Feats Preview

[Callin]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10568833_10152560510591071_3800565637939521807_n.j pg

Decided to put it in a Spoiler

[Sartharina]

Dungeon Delver seems useful for more dungeon-crawley parties, but the All Combat All The Time crowd will probably dismiss it.

Durable looks... eh, it's a half-feat.

Nuclear Dan loves Elemental Adept. Burn to death, worthless fire elementals!

[Human Paragon 3]

Dungeon Delver seems useful for more dungeon-crawley parties, but the All Combat All The Time crowd will probably dismiss it.

Durable looks... eh, it's a half-feat.

Nuclear Dan loves Elemental Adept. Burn to death, worthless fire elementals!

I could see a fighter with 18 con gravitating toward durable. It extends your endurance a great deal. If you DM runs iron-man games where you have to take on a lot of encounters in a row, it might be worth the +1 stat boost that it costs.

[Callin]

Well say a Dwarf Fighter with 20 Con and Durable is going to get back 10 Hit Points when he spends Hit Die. Thats not shabby but I really dont consider it feat worthy. I think it is still missing something like you said.

BURN FIRE ELEMENTALS! I love it.

[Tholomyes]

I look at these feats with a resounding "Meh". Not terrible, but certainly not what Mearls promised in his L&L about incredibly impactful feats.

It does somewhat concern me, though, that when they chose a feats page to preview, they chose this one, rather than one with a really cool feat that they could show off. I guess I can chalk it up to this one having art on it, but in terms of substance, this preview is actually more worrysome than it excites me.

[Psyren]

Dungeon Delver is potentially worthwhile (advantage and resistance to traps is nice, assuming your DM uses them, and the other stuff is icing) but the other two don't impress me.

Elemental Adept - most of the time you can just use a rarely-resisted element (lightning or thunder) and skip this, and prepare the occasional backup spell for an enemy that resists that one, saving you a valuable feat/ability score.

Durable is strictly better than a Con increase, but that's not saying much.



The big problem I have with Dungeon Delver is that it incentivizes you to NOT find traps. If you disarm them all the feat does next to nothing, whereas if you face-check you get your money's worth. It's actually better on a Barbarian or something.

[Merc_Kilsek]

Elemental Adept is one of the nicer caster feats. Avoiding that whole half damage is really nice (can't avoid immunity, which is fine personally) if you theme you magic to a elemental type. The little bit of RNG protection is handy but hardly overpowering.

Dungeon Delver is one of those feats that will be crazy powerful or meh in a campaign. Almost a must if you do a Undermountain dungeon crawl style game.:smallamused:

[Person_Man]

I find it interesting that Feats tend to be a package of 3 small but situationally abilities, or +1 to an Attribute plus a useful extra, and not 1 big ability. For example, we haven't seen anything akin to "big" potent Feats like Power Attack, Spirited Charge, Natural Spell, Knock-Down, Knockback, Quicken Spell, etc.

Having said that, overall 5E currently appears to have eliminated the garbage "+1ish to hit/damage/AC/Skill/etc" Feats entirely, and that's definitely a step in the right direction.

[Sartharina]

Elemental Adept - most of the time you can just use a rarely-resisted element (lightning or thunder) and skip this, and prepare the occasional backup spell for an enemy that resists that one, saving you a valuable feat/ability score.There's one flaw in this analysis - "ICE NO BURN!"


The big problem I have with Dungeon Delver is that it incentivizes you to NOT find traps. If you disarm them all the feat does next to nothing, whereas if you face-check you get your money's worth. It's actually better on a Barbarian or something.Actually, you get your money's worth just for the freedom to find traps while moving at full speed, and auto-finding doors. Face-checking traps is ALWAYS a bad idea, and it just provides a safety-net.

[da_chicken]

Well say a Dwarf Fighter with 20 Con and Durable is going to get back 10 Hit Points when he spends Hit Die. Thats not shabby but I really dont consider it feat worthy. I think it is still missing something like you said.

Yeah, but the 20 Con Fighter's already rolling 1d10+5, an average of 10.5. With Durable, your averages don't improve that much. You still have to roll, only now you're getting (10*5 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15) / 10 = 11.5. It's crap. A flat +2 would be better.

