So wait... Feats OR attribute increase?

[samcifer]

Why was this change made (unless it was in 3.5 and earlier as I have no experience playing anything but 4e)? Why chose between the two? I don't understand why they did this.

[Millstone85]

Well, for one thing, feats weren't optional in 4e, but they are now.

[DanyBallon]

Why was this change made (unless it was in 3.5 and earlier as I have no experience playing anything but 4e)? Why chose between the two? I don't understand why they did this.

First and foremost, Feats are optionals to the core system, and as far as I'm concern, it add an element of diversity to the game as player that level up their character, needs to decide if they want to invest in a feat that will give them new abilities, or in a stat increase that will allow them to be better overall with abilities related to that stat. Also, it should be noted that you don't need feats or maxed out stats to be effective in 5e, so choosing either is fine. Lastly not all feats are equals, if you like to optimize, you'll realize real fast that there are better feats than other for combat.

[jas61292]

First off, feats are optional, so its a way to fit them in without them as greatly effecting game balance (a trade rather than a bonus). Secondly, stats are bounded, and as such not boosting a stat is not as harmful.

[Millstone85]

Do note that some feats increase an ability score by 1.

So it is like they are half the price of other feats.

[Easy_Lee]

As far as I know, they never said why they did this. Saying "feats are optional" is not a reason, it's a consequence of the design.

I'm not a fan of it since it punishes players for taking interesting options by giving them lower stats. In 3.5e, we had feat taxes. Now, we have attribute increase taxes because almost no feat is worth losing progression on your main stat.

[DanyBallon]

As far as I know, they never said why they did this. Saying "feats are optional" is not a reason, it's a consequence of the design.

I'm not a fan of it since it punishes players for taking interesting options by giving them lower stats. In 3.5e, we had feat taxes. Now, we have attribute increase taxes because almost no feat is worth losing progression on your main stat.

I'd argue that it would be a tax, if you really needed to maxe out you main ability, but even if you have a 14 or a 16 in your main ability, you still are efficient, and unless you have an exact same class/race character in your group, you shouldn't feel outshined at your role.

[Easy_Lee]

I'd argue that it would be a tax, if you really needed to maxe out you main ability, but even if you have a 14 or a 16 in your main ability, you still are efficient, and unless you have an exact same class/race character in your group, you shouldn't feel outshined at your role.

It's not a case of whether you need a maxed main stat or not, but of being punished for taking feats by not being able to get a maxed main stat. Bounded accuracy or not, - 1 on all of your most important functions is a big deal.

[Aett_Thorn]

It's not a case of whether you need a maxed main stat or not, but of being punished for taking feats by not being able to get a maxed main stat. Bounded accuracy or not, - 1 on all of your most important functions is a big deal.

Making a conscious choice isn't a punishment. You get to choose between maxing the stat OR getting a feat. I've never had a player at my table feel like this was a punishment. If the player would rather have the +2 to their most important stat, they can do that instead.

[Specter]

I'm not a fan of it since it punishes players for taking interesting options by giving them lower stats. In 3.5e, we had feat taxes. Now, we have attribute increase taxes because almost no feat is worth losing progression on your main stat.

Comparing stats in 3.5 and in 5e is oranges and apples.

1) Stats in general are less essential in 5e. If you're building a Ranger now all you need is DEX, CON and WIS, whereas in 5e you'd also need STR and INT (for skills). The only universal dump stat for non-CHA class was CHA, because even STR was necessary if you wanted to carry any kind of equipment.
2) Stats could be raised beyond 20 easily with common items, so even if you did boost your main stats to 20 (nigh impossible on standard array) you still needed items to be competitive. This is doubly true when it came to saves, because DCs of 30+ were common in high levels.
3) Bounded accuracy.

So even if you have a low-stat character in 5e (none above 16), chances are he wouldn't survive with them in 3.5.

[smcmike]

It's not a case of whether you need a maxed main stat or not, but of being punished for taking feats by not being able to get a maxed main stat. Bounded accuracy or not, - 1 on all of your most important functions is a big deal.

By this logic, every choice is a punishment. If I take GWM, I'm being punished by not getting the benefits of Sentinel. If I take Warcaster, I'm being punished by not getting the benefits of Elementa Adept.

[Pex]

As far as I know, they never said why they did this. Saying "feats are optional" is not a reason, it's a consequence of the design.

I'm not a fan of it since it punishes players for taking interesting options by giving them lower stats. In 3.5e, we had feat taxes. Now, we have attribute increase taxes because almost no feat is worth losing progression on your main stat.

Only if you use Point Buy, which is also optional not the official rule. The original dice rolling allows for the lucky chance where taking a feat won't hurt. Even with Point Buy I think it is affordable to take a feat at level 4 or level 8 depending on feat, character, and campaign circumstance. Anything more the math will get you despite Bounded Accuracy. If you really need two feats that's where Variant Human shines. Even if you only need one Feat that's Variant Human's strength. Fighter's strength is his level 6 choice.

