acquired. As far as feats and ability increases go, I think, for most characters, it's best to have a combination of the two. Most characters benefit from maximizing their main ability stat, but this doesn't mean they don't benefit from feats as well.
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
The basic answer to this is “YES” 😁
The problem is 2 fold - first as stated above proficiencies are gained either through feats or through downtime ( yes that actually is a real thing even in 5e) activities. The second is that stats and build designs as well as character concepts are sooooo variable that feats may best for one character while stat boosts are essential for a different one. So there is no single solid answer for this.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Just off the top of my head based on absolutely nothing at all, I'm gonna take a wild shot in the dark here and guess that a feat is worth roughly 2 ability point increases.
Don't ask me how I arrived at that conclusion, some mysteries are just best left unsolved.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
It's very variable. Some feats are game breaking (Great weapon master, Sharpshooter) while others are basically just fluff (Linguist, Brawler).
In general, you always want your main ability score to be maxed out at 20 as early as possible. Over the course of a long campaign the benefits will really add up.
If you take a feat that synchs with your character it will be better than an Ability score increase, even in main stat.
If you take a random feat, it is worse than an ASI in an important stat, but better than an ASI in a dump stat.
I am in the camp of maxing the primary stat(s) first, which for some classes (I play a Monk) means taking a feat isn't viable, as it will delay or outright prevent me from getting Dex and Wis up. That said, a LOT of builds can do really well with a single stat maxed, opening the door for Feats, especially half-feats that grant a single ASI with them. It depends heavily on your build, what is best, but as most have said, the Proficiencies are likely lowest priority, as access is more limited and they don't usually benefit quite as much as a feat or ASI would.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
This isn’t a black and white “yes” or “no” question. It’s different for every character, it’s even different for two fighters!
I didn’t go into it much, but a lot of it also depends on the other characters in your party. Synergies between different PCs also matters when making decisions about how to build your character. Most of the time building a “perfect” character who doesn’t fit in with the rest of the party is less effective than building a character who makes the rest of the party more effective.
Professional computer geek
It's very hard to definitively say an ASI is better than a feat or vice versa. It really depend's on what you want, feats have various different purposes and a lot of them work better in certain campaigns and situations then they do in others. If you want your ability scores or a specific ability score to be high/higher, then ASI's are the way to go.
As others have said, it's hard to compare these two to proficiencies, since there are many different types of them (armor, weapons, tools, saving throws, and skill proficiencies), and you can get them in different ways. Overall though, I think most proficiencies, especially ones like skill proficiencies, don't match up power-wise to ASI's or feats.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.What about expertise/double proficiency? Is that typically better than feats?
I learned years ago that nothing is really gamebreaking - I don’t have to be the worlds best man-maxed to wipe out your “gamebreaking” character if it is doing serious damage to my campaign - all I need to do is flip it and send it back as an opponent NPC ala Acquisitions Inc.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
The same answer I gave at the start is still true for this as well, besides Rogue and Bard the only way to acquire expertise is through feats so essentially gaining expertise IS a feat so they aren't either/or.
Because expertise can be given as both a class feature and a feat, expertise overlaps as both
They are similar in power level (ASI's or feats to expertise). I honestly think that a feat or ASI is slightly better, especially at low levels, where an ASI can get a +1 bonus too many skills (along with loads of other things), and expertise only gives you an additional +2 compared to a regular proficiency.
It's harder to compare feats to expertise/double proficiencies, but I generally think most feats/ASI's are slightly better. It is very subjective though, so feel to disagree with me.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I still don't get what makes feats so great? Is there something mechanically that makes them better or more versatile? What is it?
Feats give options. Either the player can chose something that complements his character or use them to flavor their character more according to the characters background.
Some feats are key to specific character power, you cannot gain with a simple +2 to a stat.
Would feats be obsolete if more class features offered more options and were more varied (while still reflecting the class and it's main them)?
No, because feats are specifically designed to not purely tie into class themes.
One of the things that feats do is allow characters to push a bit outside of their classes themes to have more varied characters, adding those things would be nice from a mechanical perspective to add some extra to martials which many think they need but wouldn't affect the worth of feats.
I don't think anyone is saying they're 'great' so much as just a worthwhile mechanic of the wider game. From an entirely mechanical perspective they run the gamut from being powerful to 'fluff' but in a game which is as much driven by creativity and 'flavour' they allow players to diversify beyond the extent of their class limitations in a mostly balanced way. Ability scores and proficiencies on the other hand are also necessary mechanics but they don't add as much in the way of variety.
Two Way of the Shadow Monks :
- One has 0 feats, so he has opted for a higher charisma than you might expect of a monk and some overall decent stats. He gained his shadow powers from a mysterious dark entity which is his story but otherwise he has nothing any other shadow monk doesn't have.
- The other also gained his powers from a mysterious dark entity, his stats are mostly what you'd imagine from a monk however he has been granted some limited dark magic and has trained his strikes so that he can push away adversaries to maintain safer distances. (Magic Initiate Warlock and Crusher Feats)
Both of these are valid forms of character but one has is mostly mechanically identical to any other of the same class/subclass (beyond background etc) while the other has been able to make their character a bit more unique and varied.
It seems like a bigger question is, why do you appear to think so poorly of feats?