[Sartharina]

Yeah, but the 20 Con Fighter's already rolling 1d10+5, an average of 10.5. With Durable, your averages don't improve that much. You still have to roll, only now you're getting (10*5 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15) / 10 = 11.5. It's crap. A flat +2 would be better.Actually, every single die you roll has a 40% chance of paying off on healing more. A shame it doesn't apply to a Fighter's Second Wind, though.

A Mountain Dwarf wizard with 20 con, though, is getting a great benefit from the feat.

[Callin]

Yeah, but the 20 Con Fighter's already rolling 1d10+5, an average of 10.5. With Durable, your averages don't improve that much. You still have to roll, only now you're getting (10*5 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 + 15) / 10 = 11.5. It's crap. A flat +2 would be better.

How are you getting a number less than 10 on a roll with Durable. It will always be 10+5= 15. 15 is superior to 10.5.

(I suck at math so I am truly asking you how you came up with that equation)

[Surrealistik]

Unfortunately fire elementals are outright immune to fire (last I checked anyways), so unless you use a spell like Elemental Bane which may or may not make it into the PHB from the alpha, there will be no (further) burning of them. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

There's one flaw in this analysis - "ICE NO BURN!"

Er... what? Mind translating?


Actually, you get your money's worth just for the freedom to find traps while moving at full speed, and auto-finding doors. Face-checking traps is ALWAYS a bad idea, and it just provides a safety-net.

Secret doors strike me as a plot contrivance anyway - if the DM wants you to find one you will, and if they don't you won't. Spending a feat to do it is a waste.
Not to mention, you'll be finding them with passive checks most of the time anyway (since you won't know to roll) and so advantage is pointless.

As for traps - again, if you're doing your job and finding them that whole part of the feat is wasted.

As for "normal speed" - doesn't that only matter out of combat anyway? In which case it hardly matters at all.


So far none of these stack up to Lucky.

[hawklost]

Unless I am misreading Durable, a 20 Con person would get 10 (minimum from HD) + their Con Modifier (5) back in hit points every time.

Now the question comes down to a Wizard, who uses only a d6 to begin with. Are they maxed at 6+Con(5) or do they actually get 10+5 back ALWAYS?

[CyberThread]

One thing too not. None of these
feats have prequesits

[Merc_Kilsek]

One thing too not. None of these
feats have prequesits

Adept does. But... sorta makes sense why.

[da_chicken]

How are you getting a number less than 10 on a roll with Durable. It will always be 10+5= 15. 15 is superior to 10.5.

It says the minimum you regain from the roll is twice your Con modifier, not the die. A roll is the die plus the modifier.

[Lokiare]

Seriously these feats are extremely weak. If they are the best of the best, then there are some serious problems with 5E feats.

Personally totally bypassing resistance of an elemental type is not very imaginative. Instead it should have been: Pick an element you can now turn any elemental spell into that element. Then if you need to hit a fire elemental with a powerful spell you can make an icy sphere instead of a flaming sphere or an ice ball instead of a fireball.

We see the return of trap feats with Toughness er I mean Durable which will quickly become worthless when the cleric gets their higher level spells and the fighter gets 10+ hit dice in a day and the party stops for a full rest long before that because the casters are out of spells.

Dungeon Delver is the only decent feat, but it is very situational. It would be worthless to take this feat if you were in a political campaign or a mystery campaign or just a campaign with few traps.

Here let me throw some real feats at you that I'm making up in just a few minutes:

Dungeon Delver
As the original with the following added:
In addition during any ambush you gain advantage on initiative and you make an DC 15 Dexterity or Intelligence save to prevent yourself from being surprised.
During social situations any check you make where startling information is revealed by someone other than you has advantage.

Durable
You gain 2 points of constitution and whenever you gain hit points from leveling you gain twice your constitution modifier. In addition whenever you make any kind of constitution check that has to do with enduring something you gain advantage on the roll. Whenever you roll to regain hp from hit dice roll twice and take the higher roll.

