Splitting feats in two

[Kryx]

Current rules:
You gain a feat or an ability score increase (+2) every 4 levels.

Alternate to be considered for discussion in this thread:
You gain a feat or an ability score increase (+1) every 2 levels. Feats are cut down in size to about 1/2 the current size, or equivalent to a +1 ability score. Fighter would have to gain them at double the rate: 2,4,5,6,7,8,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20 instead of 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20 (Normal fighter=4,6,8,12,14,16,19)

Pros:

More customization of characters as players can pick the bonuses that they want individually
Some underpowered options would become more viable as the cost of feats is less
Makes it easier for many DMs to accept variant Humans
Allows tuning of feats more easily as they are individual components
Odd stat points are less wasted as you could invest 1 point into them more easily
Easier Multiclassing

Cons:

Can increase Min/Max due to cherry picking
Can make it harder to balance some feats that are bigger
Increases complexity of character creation
Easier Multiclassing


How to split the feats:
Many feats already have a +1 ability score ingrained into it. For those feats you simply remove that option and leave the rest as a feat.
Other Examples:

Alert becomes 2 feats: +5 Init || not surprised & no advantage against you from hidden enemies
Dual Wielder becomes 2 feats: +1 ac || wield Two weapons that aren't light. Likely just move the draw/stow 2 weapons to normal TWF rules.
Crossbow Expert becomes 2 feats: Ignore loading + No Disadvantage in melee || Bonus action attack
Great Weapon Master becomes 2 feats: Cleave as a bonus action || Power attack
Polearm Master becomes 2 feats
Skilled gains you proficiency in 2 skills (was 3)



Has anyone experimented with this option?

[Mara]

What if you had really long feat chains and just made feats something people got automatically? That way each individual feat would be nearly worthless.

Heck, you could rewrite the magic item crafting rules and instead have those be feats!

[b4ndito]

Yes let's take 5e and turn it back into 3.5 because that will solve all our issues

[MrStabby]

Obviously this is an increase in power, but not sure by how much. In the simplest case (lvls 2&3 you have an extra feat/half feat so obviously you are ahead there.

Builds like Warlock 2, Sorcerer X now get a half feat at level 2 as well. In fact it is now much easier for characters to become a class soup with few penalties. 2 levels Warlock for eldrich blast, then 2 levels rogue for cunning action then 2 levels paladin to get smites then 2 levels of fighter for action surge...

I think I would probably be very cautious about using it although I do like the extra customisability.

[Kryx]

Obviously this is an increase in power, but not sure by how much. In the simplest case (lvls 2&3 you have an extra feat/half feat so obviously you are ahead there.
Ya, every 2 levels you get a small bump instead of a big bump at every 4. That's fine. Besides that the power level isn't significantly increased imo. As it is feats are balanced against +2. In the alternate system they're halved and balanced against +1. Though I agree there are some points of concern such as +5 init from half of alert.


Builds like Warlock 2, Sorcerer X now get a half feat at level 2 as well. In fact it is now much easier for characters to become a class soup with few penalties. 2 levels Warlock for eldrich blast, then 2 levels rogue for cunning action then 2 levels paladin to get smites then 2 levels of fighter for action surge...
True, it is much easier to multiclass..

[Yrnes]

I like the idea, but I'm worried about the execution. Some feats won't necessarily "divide" well, IMO, but it's certainly something that will A) Make level one variant humans easier to deal with and B) Make players less afraid to have an odd number in an ability score.

[Kryx]

Some feats won't necessarily "divide" well, IMO
From what I've looked at it looks like most do. I expect there to be maybe 1-3 exceptions when it is all spelled out. Did you have any in mind?

[Yrnes]

Well, to specify, I can see you dividing them easily enough - but it's just going to make the best parts of the feat available sooner (and you did mention this in your Cons section). Others, like Charger, have two parts that are intrinsic to one another, so it feels weird splitting the two.

