L&L Feat list

[Envyus]

A list of feats in the PHB

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140721

[Tholomyes]

I decided to compile the changes between this list and the feats shown in the last playtest packet, if anyone is interested. I also have some speculations that some of the removed feats may simply be renamed versions of older ones:

Additions:
Actor
Crossbow Expert
Defensive Duelist
Dungeon Delver
Durable
Elemental Adept
Grappler
Heavily Armored
Inspiring Leader
Keen Mind
Lightly Armored
Linguist
Mage Slayer
Magic Initiate
Martial Adept
Medium Armor Master
Moderately Armored
Observant
Resilient
Ritual Caster
Savage Attacker
Sentinel
Sharpshooter
Skilled
Skulker
Spell Sniper
Tavern Brawler
War Caster
Weapon Master

Removals:
Arcane Archer (Maybe Spell Sniper)
Archery Master (Maybe Sharpshooter)
Fencing master (Maybe Defensive duelist)
Loremaster (Maybe Linguist/skilled)
Arcane/Divine/Drudic Initiate (likely merged to Magic Initiate)
Magic Adept/Improved Magic Adept/Superior Magic Adept (look like they're removed, completely)
Stealthy (maybe Skulker)
Tactical Warrior
Thrown Weapon Master

Personally, I'm interested in martial adept. The fact that it's the same term used for the ToB classes makes me wonder if Maneuvers are being made broader than just the Battle-master fighter. The loss of Tactical Warrior is somewhat saddening, but hopefully it's just a name change that isn't as obvious.

Something else I'm wondering is the difference between Durable, Resilient and Tough. If I had to guess, I'd think Tough is as it always has been, a numerical bonus to HP, but hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised, and it will have an extra bonus tacked on. Resilient sounds like it has something to do with saving throws, and I'd guess Durable is either AC or Damage Resistance. I'd certainly hope that it's something more than a numerical boost, but I'll wait and see.

Keen mind sounds interesting, and I'm hoping to finally see a good use for INT on a martial character (besides being a hard-minimum for the maneuver feat chains). Since Int isn't tied to skill points any more, it feels like it has a very small use besides for wizards (and maybe certain subclasses).

[obryn]

The loss of Tactical Warrior is somewhat saddening, but hopefully it's just a name change that isn't as obvious.
It's Sentinel now, and done differently.

[Person_Man]

To quote the article, "Most feats either give you a number of small upgrades bundled together, a significant new class feature that you’ll use a lot, or a lesser benefit bundled with a +1 bonus to a single ability score."

We've all seen this coming for a while, but I'm not happy with this.

I hate it when you're forced to take an Ability Score increase or Feat (and class abilities/spells/magic items) that provide "a number of small upgrades bundled together" or "a lesser benefit with a +1 bonus to a single ability score." These fall into two categories:



Things you feel obligated to take, because you use them all the time, and you're 5%ish less effective without them. The best example of this is Implement Expertise and Weapon Expertise from 4E. They're basically Feat taxes. You either get your primary ability score up to 20 and/or take the +1 to attacks and/or +1 to your Save DCs with spells Feats, or you don't keep up with the AC/Saves of monsters, and you become LESS effective against them as you gain class levels.
Things that provide a minor fiddly bonus rarely. The best example of this is 99% of the Skill related Feats from 3.5. You use it maybe once per game, and it only matters if the result of your roll is right on the edge of failure and success.


I was hoping that all of the 5E Feats would fall into the "significant new class feature that you'll use a lot" category.

Also, it appears as some of the Feats will be very similar to the "permission based" Feats of 3.5/PF, which remove the penalty from something that you should be able to do normally without a penalty so that it actually becomes useful. In 3.5/PF the best examples are the Improved Trip/Bull Rush/Grapple Feats - basically no one is going to Trip/Bull Rush/Grapple without the appropriate Feat for it because of the AoO/penalties you'd take - even though its supposed to be a default option available to all creatures. In 5E, things it looks like Crossbow Expert will let you make multiple attacks with a crossbow, Polearm Master will let you make an Opportunity Attack on an enemy when they enter your reach with a polearm (by default, enemies provoke an OA when they LEAVE your reach, which makes you LESS effective at dealing Opportunity Attacks with a Reach weapon without this Feat), Tavern Brawler will let you use Unarmed Strikes effectively, and so on.

Blerg.

[obryn]

We've all seen this coming for a while, but I'm not happy with this.
I get the heebie jeebies when I see something as niche and weird as "Actor" on the list.

But yeah, unless these are much better than expected, I think I'm going to hate feats in yet another edition. I'm nearly convinced at this point that "feats" in D&D are simply bad design.

[Person_Man]

I'm nearly convinced at this point that "feats" in D&D are simply bad design.

I know the feeling. Having said that, I do think that there should be a set of universally available abilities/Powers that every class can access, and that each of these abilities should be a meaningful option.

The problem is that Feats have always been a dumping ground for stuff writers couldn't fit into classes or feel obligated to create for Simulationist reasons.

This could all be solved by strict stacking rules. If everything that wasn't an Ability Score or Proficiency bonus didn't stack, then writers wouldn't feel the need to create 1,000 variations of "+2 to one Specific Thing." You would just need one Feat that provides you with a "+ to any Specific Thing" and you'd be done with it.

[obryn]

As an added bonus, it looks like at least some of those feats are ways for spellcasters to bypass the mechanisms meant to (better) balance spellcasting.