Elemental Adept
You can change any spell that causes acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage to a different element that you pick when you choose this feat. The choices you can pick from are acid, cold, fire, lightning, and thunder. In addition anytime a magical effect or spell deals your chosen elements damage you gain advantage on the save. You can also perform simple tricks with the element you choose, such as making a room you enter become chilled or causing a person to become hot under the collar or causing your footprints to leave pitted acid trails in the ground or causing a distant storm to thunder every few seconds at will. You can choose this feat multiple times, each time you choose this feat you must choose a different element.

Oh look, I did better than the developers in 10 minutes of writing a few feats out.

[ImperiousLeader]

Hmm, I hope Elemental Adept works with the breath weapon I gain from being a Dragon-blooded Sorcerer.

[hawklost]

It says the minimum you regain from the roll is twice your Con modifier, not the die. A roll is the die plus the modifier.

That is one interpretation, but it is not exactly the interpretation you could take if you look at the Basic pdf. The only reference to the roll in the Basic is on page 7 under Hit Points and Hit Dice.

"At 1st level, your character has 1 Hid Die, and the die type is determined by your class. You start with hit points equal to the roll of that die, as indicated in your class description. (You also add your Constitution modifier, which you'll determine in step 3.)"

Bold for convenience.

This indicates that the roll is not the same as the end result. This means it could be interpreted as a Roll is different than a Total (which is also reinforced in Short Rest p. 67) saying add your Con mod to a roll.

Otherwise this feat is worthless for anyone who has a Con less than +2 (and pretty much +4 min to be average useful)

With the Feat, Mod to bonus (vs minimum roll+con)
+1 = 2 (min 2 already)
+2 = 4 (min 3)
+3 = 6 (min 4)
+4 = 8 (min 5)
+5 = 10 (min 6)

[Callin]

It says the minimum you regain from the roll is twice your Con modifier, not the die. A roll is the die plus the modifier.

But the Minimum you can roll on a HD is 10 then you add your Con Mod so that becomes 15. THEN you can spend another Hit Die to heal. Rolling minimum 10 then adding your Con Mod so that becomes 15. You basically MAX OUT your short rest healing.

That is pretty cool.

See page 67 in the PDF under short rest about using Hit Die to regain HP. Since I cant copy paste and dont have time to type it out at the moment

[Merc_Kilsek]

Hmm, I hope Elemental Adept works with the breath weapon I gain from being a Dragon-blooded Sorcerer.

I don't recall the draconic bloodline getting a breath weapon. I know the dragonborn race will have a limited use breath weapon.

[Sartharina]

Er... what? Mind translating?This feat is for people who want to specialize in a specific element (Pyromaniacs are pretty common) - for these players, it is absolute heresy to consider using another form of elemental damage. The only thing that would make this feat more invaluable to them is if it also affected elemental-immune enemies.


Secret doors strike me as a plot contrivance anyway - if the DM wants you to find one you will, and if they don't you won't. Spending a feat to do it is a waste.
Not to mention, you'll be finding them with passive checks most of the time anyway (since you won't know to roll) and so advantage is pointless.I feel sorry for you if your campaigns are so railroaded that secret doors aren't. Most good dungeons and modules are loaded with secret rooms filled with treasure or exotic encounters. I wish I could find that site I used to generate dungeons randomly before.


As for traps - again, if you're doing your job and finding them that whole part of the feat is wasted.You won't be finding all the traps. This is a nice safety-net when you do fail to find them. And, Barbarians and Fighters trained to be trap-finders appreciate this feat.


As for "normal speed" - doesn't that only matter out of combat anyway? In which case it hardly matters at all.Blitzing through a dungeon is fun. Especially if you're on a timer of some sort. :smalltongue:


So far none of these stack up to Lucky.For your playstyle, no. But they're all pretty valuable to other playstyles.

[Lokiare]

This feat is for people who want to specialize in a specific element (Pyromaniacs are pretty common) - for these players, it is absolute heresy to consider using another form of elemental damage. The only thing that would make this feat more invaluable to them is if it also affected elemental-immune enemies.

I feel sorry for you if your campaigns are so railroaded that secret doors aren't. Most good dungeons and modules are loaded with secret rooms filled with treasure or exotic encounters. I wish I could find that site I used to generate dungeons randomly before.

You won't be finding all the traps. This is a nice safety-net when you do fail to find them. And, Barbarians and Fighters trained to be trap-finders appreciate this feat.