[Wartex1]

For a high-power campaign, you could just give a feat along with standard ASIs whenever a character would get one (so that way Fighters and Rogues still get their increased ASI bonus). Since that could be a bit much, you could also raise the stat cap to 24 for such campaigns, with adjustments to certain features accordingly (Barbarian STR and CON cap now 28).

[rollingForInit]

My group actually tried this before. We felt that having to choose between feats and ABI's was bad, and that the feats were very large chunks of features that could be divided. So we did, for one adventure.

Then we stopped, because it just added too much complexity, and balancing stuff wasn't the easiest. It just resulted in ending up too far away from the core rules that it was too bothersome to keep track of.

I really understand the desire to do this, but I'd recommend against it. I wish you luck, though, and hope that you manage it better than we did.

[Kryx]

My group actually tried this before. We felt that having to choose between feats and ABI's was bad, and that the feats were very large chunks of features that could be divided. So we did, for one adventure.
That is different from what I listed.

There is still a tradeoff, just the tradeoff is boiled down to half feat vs +1 instead of feat vs +2.

[MrStabby]

Whilst I think on balance I am against it, I think that there are a couple of features that does make it attractive to me. I might have this wrong, as I am away from my book, but I think some feats have a restrictive part and an unrestricted part. For example I think crossbow mastery lets you make an attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action and lets you shoot without penalty in close combat. The first part is restrictive and requires a crossbow, the second part can be used by any weapon (yeah, gonna feel silly if wrong on this). This means that if I want to be an archer using longbows I can pick the part of the feat that might actually be of use to me (admittedly probably the less good part).

[Kryx]

Whilst I think on balance I am against it
I don't see the major balance issue. It slightly increases power.


For example I think crossbow mastery lets you make an attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action and lets you shoot without penalty in close combat. The first part is restrictive and requires a crossbow, the second part can be used by any weapon (yeah, gonna feel silly if wrong on this). This means that if I want to be an archer using longbows I can pick the part of the feat that might actually be of use to me (admittedly probably the less good part).
I, personally, think that each type of weapon should have their own feats. I discussed this in my Bow Expert (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?400891-Bow-Expert) thread. I put a ton of math into balancing it as well - the google doc is linked in that thread.

Bow Master

You can use your bow to make melee attacks. Treat it as a finesse weapon that does d6 bludgeoning damage (versatile d8) for a longbow or a d4 (versatile d6) for a shortbow. (works with opportunity attacks)
Once per round, when you make a ranged attack with a bow, you can fire two arrows instead of one. The arrows do not add your dexterity modifier to damage. These shots can target multiple foes and their attacks are rolled separately. A different target must be within 5 feet of the original target and within range of your weapon.

Crossbow Mastery (instead of bonus action on hand crossbow)

When you wield a two-handed crossbow you deal additional damage equal to half of your proficiency bonus (round down).

Gunslinger (Same as modified crossbow expert really)

You ignore the loading quality of firearms with which you are proficient.
Being within 5 ft of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls with a firearm.
Choose one of the following:
When you use the Attack action & attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a loaded light firearm you are holding.
When you wield a two-handed firearm you deal additional damage equal to half of your proficiency bonus (round down).



You can see my math in that thread. I'd have to split bow master if I do this split feat stuff.

Working on a google doc to split it now.

[rollingForInit]

That is different from what I listed.

There is still a tradeoff, just the tradeoff is boiled down to half feat vs +1 instead of feat vs +2.

That is not what was bothersome about houseruling the splitting of feats, if you read my post. Anyway, I'm not trying to say that it must end horribly. You asked if someone had experimented with splitting feats; I answered that we had, and how we felt about it in the end.

[Kryx]

That is not what was bothersome about houseruling the splitting of feats, if you read my post. Anyway, I'm not trying to say that it must end horribly. You asked if someone had experimented with splitting feats; I answered that we had, and how we felt about it in the end.
Your post is not very detailed so by saying you didn't like choosing between feats and stats it leads the reader to believe you gave both. Maybe at a lesser degree? It's hard to take play experience without any further info.