War Caster, for example, gives you Advantage on concentration saves - you know, the thing that keeps you from stunlocking the bad guys. Resilient gives you +1 to a stat and proficiency on a save.

So Resilient, it seems, will become the first real feat tax. Anyone without Will save proficiency will just about have to take it for their critical Will saves, and casters will take it for Constitution saves (and therefore concentration saves). And - surprise, surprise - the first feat tax is a boring but powerful passive effect. :smallsigh:

[Sartharina]

War Caster, for example, gives you Advantage on concentration saves - you know, the thing that keeps you from stunlocking the bad guys.
Ehh... I always figured the concentration was more to limit active effects than to be knocked out of by an attack anyway. What stops you from stunlocking bad guys is you can only try stunning one at a time.

[Ilorin Lorati]

The amusing thing for me is that most of the spells that would be used to protect the caster from damage are going to end up canceled in just a few moments if they're actually used for their intended purpose because there's no way a caster is going to be able to keep concentration on them for very long while under attack, at least until the wizard gets up to a +9 bonus.

Warcaster is probably going to end up being mandatory for touch casters for just that reason.

[Held]

I'm nearly convinced at this point that "feats" in D&D are simply bad design.

I recall them saying Feats are optional in 5th Edition, so as a DM you could run a campaign that doesn't feature any feats.

I'm confident that when the PHB is released, CharOp will have decided which feats are mandatory to be efficient within a week. Really don't like the idea of feats myself either, but maybe that's because I've played a lot of 4th, where picking combat-related feats is usually the superior choice. (Or maybe my DMs just like combat way too much.)

[obryn]

I recall them saying Feats are optional in 5th Edition, so as a DM you could run a campaign that doesn't feature any feats.
That's not really a proper solution, because after that you're still left with relatively boring classes... Hmm...

[Merlin the Tuna]

I get the heebie jeebies when I see something as niche and weird as "Actor" on the list.I have to imagine that's a Charisma analogue to "Athlete" (+1 Str, training in 3 Str/Dex skills) from the final playtest packet. Of course, because there are only 4 skills that use Str/Dex and your character is probably proficient in a couple of them, it mostly amounts to +1 Str and training in any 3 skills. Extra weird because Athlete said you could take it multiple times -- essentially letting you focus on Strength and Learn All The Skills. I'll bet that one of Durable/Resilient is the Con version as well, and anyone's guess if Dex/Int/Wis get a version. Similar to how 3.xE's PHB had a dozen different feats that gave you +2 to two skills rather than a single one that said "pick two skills, dummy."

[Morty]

I think feats have their place as a class-neutral means of properly rounding off your character, as I said in another thread. But they need to be designed with a lot of care, since there's a lot of potential for bloat, chaff and obligatory options.

[Tholomyes]

Ehh... I always figured the concentration was more to limit active effects than to be knocked out of by an attack anyway. What stops you from stunlocking bad guys is you can only try stunning one at a time.That's what I think it probably should be, but in practice, that's not what it is. Since the DC is equal to half the damage you take, I can easily see the damage creep up to a point, where it's impossible to make Concentration checks without investing heavily in Con saves. Currently I'm working out a system to potentially solve this, where the DC is dependent, not on damage, but on the enemy's CR (or level, for PCs). Though I'm still not sure how to do this, as I'm also working on a re-work of the Saving throw proficiency system, since proficient and non-proficient saves really get too disparate by higher levels, and since there are more saves to worry about, it's even easier to target weaker saves than it was in 3e (where I found it to be a major problem even then).

[A Stray Cat]

Maybe you guys can clarify a concern of mine. Are the published materials, adventures and such, going to have NPCs that use these optional feats?

[obryn]

Maybe you guys can clarify a concern of mine. Are the published materials, adventures and such, going to have NPCs that use these optional feats?
Oh holy cow I hope not. Worrying about feats for NPCs will be a breaking point for me. I'm already perilously close to "don't even want to give it a shot" with all the regressive design, and this would be the final straw.

[Tholomyes]

Maybe you guys can clarify a concern of mine. Are the published materials, adventures and such, going to have NPCs that use these optional feats?With the limited amount we have to go on, from the starter set, it doesn't appear NPCs are built like PCs, like in previous editions (which, I'm personally thankful for, though I'd be even more thankful to see NPC spellcasters who don't have full spellcasting progression; them being only around for, usually, a single fight, but getting a full day's allotment of spells always felt wrong to me) it's not an issue. To the extent that they have any abilities akin to feats, their description will likely be included in the stat-block as part of their abilities, but I doubt that they will have anything akin to full feats.

I'm expecting we might see abilities akin to half feats. A melee martial NPC designed to be 'sticky' might have half of the tactical warrior feat (or, I guess it's sentinel now), which lets them take an opportunity attack if the enemy disengages, and, on a hit, stop them from moving. But that would be written as part of their abilities.

[Prophet_of_Io]

Oh holy cow I hope not. Worrying about feats for NPCs will be a breaking point for me. I'm already perilously close to "don't even want to give it a shot" with all the regressive design, and this would be the final straw.

I dunno, I know for me I will likely ignore them for the majority of NPC's but if one strikes me as something interesting for an important character I might through in a one feat kind of deal.