Blitzing through a dungeon is fun. Especially if you're on a timer of some sort. :smalltongue:

For your playstyle, no. But they're all pretty valuable to other playstyles.

Most average dungeons can be cleared in about 5-10 minutes in game time. Do the math each combat of 3-7 rounds is max 1 minute. The time it takes to get from one room to the next is less than a minute unless you are looking at a 300' hallway or something.

Talk about the 5 minute work day. Clearing most dungeons is a 5 minute work day because resting or not you are done in 5 minutes.

[Kurald Galain]

Why does 5E have two separate perception skills? Did someone realize that int-based classes are nearsighted and they needed to compensate for that?

[Sartharina]

Why does 5E have two separate perception skills? Did someone realize that int-based classes are nearsighted and they needed to compensate for that? Maybe? Frankly, I like the ambiguity/overlap of Investigation and Perception to find traps, because it allows Rogues to focus on INT or WIS.

[Tholomyes]

But the Minimum you can roll on a HD is 10 then you add your Con Mod so that becomes 15. THEN you can spend another Hit Die to heal. Rolling minimum 10 then adding your Con Mod so that becomes 15. You basically MAX OUT your short rest healing.I don't think that's what it means. Otherwise it would just cause too many issues with interactions with the 20 Con Wizard example. The roll is HD+Con, thus what it's effectively saying is that the minimum you can roll on the die is your Con mod. For a wizard this is great. For a fighter, not so much.

[Callin]

I don't think that's what it means. Otherwise it would just cause too many issues with interactions with the 20 Con Wizard example. The roll is HD+Con, thus what it's effectively saying is that the minimum you can roll on the die is your Con mod. For a wizard this is great. For a fighter, not so much.

It says the minimum you can get back from the ROLL is twice your con mod not the total. You can not roll a 10 on a d6 so it would have to cap at 6. Already rules need clarification. Cus RAW as it stands its Roll not total.

[Sartharina]

I don't think that's what it means. Otherwise it would just cause too many issues with interactions with the 20 Con Wizard example. The roll is HD+Con, thus what it's effectively saying is that the minimum you can roll on the die is your Con mod. For a wizard this is great. For a fighter, not so much.Actually, it's almost as good for a Fighter as it is for a wizard, because a hit point's a hit point, and it really sucks when a fighter rolls a 1 or 2 on the d10 for his Hit Die. It's a nice safety net. However, what makes it less valuable for a fighter than a wizard is the fighter's Second Wind ability, giving him more HP throughout the adventuring day, slightly devaluing the recovery from his HD. Then again, a fighter that does its job takes more HP damage than the wizard, so every restored HP helps.
It says the minimum you can get back from the ROLL is twice your con mod not the total. You can not roll a 10 on a d6 so it would have to cap at 6. Already rules need clarification. Cus RAW as it stands its Roll not total.You can roll a 10 on a d6 if something changes the output value of the final result, such as setting a 1 to a 2 instead.

[Merc_Kilsek]

I wonder how many people like the RNG protection two of these feats offer. Personally I am okay with it but I am very curious on others thoughts on the matter.

[Tholomyes]

It says the minimum you can get back from the ROLL is twice your con mod not the total. You can not roll a 10 on a d6 so it would have to cap at 6. Already rules need clarification. Cus RAW as it stands its Roll not total.But the roll is the total. Otherwise, they would have phrased it similar to the way they phrased it for Great Weapon fighter.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

But the roll is the total. Otherwise, they would have phrased it similar to the way they phrased it for Great Weapon fighter.

Someone already pointed out two instances of the roll just being the die.

However what I want to say... Are we really that surprised that the wording of WotC material is wonky???

:smallannoyed:

Get a fracking editor!!! Or a proof reader that isn't a d&d nerd, so they can be all "what the hell does this mean".

[Envyus]

Here let me throw some real feats at you that I'm making up in just a few minutes:

Dungeon Delver
As the original with the following added:
In addition during any ambush you gain advantage on initiative and you make an DC 15 Dexterity or Intelligence save to prevent yourself from being surprised.
During social situations any check you make where startling information is revealed by someone other than you has advantage.