I split up nearly all the feats - pretty easy imo will post some results soon (tomorrow).

[Kryx]

This was actually a lot easier to accomplish than I thought.

Split feats Documentation (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JjU_Zdi9unkRDPLv9YbrpN49Q3gKJEh0wke1fLj2EYk/edit#gid=0).
Hopefully I haven't put too much detail there to break copyright.

I am also writing it out in a more readable version, but I can't really share that on a forum. :smallmad:

[Kurald Galain]

It strikes me that most feats consist of a strong part and a weak part, or a new tactical option and a small bonus to something you can already do. By splitting feats like this, you encourage savvy players to take only the strong parts.

Now personally I don't think that's such a big deal, but I'm sure some people will call it gravely unbalanced :smallamused:

[Eloel]

It strikes me that most feats consist of a strong part and a weak part, or a new tactical option and a small bonus to something you can already do. By splitting feats like this, you encourage savvy players to take only the strong parts.

Now personally I don't think that's such a big deal, but I'm sure some people will call it gravely unbalanced :smallamused:

If the aim is to make the boosts more gradual, just force the picks in advance, and give the bonuses in parts.

Instead of picking at 4th, you now pick your feat at 2nd, and take half the bonus. Rest of the bonus comes at level 4.

[Kurald Galain]

If the aim is to make the boosts more gradual, just force the picks in advance, and give the bonuses in parts.

Sure, but then you're not actually giving characters more customization, which is the OP's stated goal.

[Eloel]

Sure, but then you're not actually giving characters more customization, which is the OP's stated goal.

You sort of are, if they multiclass a lot.

[rollingForInit]

Your post is not very detailed so by saying you didn't like choosing between feats and stats it leads the reader to believe you gave both. Maybe at a lesser degree? It's hard to take play experience without any further info.

I split up nearly all the feats - pretty easy imo will post some results soon (tomorrow).

Okay, sure. I can try to be a bit clearer.

We split up the feats. First, it got a bit difficult to split up all of them properly. Some have two features, some have three features. Some have one feature that is particularly strong and one or several that are much weaker. So some of those the new feats became feats no one would take, because they just weren't interesting, even though combined with the other parts they might've been a neat bonus. Other feats are difficult to split because splitting them sort of ruins the idea of them. Charger for instance, or Polearm Master.

The other issue was that people just went for the strongest aspects that were broken out, mostly because many of the weaker just weren't enticing enough on their own. It just very strongly encouraged optimisation, even among players who didn't generally optimise a whole lot. And because some people started optimising even more, the others were more or less forced to optimise, as well, to keep up. For instance, by level 4 you could have both the best parts of Resilient and Warcaster for a melee caster (Con proficiency and advantage on con saves to keep spells running). It just got trickier to fairly balance the party among each other. No worries about vs monsters, since that can always be compensated for.

So in the end, even though we really felt the same way that you guys do about the feat system, we realised that the feats as they are, even if broken down, just aren't made to be taken every other level. Too many useless parts, too many parts that were just a lot stronger than others. It didn't feel as great to take one of those as it did to take one of the original feats.

There was also the issue of having too many major changes to the system if we wanted to bring in more players, since we basically had an entirely new feat system.

That was our experience, anyway. I do hope that you like it better. We just ended up feeling that even though we'd love feats every other level, breaking down the existing ones really was too much effort for too little gain.

[Kryx]

It strikes me that most feats consist of a strong part and a weak part, or a new tactical option and a small bonus to something you can already do. By splitting feats like this, you encourage savvy players to take only the strong parts.
Overall I think the concerns that some parts are more powerful is not a problem when splitting them. You can see the results for yourself - imo the split ones are more balanced to each other. Especially for weaker feats like charger, grappler, and Medium armor master which I kept all the original features in a smaller feat size.