I'm actually fairly optimistic about the feats. What I loved most about the second playtest packet was you could make a psudo-multiclass character by dabbling in magic with just a feat. Magic Initiate and Martial Adept give me hope that will return in some form. Hopefully a good one. I see everyones wariness of feats like "Actor" but since these are optional anyway I'm hoping for the most part these will be interesting choices in character customization. Feats have always been a nice way of creating somewhat unique characters. This looks to be the best way, to me, of achieving that.

[Merc_Kilsek]

Something else I'm wondering is the difference between Durable, Resilient and Tough. If I had to guess, I'd think Tough is as it always has been, a numerical bonus to HP, but hopefully I'll be pleasantly surprised, and it will have an extra bonus tacked on. Resilient sounds like it has something to do with saving throws, and I'd guess Durable is either AC or Damage Resistance. I'd certainly hope that it's something more than a numerical boost, but I'll wait and see.

Durable: +1 Con and When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals your Constitution modifier.

Resilient: +1 to one stat. Gain proficiency in one saving throw.

Tough: You gain 2 HP for each level you have.

This information could be a little out of date but I assume it will match or at least be close to the printed PHB.

[Demonic Spoon]

Things you feel obligated to take, because you use them all the time, and you're 5%ish less effective without them. The best example of this is Implement Expertise and Weapon Expertise from 4E. They're basically Feat taxes. You either get your primary ability score up to 20 and/or take the +1 to attacks and/or +1 to your Save DCs with spells Feats, or you don't keep up with the AC/Saves of monsters, and you become LESS effective against them as you gain class levels.
Things that provide a minor fiddly bonus rarely. The best example of this is 99% of the Skill related Feats from 3.5. You use it maybe once per game, and it only matters if the result of your roll is right on the edge of failure and success.


Aren't these things the exact opposite of what was described in the article?


In fifth edition, each feat is like a focused multiclass option. It comes with everything you need to realize a new dimension to your character. Most feats either give you a number of small upgrades bundled together, a significant new class feature that you’ll use a lot, or a lesser benefit bundled with a +1 bonus to a single ability score.


It doesn't sound like these will take the form of "+1 to X roll".

[Fwiffo86]

...since proficient and non-proficient saves really get too disparate by higher levels...

I am just quoting this because it was the quickest one I could find. I am curious to know what an acceptable level of difference between proficient and non-proficient saves is.

[Tholomyes]

Durable: +1 Con and When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals your Constitution modifier.

Resilient: +1 to one stat. Gain proficiency in one saving throw.

Tough: You gain 2 HP for each level you have.

This information could be a little out of date but I assume it will match or at least be close to the printed PHB. Well, truth be told, I'm a little disappointed. I feel like Tough and the Hit Die part of Durable could have been combined together, to at least be a (if only barely) more interesting version of the boring old tough feat, and Resilient seems likewise an uninteresting, but once again necessary Great Fortitude/Iron Will/Lightning reflexes replacement.


I am just quoting this because it was the quickest one I could find. I am curious to know what an acceptable level of difference between proficient and non-proficient saves is. In 3.5, I remember the house-rule I most often saw, and that I liked was that all saves scaled like Good saves (i.e. +1/2 level), but if they were your class's good save (for any of your classes, if you multiclasses; it didn't stack) you'd start off with +3 in that save. So essentially It'd be the difference of 3 plus whatever difference in stats you'd have. Now, admittedly, 5e is not 3.5, so I'm not sure whether this exact thing would work, but what I'm considering is making Non-proficient saves still gain a cumulative +1 at 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th, though I'm not sure if I want to make things more confusing, by adding an additional +1 for proficient saves, just to keep the same 3+Stat difference gap.

Though, as I want to make clear, I really do want to see how things play out in game, unhouseruled first. That's really the only way to be sure it's solving the right problems, or solving the problems the right way. While I can tell that the lack of non-proficient saves scaling (and the fact that most of the proficient saves are associated with stats that the classes care about, anyway, meaning you can't exactly combat scaling saves in one stat with another stat scaling, overall) will likely cause problems, I'm not sure what the right sweet-spot for save-scaling is. My gut says it should be somewhere where a spell targeting a character's proficient save should fail more than it succeeds (maybe 40% success rate) for CR appropriate encounters and a spell targetting non-proficient save should succeed more than it fails (Maybe 55-65%, but I'd like to see it in practice, before I make a judgement), again, for CR appropriate encounters.

[akaddk]

The only one that is causing me concern so far is "Spell Sniper". I'm betting that's going to allow spellcasters to use cantrips for sneak attacks. And if that turns out to be the case, I'm moving my bookmarks!

[Merc_Kilsek]

The only one that is causing me concern so far is "Spell Sniper". I'm betting that's going to allow spellcasters to use cantrips for sneak attacks. And if that turns out to be the case, I'm moving my bookmarks!

It doesn't do that.
- Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell
- It doubles the spells range if that spell needs to make a attack roll
- Your spell ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover
- You learn a single attack cantrip (from the druid, wizard, bard, cleric, etc) but you have to use the stat tied to that spell list. (i.e. Ray of Frost from the Wizard list, you use INT).

[akaddk]

It doesn't do that.
- Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell
- It doubles the spells range if that spell needs to make a attack roll
- Your spell ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover
- You learn a single attack cantrip (from the druid, wizard, bard, cleric, etc) but you have to use the stat tied to that spell list. (i.e. Ray of Frost from the Wizard list, you use INT).

You were in the alpha?