Durable
You gain 2 points of constitution and whenever you gain hit points from leveling you gain twice your constitution modifier. In addition whenever you make any kind of constitution check that has to do with enduring something you gain advantage on the roll. Whenever you roll to regain hp from hit dice roll twice and take the higher roll.

Elemental Adept
You can change any spell that causes acid, cold, fire, lightning, or thunder damage to a different element that you pick when you choose this feat. The choices you can pick from are acid, cold, fire, lightning, and thunder. In addition anytime a magical effect or spell deals your chosen elements damage you gain advantage on the save. You can also perform simple tricks with the element you choose, such as making a room you enter become chilled or causing a person to become hot under the collar or causing your footprints to leave pitted acid trails in the ground or causing a distant storm to thunder every few seconds at will. You can choose this feat multiple times, each time you choose this feat you must choose a different element.

Oh look, I did better than the developers in 10 minutes of writing a few feats out.

I think you are giving too much to the Dungeon Delver feat. It's fine the way it is and the things you gave it really do not make that much sense as they have nothing to do with Dungeon delving.

With your Durable feat it is a straight up better choice then the +2 or +1 to two ability scores you can pick instead. It's supposed to be a lesser feat which is why it gives you a +1 to your con.

with your Elemental Adept. I straight up like the WOTC version better. It also increases the damage of your spells in case you missed it as you get to reroll the 1's and with a 8d6 fire ball you have a good chance of rolling at least one 1.

[Callin]

No if they had meant total they should have said

"When you roll a Hit Die to regain Hit Points, the minimum number of Hit Points you regain from the TOTAL equals twice your Constitution Modifier (minimum 2)"

That minimum 2 is what makes me see it my way. If you had a +1 Modifier and rolled a 1 on the die that is 2, and basically means nothing if you had the feat or not.

My reading has it as the lowest you can roll on the die is twice your Con Mod (min 2). So a +1 Con Mod could roll no less than a 2, gaining 3 Hit Points back. Since you cant roll higher than a 6 on a d6 it has to cap at what ever that Die Caps at. 6 for d6, 8 for d8, 10 for d10. I doubt there will be 22 cons out there but if it happens the 12 for d12 classes.

And SpawnofMorbo says that 2 instances of the roll being just the roll. So that cuts that out as well. I would love to see those two instances btw.


BTW the bolded is what you think it says. Not what it says

[Envyus]

Durable it's not that hard.

Lets say your a Fighter with a +5 Modifier. You have a d10+5 hitdie. The Durable feat means that when you roll the minimum you get will always be 10. For a Wizard it would be the same. The Max they can get is a 11 compared to the fighters 15 but they will always get at least a 10 from the roll. The minimum 2 means that no matter how low your con is even if it's negative you will always get at least 2 hit points.

Pretty much it's good feat for those who have 19 con are about to cap.

[Lokiare]

I think you are giving too much to the Dungeon Delver feat. It's fine the way it is and the things you gave it really do not make that much sense as they have nothing to do with Dungeon delving.

Its a very situational feat. I gave it some bite in situations other than just traps and secret doors. You get other secrets like monsters trying to surprise you or someone in a social situation trying to shock you with a 'trap' conversational piece.

"Did you know, that your brother works for me now? He does my will and not yours." Player rolls with advantage "Actually, I suspected for quite some time that he wasn't faithful to my cause, so I stopped trusting him with important matters long ago."


With your Durable feat it is a straight up better choice then the +2 or +1 to two ability scores you can pick instead. It's supposed to be a lesser feat which is why it gives you a +1 to your con.

Eh, well just lower it back to +1 con then. Everything else gives it more usability in different situations instead of a very weak (short rests being once per dayish because they are an hour long) heal bonus.


with your Elemental Adept. I straight up like the WOTC version better. It also increases the damage of your spells in case you missed it as you get to reroll the 1's and with a 8d6 fire ball you have a good chance of rolling at least one 1.

Well throw the rerolling 1's into my version so it has that too. My concern with the WotC version is that its very boring and can be exploited to make game breaking combos.