You'll want that 18 by 8th level. Campaign circumstance will determine if 20 is needed at level 12 or could wait until level 16. Bounded Accuracy math can work with you too.

[Easy_Lee]

By this logic, every choice is a punishment. If I take GWM, I'm being punished by not getting the benefits of Sentinel. If I take Warcaster, I'm being punished by not getting the benefits of Elementa Adept.

Like I said above, feats are generally more interesting than and considerably less useful than attribute increases. We can go back and forth on this all day and I'll never sway all of you. But I hope you can at least see my point that it forces players to forgo an interesting choice for a boring but clearly superior one.

A metaphor: imagine I offered you the chance to be reborn as either beautiful but sickly or ugly but healthy. Any reasonable person would choose healthy, but would wonder why they were being punished for making the right choice. These things are not comparable, which is why it isn't an interesting choice.

[LtPowers]

As far as I know, they never said why they did this. Saying "feats are optional" is not a reason, it's a consequence of the design.

But it was designed that way (with feats as an optional feature of the game) in order to make the base game simpler. If you don't use feats, then ASIs become a relatively simple choice for players to make. Picking from several dozen feats was one of the hardest parts of creating a character in 3.x and 4e.


Powers &8^]

[Moredhel24]

To parrot everyone else, feats are an optional rule. Probably made this way for simplicity for new players.

[Cazero]

Since feats are now supposed to matter (as in not being stupid plusses tax), there are character concepts for whom none of the feats work. By forcing a choice between feat and ASI, those character are not too penalized for sticking to their concept.

[Easy_Lee]

Like I said, saying feats are optional is not an answer but a consequence of their design decisions. The next logical question is: okay, why did they make feats optional? So far as I know, that question has no official answer, just lots of unofficial speculation.

[smcmike]

I hope you can at least see my point that it forces players to forgo an interesting choice for a boring but clearly superior one.

Yeah, I get you. I don't know that "punish" is the right word, but the presence of an "optimal" path in a game will almost always cause these sort of problems. I guess it would have been more accurate for me to compare GWM with Actor.

[Willie the Duck]

Why was this change made (unless it was in 3.5 and earlier as I have no experience playing anything but 4e)? Why chose between the two? I don't understand why they did this.

There wasn't a change made. 5e is a brand new edition, and there is no assumption of continuity between editions. Even if there was, 5e is supposedly a consensus amalgam of all the previous editions. So the fact that there were feats and regular attribute increases in 4e doesn't mean there ought to be some in 5e (after all, the game is supposed to also continue off of BECMI as much as 4e, and it had neither).

So the question isn't so much 'why they did this,' as, 'they did this, does it work?'

Like I said, saying feats are optional is not an answer but a consequence of their design decisions. The next logical question is: okay, why did they make feats optional? So far as I know, that question has no official answer, just lots of unofficial speculation.

You can say that about pretty much all of everything. the designers aren't answering 'why' questions much.

[Unoriginal]

Like I said above, feats are generally more interesting than and considerably less useful than attribute increases. We can go back and forth on this all day and I'll never sway all of you. But I hope you can at least see my point that it forces players to forgo an interesting choice for a boring but clearly superior one.

Yeah, I get you. I don't know that "punish" is the right word, but the presence of an "optimal" path in a game will almost always cause these sort of problems. I guess it would have been more accurate for me to compare GWM with Actor.

I've yet to see any demonstration that if you compare two characters who are the same in every way except that one took only ASI and the other took a feat, you see that the first is clearly outperforming the other in the tasks that are expected from an adventurer of their level and classes. Not even if it's like "it's clear A is outperforming B 6 times out of 10".

[Easy_Lee]

I've yet to see any demonstration that if you compare two characters who are the same in every way except that one took only ASI and the other took a feat, you see that the first is clearly outperforming the other in the tasks that are expected from an adventurer of their level and classes. Not even if it's like "it's clear A is outperforming B 6 times out of 10".

Pick your character, feat, and test. Regardless of what you pick, taking +2 to your main attribute is +1 to most everything you do. If you don't understand the value of that, I don't know what to tell you. Feats are seldom worth that much.

[CursedRhubarb]

It's not a case of whether you need a maxed main stat or not, but of being punished for taking feats by not being able to get a maxed main stat. Bounded accuracy or not, - 1 on all of your most important functions is a big deal.

Getting -1 on your main stat means you've only 8 or 9 points in your main stat. If that's the case, you have a lot more to worry about than weighing feat vs stat increases.

[Easy_Lee]

Getting -1 on your main stat means you've only 8 or 9 points in your main stat. If that's the case, you have a lot more to worry about than weighing feat vs stat increases.