Regardless, it looks like I won't have to move my bookmarks.

[Merc_Kilsek]

You were in the alpha? Regardless, it looks like I won't have to move my bookmarks.

Yeah, I have access to more information then most. I don't have access to the final printed draft thou. So take my information with a little grain of salt because it could be out of date.

[Tholomyes]

It doesn't do that.
- Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell
- It doubles the spells range if that spell needs to make a attack roll
- Your spell ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover
- You learn a single attack cantrip (from the druid, wizard, bard, cleric, etc) but you have to use the stat tied to that spell list. (i.e. Ray of Frost from the Wizard list, you use INT). That feels a little... weak. The minimum range I found in the basic rules for an attack-roll spell was 60 feet, which should be enough for most combats (and if not, most are 120 feet range, anyway). Ignoring 1/2 and 3/4 cover is probably the most impressive of the abilities, and it might not be all that relevant, depending on where you are or who you're fighting, and gaining a single cantrip (when you can probably already cast something similar) from ones effectively limited to a few spell lists (based on the stat tied to them), seems pretty pointless.

But as for the "If someone at the table is playing a character with a feat, you should be able to notice that by the end of a session" design goal, this one seems to clearly fail.

[Sartharina]

That feels a little... weak. The minimum range I found in the basic rules for an attack-roll spell was 60 feet, which should be enough for most combats (and if not, most are 120 feet range, anyway). Ignoring 1/2 and 3/4 cover is probably the most impressive of the abilities, and it might not be all that relevant, depending on where you are or who you're fighting, and gaining a single cantrip (when you can probably already cast something similar) from ones effectively limited to a few spell lists (based on the stat tied to them), seems pretty pointless.

But as for the "If someone at the table is playing a character with a feat, you should be able to notice that by the end of a session" design goal, this one seems to clearly fail.

I dunno - blasting people with streaks of ice despite cover, concealment, or distance (Almost) seems it would be pretty obvious throughout the session. If you're fighting in such close quarters, you may have bigger problems.

[Tholomyes]

I dunno - blasting people with streaks of ice despite cover, concealment, or distance (Almost) seems it would be pretty obvious throughout the session. If you're fighting in such close quarters, you may have bigger problems.Maybe it's me, but I don't see 60 feet as "close quarters" and Cover is often just a +2 bonus, meaning it doesn't seem that much different than in previous editions, where you get a numerical bonus for situational circumstances.

[Sartharina]

Maybe it's me, but I don't see 60 feet as "close quarters"

My encounters usually start at ~300' or more.

[Merc_Kilsek]

That feels a little... weak. The minimum range I found in the basic rules for an attack-roll spell was 60 feet, which should be enough for most combats (and if not, most are 120 feet range, anyway). Ignoring 1/2 and 3/4 cover is probably the most impressive of the abilities, and it might not be all that relevant, depending on where you are or who you're fighting, and gaining a single cantrip (when you can probably already cast something similar) from ones effectively limited to a few spell lists (based on the stat tied to them), seems pretty pointless.

But as for the "If someone at the table is playing a character with a feat, you should be able to notice that by the end of a session" design goal, this one seems to clearly fail.

Double range is helpful if you are the type that like to stay away from danger as much as you can.

It really comes in handy in dungeons. Hallways are the bane for range, as the front line is in the way providing cover to your target. This feat removes this issue. Another more common issue is the caster or leader-type using minions to act like a barrier or shield to attacks. Again this feat can remove that tactic.

Most attack cantrips have sub-effects on them. So having more options is always nice.

[Tholomyes]

My encounters usually start at ~300' or more.I don't think I've ever had a fight start at that long of range, and I don't even think I've seen too many encounters where Movement + 60ft range doesn't get you in range of most of the enemies in an encounter.

[obryn]

It doesn't do that.
- Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell
- It doubles the spells range if that spell needs to make a attack roll
- Your spell ignore 1/2 and 3/4 cover
- You learn a single attack cantrip (from the druid, wizard, bard, cleric, etc) but you have to use the stat tied to that spell list. (i.e. Ray of Frost from the Wizard list, you use INT).
Another frustrating "not really theater of the mind" feat, then. :)

[Yuukale]

this list looks like the Alpha draft list. Wonder if they've changed anything at all in the feats.

[Sartharina]

Another frustrating "not really theater of the mind" feat, then. :)

How's it "Not really theater of the mind"? You don't need a battlemap to gauge distance, nor cover. And, you can also use both WITH a battlemap.

[Pex]

I accept the concept that 5E feats will be more robust in comparison to 3E due to reasons, but my philosophy about them hasn't changed. A feat is not a terrible feat just because you don't use it every time all the time. If you hardly ever use it then either it didn't fit your character or perhaps it really is one of terrible design, but as long as you use it often enough, subjective to the player, then it's fine to have and you aren't the suck for it even if another feat is more powerful even though that particular character you're playing wouldn't even take it. I also don't mind feats that just give a bonus number to something, but I do agree it was waste of space for 3E to have so many feats that gave +2 to two skills when just one feat was necessary allowing you to pick two skills and the +2 doesn't stack with itself.

[obryn]

How's it "Not really theater of the mind"? You don't need a battlemap to gauge distance, nor cover. And, you can also use both WITH a battlemap.
I've kind of gone around the block with this one a few times, but more or less - check out 13th Age. That's Theater of the Mind combat. Check out Fate Core. That's ToTM, too.