[Tholomyes]

Actually, it's almost as good for a Fighter as it is for a wizard, because a hit point's a hit point, and it really sucks when a fighter rolls a 1 or 2 on the d10 for his Hit Die. It's a nice safety net. However, what makes it less valuable for a fighter than a wizard is the fighter's Second Wind ability, giving him more HP throughout the adventuring day, slightly devaluing the recovery from his HD. Then again, a fighter that does its job takes more HP damage than the wizard, so every restored HP helps.Except, from a numbers standpoint it's still just worse for the fighter than the wizard, no matter how you slice it:

If it's the way it seems to me it's:
Wizard without Durable: 3.5+Con Mod on average
Wizard with Durable: 3.5+11*(Con Mod)/12+(Con Mod)^2/12 (a bonus of [con mod][con mod - 1]/12)

Fighter without Durable: 5.5+Con Mod on average
Fighter with Durable: 5.5+19*(Con Mod)/20+(Con Mod)^2/20 (a bonus of [con mod][con mod - 1]/20)

Thus the bonus from Durable is only 60% as large for fighters, compared to wizards, for characters with equal Con Mods. This isn't even relative to their total HP, but purely numerical

Even assuming it's the die, not the roll (and it is capped at 6 for wizard dice, even with higher than +3 con), it works out to be:

Wizard without Durable: 3.5+Con Mod on average
Wizard with Durable: 3.5+5*(con Mod)/6+(Con Mod)^2/3 (to a max of 6+Con Mod) (a bonus of [con mod][2*con mod - 1]/6 or 2.5 whichever is better)

Fighter without Durable: 5.5+Con Mod on average
Fighter with Durable: 5.5+9*(con mod)/10+(con mod)^2/5 (a bonus of [con mod][2*con mod - 1]/10)

The only times this is better for the fighter is when the fighter has 18-20 Con (and for 18-19 Con, it's only a fraction of a hit point better) Also, note, if it's not capped at 6 for a Wizard's HD, it's just as much better for wizards over fighters, as the above way at 5/3rds the bonus.

[Psyren]

Or a proof reader that isn't a d&d nerd, so they can be all "what the hell does this mean".

I would argue they need more D&D nerds, because we're the ones who readily spot (and agonize over) things like this.


This feat is for people who want to specialize in a specific element (Pyromaniacs are pretty common) - for these players, it is absolute heresy to consider using another form of elemental damage.

Which is fine from an inconsequential/fluffy standpoint but the more skilled players can just switch elements and save the feat for something more valuable*. And since they're going to have to do that anyway for immune enemies this is even a waste of time fluffwise. If your "pyromaniac" has to bust out the cold spells for a fire elemental anyway, he might as well do it for the pack of salamanders too, y'know?

*Assuming there is something more valuable


I feel sorry for you if your campaigns are so railroaded that secret doors aren't. Most good dungeons and modules are loaded with secret rooms filled with treasure or exotic encounters. I wish I could find that site I used to generate dungeons randomly before.

It's less about railroading and more about human nature and conservation of detail. If the DM put something really interesting or important behind a secret door - a cool encounter or a plot device - and the players waltz on their merry way without ever seeing it, do you honestly think the entire campaign will come to a screeching halt as a result? No, if the item was truly important he'll find another way to get it into the players' hands, and if it's not important it's not worth a feat.

This goes double for encounters - who wants to spend hours designing a cool fight that the players never even get to see?

That's putting aside the fact that you can find secret doors without this feat anyway. And again, the advantage is pointless since most secret doors will be found with passive checks - unless it's obvious there should be one nearby, in which case everyone in the group will actively search, someone will find it for sure and your feat is still wasted.



You won't be finding all the traps. This is a nice safety-net when you do fail to find them. And, Barbarians and Fighters trained to be trap-finders appreciate this feat.

Blitzing through a dungeon is fun. Especially if you're on a timer of some sort. :smalltongue:

It sounds like you're agreeing with what I said vis-à-vis face-checking then. If you're really "blitzing" through a dungeon you don't have time to actually trapfind and this will come in handy for that. But the difference between slow and normal pace is nominal.



For your playstyle, no. But they're all pretty valuable to other playstyles.