-1 compared to if you maxed the attribute

[Kryx]

Pick your character, feat, and test. Regardless of what you pick, taking +2 to your main attribute is +1 to most everything you do. If you don't understand the value of that, I don't know what to tell you. Feats are seldom worth that much.

GWM, PAM, and SS provide about double the damage of +2 strength. The other benefits of 1 higher strength definitely don't outweigh the huge damage increase of those feats imo.


What alternative option do you use to provide ASIs and feats? I'd be curious to see other options.
Increase all ability scores by 1 at 5, 10,15, and 20, removing 2 ASIs, and turning the rest to feats would be interesting.

[Aett_Thorn]

This is also assuming that you can't both max your main stat AND get a few feats along the way.

Starting with a standard array, so 15 in your main stat, and let's say that you choose a race with +2 to that stat, so you're at 17 to start. At level 4 you go up to 19, and at level 8 you go up to 20 (and +1 another stat). At level 12 you're free to choose a feat without worry about your main stat. This is even earlier for Fighters and Rogues. Or, you can be fine with that +4 instead of the +5 for a few levels, and get the feat early.

Having feats just opens up more options, without restricting you on being able to max out your main stat by end-game.

[Easy_Lee]

GWM, PAM, and SS provide about double the damage of +2 strength. The other benefits of 1 higher strength definitely don't outweigh the huge damage increase of those feats imo.


What alternative option do you use to provide ASIs and feats? I'd be curious to see other options.
Increase all ability scores by 1 at 5, 10,15, and 20, removing 2 ASIs, and turning the rest to feats would be interesting.

That's why I said most feats. Not all feats are equally useful. Take charger as an example of a feat that isn't worth jack.

I don't use alternatives anymore because the players get too confused and many don't bother learning the house rules. 5e is workable, if frustrating in many regards, and people generally know it by now. But every player has a limit to the house rules they will accept, so I keep mine to a minimum to be inclusive.

[Unoriginal]

Pick your character, feat, and test. Regardless of what you pick, taking +2 to your main attribute is +1 to most everything you do. If you don't understand the value of that, I don't know what to tell you. Feats are seldom worth that much.

Have you seen in-play a character being significantly hindered for picking up a feat?

[Easy_Lee]

Have you seen in-play a character being significantly hindered for picking up a feat?

What you're really asking is have I seen a player miss an attack, miss out on a killing blow, fail to avoid an attack, fail a saving throw, or have an enemy beat their saving throw DC by one point. Yes. All the time.

Meanwhile, how often do the interesting feats Actor and Keen Mind come up? Not very.

[Beelzebubba]

As far as I know, they never said why they did this. Saying "feats are optional" is not a reason, it's a consequence of the design.

I'm not a fan of it since it punishes players for taking interesting options by giving them lower stats. In 3.5e, we had feat taxes. Now, we have attribute increase taxes because almost no feat is worth losing progression on your main stat.

It's only punishment if you have a huge sense of entitlement. Balanced games mean 'I have to give up *this cool thing* to get *the other cool thing*.'

When the choices are agonizing, because this other thing over there is so tempting that you feel like you have to have it, but then this thing you have right now is just as good but has other limitations...

THAT IS A GOOD GAME.

If you feel like the only way you can be satisfied in life is to start at the top and then go upwards... then house rule it to be a candy store. Nobody will stop you.

Back 'in the day', when attribute increases were only via luck of the die roll - you might get one of a half dozen things that gave you a boost - we'd go the whole game without a stat increase. Except for those tables that felt 'punished' because they didn't have a +5 Longsword of Vorpal Holy Avenger Defending. What's old is what's new again.

The game is PERFECTLY BALANCED as is. We see threads all the time how it's hard to build it for high level characters because they're too powerful. And, you're whining because you're being 'punished' because you don't get steak *and* a blow job at every level, you have to choose between one or the other...

Yah, dude, no sympathy. Sorry.

[suplee215]

Pick your character, feat, and test. Regardless of what you pick, taking +2 to your main attribute is +1 to most everything you do. If you don't understand the value of that, I don't know what to tell you. Feats are seldom worth that much.

I haven't seen the math but does a +1 matter so much when a d20 is what decides 99% of rolls? not to mention proficiency. if it's a +4 with GWM vs a +5 without gwm in str the gwm person is going to be more impressive if not more effective. sure, this is one of the powerful feats but also feats do things that can't really be accounted for by math. For example, Shield master. how do you calculate if a good chance at advantage for both you and others help as much as a +1. a lot of feats benefits are objective. However, also there will always be a "superior" option in a game with multiple choices. Only way to make everything equal is to build every option exactly the same. which is boring. 5e's attempt at this is to make it so the optimized way is not too much superior, or that the nonoptimized way isn't ineffective 100%. sure, there are some major differences but then it just comes to "do you want to build a character with feats that is 98% as good or a character without feats that are 'perfect'". either way is fine.