D&D - including 5e - is not. At best, it's "imaginary grid" combat. How many orcs did you catch in the 15' cone of your Burning Hands spell?

[Tholomyes]

I've kind of gone around the block with this one a few times, but more or less - check out 13th Age. That's Theater of the Mind combat. Check out Fate Core. That's ToTM, too.

D&D - including 5e - is not. At best, it's "imaginary grid" combat. How many orcs did you catch in the 15' cone of your Burning Hands spell?This is actually a pretty good distinction. For the longest time, I thought I disliked TotM, given how much it felt like stuff like distance or area fell down to DM arbitration, which I disliked both as a player and DM. It felt like I had to either mentally keep track of everyone's exact locations relative to one another, or else just make up (or have the GM make up, as a player) numbers off the top of my head for the answer of the Burning Hands question. I have my issues with 13th Age, which pretty much ruin the system for me to play or DM with, but it's TotM system just actually solves all of those issues.

It'd be nice to see an alternative for actual TotM in the DMG, but I doubt it.

[Knaight]

Maybe it's me, but I don't see 60 feet as "close quarters" and Cover is often just a +2 bonus, meaning it doesn't seem that much different than in previous editions, where you get a numerical bonus for situational circumstances.


My encounters usually start at ~300' or more.

I'd imagine that this feat is only really going to see use at tables which have longer range encounters. It does look like something that people would notice to me, but fights in my games tend to either start at very close range - mostly involving brawls in a city, negotiations turning ugly, etc - or a good long range, mostly involving people setting ambushes or specifically hunting down their targets. Occasionally mid range stuff comes up, such as ambushes in a dense forest where maximum range is restricted heavily. The feat is all sorts of useful in the long range case, and the long range case is very common. As such, I'd expect that feat to actually see use in games I was running.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I say, take all those nice feats and make them into archetypes that anyone can pickup at level 3, x, y, z...

Might need to modify some of them but take two or so feats and smoosh them together (remake them) and make it an archetype. Take the feats and keep them big enough to be class features but not so huge they swallow the character up and you are playing that feat/archetype instead of that class.

Wouldn't have to give up your precious stat bumps this way.

[Sartharina]

I say, take all those nice feats and make them into archetypes that anyone can pickup at level 3, x, y, z...

Might need to modify some of them but take two or so feats and smoosh them together (remake them) and make it an archetype. Take the feats and keep them big enough to be class features but not so huge they swallow the character up and you are playing that feat/archetype instead of that class.

Wouldn't have to give up your precious stat bumps this way.

That's sort of what they are, but if they tried replacing Archetypes, they'd dominate/define a character even MORE... and, they'd suffer because they have to compete against archetypes. Either they'd have to be better than the archetype options, making the class near worthless, or they have to be inferior. Or superior to some classes' archetype powers, but inferior to other's classes archetype powers because they are agnostic of the chassis the class is built on.

Replacing stat boosts is the superior option to replacing class features.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That's sort of what they are, but if they tried replacing Archetypes, they'd dominate/define a character even MORE... and, they'd suffer because they have to compete against archetypes. Either they'd have to be better than the archetype options, making the class near worthless, or they have to be inferior. Or superior to some classes' archetype powers, but inferior to other's classes archetype powers because they are agnostic of the chassis the class is built on.

Replacing stat boosts is the superior option to replacing class features.

Well what they can do is, and it is technically to late now but not for 5.5e, but take all archetypes and feats and smoosh them.

Mold feats into archetypes, make archetypes awesome. Make the classes awesome too but that may be to much to ask.

Crazy ramblings ahead... (I blame my magic of Incarnum work for this...)

Perhaps, archetypes should be the shining grace of a PC.

Sure you are a fighter but what kind of fighter are you? That is what really defines you. A wizard isn't defined by being a wizard, a wizard is defined by what school they use. Evoker, Necromancer, or Illusionist are really what a wizard is.

So let's say that the Wizard and Fighter both take the archetype "combatant" what it could do is...

Increase crit range of attack rolls
Three reroll per day
Increase defense versus attack rolls
Increases use of skills in combat.

A wizard or fighter could take this sort of generic feat/archetype. However some of the archetypes can be class specific of "Wizard 3" can be a evoker.

TL:DR: Downplay Class, Increase dependancy on Archetypes.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Random Note

Check out @Wizards_DnD's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/492018522004787200

[pwykersotz]

Random Note

Check out @Wizards_DnD's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/492018522004787200

Thanks again, SpawnOfMorbo, you are ON this stuff!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtQAPPaCQAEISzP.jpg

[Demonic Spoon]

Random Note

Check out @Wizards_DnD's Tweet: https://twitter.com/Wizards_DnD/status/492018522004787200

Seems like the feat should be a more generic "brawler" but overall it looks cool

[pwykersotz]

Seems like the feat should be a more generic "brawler" but overall it looks cool

Yeah, I'm a fan at first glance. Additional use for bonus action, a couple proficiencies, increased damage, AND it's only half a feat since this one gives a stat point.

[TrexPushups]

Why should a character have to spend a feat on that stuff?

Better to just let players do it, especially fighters.

[Fwiffo86]

Sure you are a fighter but what kind of fighter are you? That is what really defines you. A wizard isn't defined by being a wizard, a wizard is defined by what school they use. Evoker, Necromancer, or Illusionist are really what a wizard is.