If the aim is to make the boosts more gradual, just force the picks in advance, and give the bonuses in parts.
Instead of picking at 4th, you now pick your feat at 2nd, and take half the bonus. Rest of the bonus comes at level 4.
I did this "Upgrade" path on a few of them. I tried to avoid it. Defensive Duelist, Elemental Adept, Healer, Inspiring Leader, Ritual Caster, and Savage Attacker all fell under that category of being too strong to put the whole thing in 1 feat.


Sure, but then you're not actually giving characters more customization, which is the OP's stated goal.
They still have a higher level of customization, but if they want the stronger items they have to pay for 2 feats to get the full benefit (or half for 1).




For instance, by level 4 you could have both the best parts of Resilient and Warcaster for a melee caster (Con proficiency and advantage on con saves to keep spells running).
That is a valid choice imo - it focuses on 1 specific aspect and ignores others. It's strong, but so are other options.



There was also the issue of having too many major changes to the system if we wanted to bring in more players, since we basically had an entirely new feat system.

That was our experience, anyway. I do hope that you like it better. We just ended up feeling that even though we'd love feats every other level, breaking down the existing ones really was too much effort for too little gain.
Definitely valid concerns. I'm leaving it up to my players to decide now that I've split them all.

[Vogonjeltz]

Has anyone experimented with this option?

I have not, but it's important to highlight the several feats that provide 1 benefit and a +1 ability score increase. Resilient for example.

The ability score increase doesn't really matter (which can become yet another feat under the proposed system) this would mean you basically get two resiliencies for the old price of one, the proficiency in the saving throw being substantially more useful and powerful than a +1 ASI.

I don't think it's wise to throw the balance of the game askew that much.

Another consideration: Rogue and Fighter get more ASIs than the other classes. Do they just get those ASIs doubled? It seems like watering down the value of the ASI also waters down the value of those being their class benefit at several levels.

This means several questions need resolution: What do those classes get in return? Do they just get x2 ASIs? How are they spaced out? This will lead to changes in power increase at several levels (i.e. the level that an ASI is normally gained at, say 4th, is now less of a power gain, and the level that a new ASI would be gained at, say 2nd, would be even MORE of a power gain). This disrupts the normal expected balance as characters will be more powerful than expected at those other even levels.


Yes let's take 5e and turn it back into 3.5 because that will solve all our issues

Yes, this is starting to get rather unwieldy.

Oh, and point #5 "5.Odd stat points are less wasted as you could invest 1 point into them more easily" doesn't really scan, there are already plenty of +1 ASI feats and if you can, at best, get a +1 ASI that means you have the worse problem of having even stats not being able to transition smoothly to the next level of modifier. A 14 can only become a 15, which is basically worthless when compared to getting a feat benefit. This disincentivizes actually increasing ability scores in favor of just taking feats.

That isn't something I would actually want to encourage.

[Kryx]

I have not, but it's important to highlight the several feats that provide 1 benefit and a +1 ability score increase. Resilient for example.

The ability score increase doesn't really matter (which can become yet another feat under the proposed system) this would mean you basically get two resiliencies for the old price of one, the proficiency in the saving throw being substantially more useful and powerful than a +1 ASI.
I agree that resilient's cost to entry is a bit low. Not sure how I'd address that one specifically.


Another consideration: Rogue and Fighter get more ASIs than the other classes. Do they just get those ASIs doubled? It seems like watering down the value of the ASI also waters down the value of those being their class benefit at several levels.
For every normal feat 2 are given instead. For Fighters they get 2 for every one they previously got, yes. The total value is the same if the feats are all the same value. This is all outlined in the first post.


This means several questions need resolution: What do those classes get in return? Do they just get x2 ASIs? How are they spaced out? This will lead to changes in power increase at several levels (i.e. the level that an ASI is normally gained at, say 4th, is now less of a power gain, and the level that a new ASI would be gained at, say 2nd, would be even MORE of a power gain). This disrupts the normal expected balance as characters will be more powerful than expected at those other even levels.
Power is given more gradually, yes. See the first post for fighter's spacing.
Yes there is a slight power increase in comparison to the normal system every 4th level starting at 2nd - that's one of the main features: to even out the spikes in power.
One could alternatively keep the same spikes and still break down the feats and select 2 at that point.



Yes, this is starting to get rather unwieldy.
I quite disagree. It's the same Pros and Cons as outlined in the first post. Some items like Resilient may need a higher entry cost, but that's tweaking.


A 14 can only become a 15, which is basically worthless when compared to getting a feat benefit. This disincentivizes actually increasing ability scores in favor of just taking feats.
Long term gain vs short term gain, sure.


That isn't something I would actually want to encourage.
Which is every DM's choice. :)

[Strill]

Your first component of Elemental Adept is crap. It's worth +5% damage in the absolute BEST case scenario, and less than +2% in the worst. This is a good example of why you can't split feats.

Savage Attacker at 1 feat spent is terrible as well. You think +3 or 4 damage per short rest is worth half a feat?

[Kryx]

Your first component of Elemental Adept is crap. It's worth +5% damage in the absolute BEST case scenario, and less than +2% in the worst. This is a good example of why you can't split feats.
Treating 1s as 2 isn't great. It changes your d6 damage from 3.5 to 3.67. ((2+2+3+4+5+6)/6). Fireball becomes 29 avg dmg instead of 28. Quite not good. But it's an investment to upgrade into ignoring resistances which is great. That's the point of upgrade feats. It's the exact same cost as Elemental adept was before. The full price doesn't change.


Savage Attacker at 1 feat spent is terrible as well. You think +3 or 4 damage per short rest is worth half a feat?
Savage attacker is consistently rated as a top feat as is. Giving the whole thing for the price of a feat is too much. 1/round doesn't really change the value except for AoO. Maybe 3/short rest? Seems decent. Changed to that unless you have a better idea.


TL;DR: Upgrade feats aren't easy to handle. Their first level is not necessarily the value of a half feat, but overall the value of both parts is a full feat.

[Strill]

Savage attacker is consistently rated as a top feat as is. Giving the whole thing for the price of a feat is too much. 1/round doesn't really change the value except for AoO. Maybe 3/short rest? Seems decent. Changed to that unless you have a better idea.

Rated a top feat by who? It barely keeps up with the value of +2 STR.

[Kryx]

Rated a top feat by who? It barely keeps up with the value of +2 STR.
On Savage Attacker I actually just glanced at 2 handbooks and made a judgement call.

Rated it High:
http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4138151
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389546-I-ll-NEVER-Die!-(A-Guide-to-the-5E-Barbarian)

Rated it modestly:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373592-A-Guide-to-the-D-amp-D-5th-Edition-Paladin-through-the-eyes-of-a-3-5-Player

Rated it Low:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?374666-Not-All-Who-Wander-are-Lost-A-Ranger-s-Guide
http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4147321

The problem is it's value is dependent on class. It's more valuable on a d12 instead of 2d6 and more valuable on a d12 vs a d4 or d6.
I'd like to do some further math. If it's not a lot of damage then it can be a half feat by itself.

[Strill]

On Savage Attacker I actually just glanced at 2 handbooks and made a judgement call.

Rated it High:
http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4138151
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389546-I-ll-NEVER-Die!-(A-Guide-to-the-5E-Barbarian)

Rated it modestly:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373592-A-Guide-to-the-D-amp-D-5th-Edition-Paladin-through-the-eyes-of-a-3-5-Player

Rated it Low:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?374666-Not-All-Who-Wander-are-Lost-A-Ranger-s-Guide
http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4147321

The problem is it's value is dependent on class. It's more valuable on a d12 instead of 2d6 and more valuable on a d12 vs a d4 or d6.
I'd like to do some further math. If it's not a lot of damage then it can be a half feat by itself.

If you assume that at least one of your damage rolls each turn is a 1 (best case scenario)

2d6 weapon:
Reroll a 1: A d6 is worth 3.5, for an average +2.5 damage per round.

1d12 weapon:
Reroll a 1: A d12 is worth 6.5, for an average +5.5 damage per round, but d12 weapons do 0.5 damage less than 2d6 weapons, so you lose 0.5 damage per hit.