So let's say that the Wizard and Fighter both take the archetype "combatant" what it could do is...

Increase crit range of attack rolls
Three reroll per day
Increase defense versus attack rolls
Increases use of skills in combat.

A wizard or fighter could take this sort of generic feat/archetype. However some of the archetypes can be class specific of "Wizard 3" can be a evoker.

TL:DR: Downplay Class, Increase dependancy on Archetypes.

I really want to agree with the essence of this, but I can't, not in D&D, which is inherently about the classes. I like the paths because it allows you to define what kind of wizard/fighter/rogue/cleric etc you are. I see it this way...

Class determines commonalities to all members of the class.
- All wizards cast Arcane spells from levels 1-9
- All cleric casts Divine spells from 1-9, channel divine energy, wear armor
- All fighters are proficient in all weapons, armor, have action surge

Then you get the paths to define further
- Evoker Wiz gets to sculpt spells so he doesn't blow up his party
- Life Cleric has superior healing
- Long Bowman Fighter can spend rounds aiming to increase damage of a single shot (just a thought off my head)

Then you get a final level of customization with your feat choices, things that modify stuff you already can do, instead of giving you things you can't previously do.

---EDIT

Which is why I get confused when people get rowdy over not being able to pick something every level, when they already made the important choices in the very beginning.

[Ilorin Lorati]

There has to be some kind of cut off point on what's given to characters for free and what's not. In this case, it's special training for something most characters, even fighters, wouldn't actually use as serious weapons and then giving something additional to do on top of it.

Personally, this is pretty much exactly what I want out of the feats; it defines what a character can do without being mandatory, and will shape how your character acts in combat. The rest of the feats may not hold up, but I think this one certainly does.

[Demonic Spoon]

Why should a character have to spend a feat on that stuff?

Better to just let players do it, especially fighters.

Er, why shouldn't they have to spend a feat on

-Becoming proficient in new stuff
-A new bonus action
-More unarmed damage

?

Being a fighter doesn't mean you are necessarily a good brawler.

[TrexPushups]

I am leary of feats that lock down actions.

I like the proficiency part, the increased damage is fine too.

The bonus action part should be doable without the feat. Perhaps grant advantage on the grapple check if you hit and have the feat.

That would make me happier.

[pwykersotz]

I am leary of feats that lock down actions.

I like the proficiency part, the increased damage is fine too.

The bonus action part should be doable without the feat. Perhaps grant advantage on the grapple check if you hit and have the feat.

That would make me happier.

I can see your point.

Perhaps a good rule of thumb if (when) they continue these action lock-down feats is to say that any action which is outlined in a feat like this can be attempted without the feat at a disadvantage. That would allow it to happen, but acknowledge the fact the player hasn't trained it. It's not a perfect solution I admit, but it might be an easy to remember/understand guideline for GM's/Players of similar view.

[Demonic Spoon]

I like the proficiency part, the increased damage is fine too.

The bonus action part should be doable without the feat. Perhaps grant advantage on the grapple check if you hit and have the feat.

That would make me happier.

why?

Being able to inflict damage and simultaneously start a grapple doesn't seem like any random fighter should necessarily be able to do.

[pwykersotz]

why?

Being able to inflict damage and simultaneously start a grapple doesn't seem like any random fighter should necessarily be able to do.

Probably because a lot of players really appreciate free-form action. For example, there are no rules for ramming into someone at a full run. Or for spitting alcohol in someone's eyes and then waving a torch at them. Or for ramming a downed opponent in the throat with a shield. These are abstracted into the normal combat rules. He's arguing that it should remain abstracted and let DM adjudication and the general rules handle it all as opposed to creating "allowed" actions under certain conditions that then can't be used elsewhere because you need the feat for that.

[Demonic Spoon]

Probably because a lot of players really appreciate free-form action. For example, there are no rules for ramming into someone at a full run. Or for spitting alcohol in someone's eyes and then waving a torch at them. Or for ramming a downed opponent in the throat with a shield. These are abstracted into the normal combat rules. He's arguing that it should remain abstracted and let DM adjudication and the general rules handle it all as opposed to creating "allowed" actions under certain conditions that then can't be used elsewhere because you need the feat for that.


I agree generally, but this isn't its own action, it's the ability to perform two actions at once that per the normal rules are clearly separate.

[pwykersotz]

I agree generally, but this isn't its own action, it's the ability to perform two actions at once that per the normal rules are clearly separate.

Eh, kinda? The problem is that grapple is an attack action, and a bonus action can already be used to make an attack action (dual wielding). There's a direct line of reasoning that says this could be possible, but then the feat being implemented takes that away from circumstantial adjudication and creates an 'allowed' setting for it.

That's why I'm leaning toward my suggestion above. Anyone who wanted to do this without the experience (feat) would take disadvantage, but could attempt it.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Trying to define everything that you could or couldn't do without a feat is what caused a large part of the problems in 3.5, and the top reason for issues after that one was the assumption that you could do anything that wasn't listed in the rules as something you couldn't do.


I'd rather make the assumption that you need to have a specific feat to do an action that's not in the core rules than have an ever expanding, official list of things that "you CAN do, but you need to take a penalty to do them."

[Demonic Spoon]

Trying to define everything that you could or couldn't do without a feat is what caused a large part of the problems in 3.5, and the top reason for issues after that one was the assumption that you could do anything that wasn't listed in the rules as something you couldn't do.


I'd rather make the assumption that you need to have a specific feat to do an action that's not in the core rules than have an ever expanding, official list of things that "you CAN do, but you need to take a penalty to do them."

The logical conclusion of this is that feats can never let you do something you couldn't do before, which seems to defeat the purpose of feats.

[pwykersotz]

Trying to define everything that you could or couldn't do without a feat is what caused a large part of the problems in 3.5, and the top reason for issues after that one was the assumption that you could do anything that wasn't listed in the rules as something you couldn't do.

I agree 100%.


I'd rather make the assumption that you need to have a specific feat to do an action that's not in the core rules than have an ever expanding, official list of things that "you CAN do, but you need to take a penalty to do them."

I think you misconstrued me, I agree with the bolded part. Now flip that around. I'd rather make the assumption that any given action might at some point be made into a feat. Therefore if you take any action outside the core rules, you take disadvantage. I'm not wedded to the system, it was just an idea off the top of my head. But what I don't want is whitelists or blacklists. I want simple, easy-to-grok rules.

[Tholomyes]

Personally I like the feat, but I feel they could have tried to push the envelope a little more. Lucky had me interested in hopefully seeing more envelope-pushing from feats, which I'm a tad underwhelmed by. Just personally, I'd rather have most feats that let you do definitively new things (like making unarmed fighting a viable strategy without dipping monk) be largely full feats, and save the "minor boon with +1 to stats" for stuff like gaining new proficiencies or the like.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Trying to define everything that you could or couldn't do without a feat is what caused a large part of the problems in 3.5, and the top reason for issues after that one was the assumption that you could do anything that wasn't listed in the rules as something you couldn't do.


I'd rather make the assumption that you need to have a specific feat to do an action that's not in the core rules than have an ever expanding, official list of things that "you CAN do, but you need to take a penalty to do them."

That is the sort of rules that caused non-casters to suck even harder.

Well I guess a mage can bend reality without a feat but a fighter can't push a target without getting hit or without taking a penalty...

Yeah let's go back to that again.

[Theodoxus]

That's what I think it probably should be, but in practice, that's not what it is. Since the DC is equal to half the damage you take, I can easily see the damage creep up to a point, where it's impossible to make Concentration checks without investing heavily in Con saves. Currently I'm working out a system to potentially solve this, where the DC is dependent, not on damage, but on the enemy's CR (or level, for PCs). Though I'm still not sure how to do this, as I'm also working on a re-work of the Saving throw proficiency system, since proficient and non-proficient saves really get too disparate by higher levels, and since there are more saves to worry about, it's even easier to target weaker saves than it was in 3e (where I found it to be a major problem even then).


I'll be honest, this is just theorycrafting off the top of my head, but I was wondering if maybe giving the proficiency bonus to all saves, but have your 'good' saves gain advantage. You're still going to have better saves on the attributes you're stacking - Physical for melee types and mental for caster types - but at least there won't be as much run away. I'm sure there's a reason this is bad - anyone have thoughts as to why?

[Tholomyes]

I'll be honest, this is just theorycrafting off the top of my head, but I was wondering if maybe giving the proficiency bonus to all saves, but have your 'good' saves gain advantage. You're still going to have better saves on the attributes you're stacking - Physical for melee types and mental for caster types - but at least there won't be as much run away. I'm sure there's a reason this is bad - anyone have thoughts as to why?It wouldn't necessarily be a bad idea, but I am reluctant to use advantage, due to how blunt a tool it is. There is no way of (at least easily) giving partial advantage, or giving multiple stacks of advantage or what have you, and any attempt at changing the advantage mechanic would cause more problems than it solves. As such, I'm not a huge fan of saving throw boosts being advantage, since it doesn't play nicely with other effects that give advantage.

[Pex]

That is the sort of rules that caused non-casters to suck even harder.

Well I guess a mage can bend reality without a feat but a fighter can't push a target without getting hit or without taking a penalty...

Yeah let's go back to that again.

Point.

Perhaps better is the rules just allow the warrior to do stuff. Having the appropriate feat gives you Advantage and you can never have Disadvantage even if Advantage is negated by some reason.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Point.

Perhaps better is the rules just allow the warrior to do stuff. Having the appropriate feat gives you Advantage and you can never have Disadvantage even if Advantage is negated by some reason.

That would be a great way of doing it.

The 5e simple fighter is made to be able to switch fighting styles and still be useful. This philosophy should be adopted onto the rest of the game.

Don't make the base rules a punishment in an attempt to make feats better, make the base rules usable by competent PCs and allow feats to make you better in a way like you suggested.

In this case for 5e, all basic maneuvers such as Shove or Grapple could be bonus actions if you hit your target with an attack action. Or an action if you just want to do the skill check (athletics versus athletics/acrobatics) and not try to go for AC (say because you can't hit their AC).

My change to tavern brawler...

Tavern Brawler

Increase Strength or Constitution by 1

Base damage for unarmed strikes and improvised weapons is 1d6. You are proficient with these weapons.

1/long rest you may reroll any 1 grapple check.

But... And hear me out on this... What I would do with lucky is let it burn in the pits of the abyss but grant a lot of feats a reroll on a skill check or contest. You could get a few rerolls (based on number of feats) but if you ever gain two feats that give the same reroll they don't stack, just overlap.

Rerolls are the one thing more fun than advantage.