So we can safely say that +5 damage per round is the theoretical maximum for a Cleric, or +4.5 for any martial character.

Now consider an ever so slightly less ideal scenario. Let's say that we're looking at rerolling a 2 on a d6, or a 3 on a d12. In that case, your net gain from the feat goes down to +1.5 or +2.5 damage per round. That's not even near the worst-case scenario, and already it's dramatically worse than +2 STR. It's a terrible feat.

[rollingForInit]

Treating 1s as 2 isn't great. It changes your d6 damage from 3.5 to 3.67. ((2+2+3+4+5+6)/6). Fireball becomes 29 avg dmg instead of 28. Quite not good. But it's an investment to upgrade into ignoring resistances which is great. That's the point of upgrade feats. It's the exact same cost as Elemental adept was before. The full price doesn't change.


So ... what is the point? It simply means that no one is going to take Elemental Adapt #1 unless they also plan to take Elemental Adapt #2, which means they'll end up exactly the same. No variation, no better customisation. A feat system that allowed more customisation wouldn't have had Elemental Adept #1 and #2, they would have had two distinctly different feats dealing with elemental damage. Splitting those feats in that way doesn't give you more customisation; it brings mandatory feat chains. Once you've started, you've already invested in crappy feats so you have to go on or that first feat is wasted. And you'd be much better off grabbing one of the super strong feats instead.

[Kryx]

That's not even near the worst-case scenario, and already it's dramatically worse than +2 STR. It's a terrible feat.
According to Anydice advantage on damage for a d12 changes the avg dmg from 6.5 to 8.49. An increase of 2 damage on 1 attack per turn.

With those numbers I think it is indeed worth half a feat.




So ... what is the point? It simply means that no one is going to take Elemental Adapt #1 unless they also plan to take Elemental Adapt #2, which means they'll end up exactly the same. No variation, no better customisation.
For Elemenetal Adept you're right - there is no more customization. The point is to balance Elemental Adept which is one of very few feats that cannot be split well. Everything else splits fine. But if 1 or 2 can't be split perfectly should the whole system be abandoned? I don't think so, which is why the "upgrade" system works here. It is the same cost for Elemental Adept while other feats can be more cherry picked.


A feat system that allowed more customisation wouldn't have had Elemental Adept #1 and #2, they would have had two distinctly different feats dealing with elemental damage.
I would love to have some kind of half resistance, but that doesn't exist in 5e, so I can't do it.


Splitting those feats in that way doesn't give you more customisation; it brings mandatory feat chains. Once you've started, you've already invested in crappy feats so you have to go on or that first feat is wasted. And you'd be much better off grabbing one of the super strong feats instead.
Again, Elemental Adept specifically doesn't give you more customization, but everything else does. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't applicable in this case imo as it is neatly handled with "upgrade".

Other "upgrade" feats like Defensive Duelist, Inspiring Leader, and (to a lesser degree) Healer work great.

Please suggest a better idea if you have one.

[Strill]

According to Anydice advantage on damage for a d12 changes the avg dmg from 6.5 to 8.49. An increase of 2 damage on 1 attack per turn.

With those numbers I think it is indeed worth half a feat.

That's an incorrect estimate. You can choose which die to reroll, which means you only reroll the lowest die. Therefore you are not rerolling from 6.5 to 8.49.

Second, +2 damage per turn is absolutely not worth a feat. +2 STR can give you at LEAST as much damage, as well as a hit bonus.

[Kryx]

That's an incorrect estimate. You can choose which die to reroll, which means you only reroll the lowest die. Therefore you are not rerolling from 6.5 to 8.49.

Once per turn when you roll damage for a melee weapon attack, you can reroll the weapon’s damage dice and use either total.
In layman's terms that says you can once per turn roll all dice twice and take the highest result. Which is exactly the math above. 2d6 is a bit harder to do on anydice, but it's likely 2 or higher. If a PC has only 1 attack then they will use it always which means it's exactly the math above. If they have 2 attacks or more it's harder to determine the value. In those cases it goes from +2 dmg to likely +3 or more. 2 damage is a decent baseline assumption. If anything it is higher than that.


Second, +2 damage per turn is absolutely not worth a feat. +2 STR can give you at LEAST as much damage, as well as a hit bonus.
I agree that +2 damage once per turn is likely not worth worth a normal feat. +2 str gives +1 hit and +1 damage. Overall the str is more valuable.
Which is why I adjusted it as a result of your feedback in this system to be worth half a feat. Half a feat is equivalent to +1 stat. I think it's definitely a good choice then.

[rollingForInit]

Honestly, I'm wondering what the point is with posting something like this, asking what other players who've tried it feels about it, if you're already 100% set with how you want it? Because there's been quite a bit of criticism to how it balances and works out in practise, but you don't seem interested in criticsm?

[Kryx]

Honestly, I'm wondering what the point is with posting something like this, asking what other players who've tried it feels about it, if you're already 100% set with how you want it? Because there's been quite a bit of criticism to how it balances and works out in practise, but you don't seem interested in criticsm?
I posted to receive feedback.

Here is a summary of the feedback received:

omg feat chains: worthless feedback
omg dis be like 3.X: worthless feedback
Multiclassing is more powerful: which I noted and addressed with a few options: Delay the first 2 feats until 4 or let the DM handle multiclassing in general
Power levels don't spike every 4, but every two, which increases the power level at those level: obvious, documented in the pros/cons. Evening out the jumps is a plus imo
Feats may not divide well: I went through every feat and divided it. Overall the balance of each feat is pretty good with a few minor adjustments needed
Cherry picking increases min/max: Documented in the OP, it's an inherent flaw with more choices in anything
Why not make it a higher powered campaign?: Not really relevant to the discussion
I tried this, I encountered some of the problems you documented and decided it was not worth it: Good feedback, but the motivation is different as it seems you didn't have players pick stats or feats, but both. It's hard to say with the limited description. Feedback would've been better with increased explanation for how you split the feats which seemed to be the main issue. As I mentioned above I split them and it didn't seem to be an issue.
Some feats consist of strong and weak parts: I split them and did not encounter this. It seems this feedback was given without looking at my split feats, but only in general concept which diminishes the feedback.
Eloel suggested that I use an upgrade system which I did adapt "If the aim is to make the boosts more gradual, just force the picks in advance, and give the bonuses in parts. Instead of picking at 4th, you now pick your feat at 2nd, and take half the bonus. Rest of the bonus comes at level 4." (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=19040174&postcount=18) Good feedback and works for feats that do not split.
You posted some valid concerns about players having to use this alternate feat system instead of the one in the PHB: I think the concerns are valid, especially for outside players. I do not think those concerns outweigh the benefits.
Resilient was called out as an OP choice: I somewhat agree, not sure how that could be remedied. Hard to say if it's really OP with the other options to consider.
Fighter feat progression was brought up: I had posted this in the OP in the first few lines which the responder didn't seem to bother reading. I don't see how a Fighter getting the equivalent amount of half feats i a problem
Complaint about elemental adept: It is an upgrade feat - there really isn't a better way to progressively give the benefits of this in 5e. Not much help, just criticism using one specific example to say "it's all bad".
Savage attacker Math: Received some good feedback on savage attacker. Adjusted the feat to be a single feat based on the math
Received feedback from you that upgrade feats defeat the whole purpose of the idea: Again, I don't agree. Just because not all feats can be broken down doesn't mean the system is bad. Those feats are still good options.


I'm not sure how you can say I'm not interested in criticism when I have responded to every bit and made several adjustments. If you expect me to say "this whole system is bad because elemental adept can't be one feat" then obviously I don't agree.

I happily welcome constructive criticism. I'm not sure that this is the best option still - I may just throw it out. But I don't think any of the minor complaints presented are significant enough to not consider it.