[Sartharina]

Trying to define everything that you could or couldn't do without a feat is what caused a large part of the problems in 3.5, and the top reason for issues after that one was the assumption that you could do anything that wasn't listed in the rules as something you couldn't do.No, the problem with issues was that you couldn't do anything that wasn't listed in the rules as something you could do. You got the problem exactly backward.


I'd rather make the assumption that you need to have a specific feat to do an action that's not in the core rules than have an ever expanding, official list of things that "you CAN do, but you need to take a penalty to do them."No thanks. The list of actions you can do starting in core is, and always has been "Anything you can think of". You CANNOT make that get any larger. You are saying feats should lock down actions and so that the more feats are released, the less capable characters become.

[pwykersotz]

That would be a great way of doing it.

The 5e simple fighter is made to be able to switch fighting styles and still be useful. This philosophy should be adopted onto the rest of the game.

Don't make the base rules a punishment in an attempt to make feats better, make the base rules usable by competent PCs and allow feats to make you better in a way like you suggested.

In this case for 5e, all basic maneuvers such as Shove or Grapple could be bonus actions if you hit your target with an attack action. Or an action if you just want to do the skill check (athletics versus athletics/acrobatics) and not try to go for AC (say because you can't hit their AC).

My change to tavern brawler...

Tavern Brawler

Increase Strength or Constitution by 1

Base damage for unarmed strikes and improvised weapons is 1d6. You are proficient with these weapons.

1/long rest you may reroll any 1 grapple check.

See, the problem with this is it changes the feat as written. Maybe you and your players have the patience for an endless and dizzying array of corrections to printed material, but I and my players don't. I'd like to empower players and keep options on the table, but I don't want to rewrite official content. This viewpoint narrows my choices considerably.

I consent that perhaps disadvantage isn't desirable. As I mentioned, it was something off the top of my head only a minute or so after reading the feat. But you know, I'm starting to think this feat isn't for fighters in the first place.

Fighters get iterative attacks. They can easily make an attack then grapple with their normal actions, then use their bonus for something more valuable to them. Classes that don't get this though, like Rogue or Wizard, might benefit from what is essentially a trade of the Bonus action for one type of Attack action. So technically this feat gives a class a tiny slice of the Fighter's pie. Looked at this way, it's a way to grant psudo iterative attacks to classes that don't have them. This strikes me as a more worthy thing than when viewed through the eyes of a fighter. "Tavern Brawler? More like pansy fighter. I could do that twice before he does it once."

[Sartharina]

I'd rather have that Tavern Brawler feat allow people to grapple with an unarmed strike without requiring a bonus action.

While I'm for broad interpretation of abilities, I can't see a situation where an action can be both grabbing someone AND hurting them, though - if you're trying to grab them, you grab them, not hurt them. Something I liked about 4e was that not all attacks did damage (Or only did piddly attribute damage, rather than full dice and bonus damage), and instead had the effect be the important effect. If you slug someone and grab them without the feat, then the slug isn't a damaging attack, but part of the grabbing technique. Or, if you grab someone to slam them into a wall/thrash them around, you deal unarmed damage to them, but don't actually grapple them.

Rogues, wizards, and clerics like the feat because it allows them to get two combat actions in a round. Fighters like it because it allows them to use their bonus action (They don't get very many choices for this, actually, compared to spellcaster Bonus-action cast-time spells, and all the options a rogue (Especially thieves) with Cunning Action) to do something, then use the rest of their attack sequence to lay on the hurt even more.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

See, the problem with this is it changes the feat as written. Maybe you and your players have the patience for an endless and dizzying array of corrections to printed material, but I and my players don't. I'd like to empower players and keep options on the table, but I don't want to rewrite official content. This viewpoint narrows my choices considerably.

I consent that perhaps disadvantage isn't desirable. As I mentioned, it was something off the top of my head only a minute or so after reading the feat. But you know, I'm starting to think this feat isn't for fighters in the first place.

Fighters get iterative attacks. They can easily make an attack then grapple with their normal actions, then use their bonus for something more valuable to them. Classes that don't get this though, like Rogue or Wizard, might benefit from what is essentially a trade of the Bonus action for one type of Attack action. So technically this feat gives a class a tiny slice of the Fighter's pie. Looked at this way, it's a way to grant psudo iterative attacks to classes that don't have them. This strikes me as a more worthy thing than when viewed through the eyes of a fighter. "Tavern Brawler? More like pansy fighter. I could do that twice before he does it once."

See, I don't see it to be that big of a change. Hell I'm homebrewing Magic of Incarnum, changing a small (relative) list of feats wouldn't be that hard.

Especially if you keep a common formula.

General Rule Change (bonus action maneuvers)

Stat Bonus
Increase to X
Reroll 1/short or long rest.

Lucky doesn't exist.

Example:
Actor

Boost Dex or Cha by +1
Gain double Prof to Deception and Dex (Perform) checks or advantage on said checks. *shrug*
1/shot or long rest may reroll a Dex or Cha skill check.

Charger

Boost Str or Dex by +1

Gain advantage on an attack roll if you move at least 10' before attacking a creature. Target gains advabtage against you the next time it attacks before your next turn. Can't charge through difficult terrain.

1/short or long rest you may reroll a charge attack.

With such a short list of feats you would be able to implement something like this really well.

I'll probably wait a tear or so before placing them in the game... But I'm still ok with the idea of no feats.