I'm usually the first one to say that suboptimal doesn't equal bad. But with so few feats to spare in 5e, and taking the place of ability score increases no less, taking ones that can actually save your life seem much more paramount to me than fluffy things like pyromania.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I would argue they need more D&D nerds, because we're the ones who readily spot (and agonize over) things like this.




A D&D nerd is more likely to apply their own thought is RAI based on other editions or how they think it should work (as earlier posters have done).

If you have 10 D&DN (... The play test wasn't D&D Next bit D&D Nerds...) some will apply rules one way and others a different way.

A person unfamiliar would be more like "what the hell does a roll mean?"

But I do agree, there needs to be more joe-smoe D&D nerds on the editing team too, but a think non-nerds will catch some things that the D&DN wouldn't.

Little girl meme "why not both" is why I've came to haha.

[Envyus]

Which is fine from an inconsequential/fluffy standpoint but the more skilled players can just switch elements and save the feat for something more valuable*. And since they're going to have to do that anyway for immune enemies this is even a waste of time fluffwise. If your "pyromaniac" has to bust out the cold spells for a fire elemental anyway, he might as well do it for the pack of salamanders too, y'know?


Your forgotten that the element you enhance deals extra damage.

[Psyren]

Your forgotten that the element you enhance deals extra damage.

Ooh yay, I reroll 1s to 2s! That's a whole +0.5 per d6!

[Tholomyes]

Your forgotten that the element you enhance deals extra damage.A very minimal amount of extra damage. On average, on an NdM attack, it gives N/M extra damage. So fireball will do a whopping 1.333 extra damage on average, while Fire Storm does .7 extra damage on average, and Meteor swarm does 3.333 extra damage on average.


Ooh yay, I reroll 1s to 2s! That's a whole +0.5 per d6!

Not even that much; It doesn't reroll 1s, it just treats them as if the roll were a 2. So it's .1666667 per d6 or .125 per d8, or .1 per d10. It usually works out to be about a single point of damage or so, total.

[Sartharina]

"When you roll a Hit Die to regain Hit Points, the minimum number of Hit Points you regain from the TOTAL equals twice your Constitution Modifier (minimum 2)"This causes a problem when you spend multiple hit dice to regain health.

[Envyus]

Well I like it. I fought the Starter set Dragon and it got seven 1's on it's breath when it hit me. If it had the feat that would have been 34 damage instead and it would have taken me down.

It's still extra damage plus ignoring resistance is good as well.

[Tholomyes]

Well I like it. I fought the Starter set Dragon and it got seven 1's on it's breath when it hit me. If it had the feat that would have been 34 damage instead and it would have taken me down.So it's the difference of only 7 damage on a profoundly exceptional roll, on an ability that's supposed to be pretty dangerous anyway? I don't see it, especially when, on average, it'd be only the difference of 2 damage. And this is all ignoring the fact that the feat is only for spells.

Given how impressive feats are supposed to be, I haven't seen much that has wow'ed me. Lucky is, so far, the most powerful, by a large margin, but it's also one of the most boring feats to spend character resources on, in terms of distinguishing your character from every other member of that class and race.

[Callin]

This causes a problem when you spend multiple hit dice to regain health.

What i wrote is not how it is written by the way. That was the way someone is saying it says.

You dont spend multiple Hit Dice. You spend 1. Then you can spend another. Then you can spend another. So you are only every rolling 1 at a time. You can save time by saying oh I am going to spend 5 Hit Dice and roll 5 dice and add your Con Mod 5 times to the rolls, but each die is separate.

Edit- From page 67 of the PDF

A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a Short Rest, up to the characters maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to the Characters level. For each Hit Die spend in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the characters Constitution Modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total. The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll.

fruther edit- "When you roll a Hit Die to regain Hit Points, the minimum number of Hit Points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution Modifier (minimum 2)"

That is how the feat actually reads

[obryn]

Prediction: There will be a lot more examples of "advantage on a wide range of checks" feats like Dungeon Delver. That will serve as a signifier of "expertise" instead of ever-expanding bonuses.

[ImperiousLeader]

I don't recall the draconic bloodline getting a breath weapon. I know the dragonborn race will have a limited use breath weapon.

I haven't looked at the Alpha, so I wouldn't know, I'm going by what the Escapist (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136513-Heres-the-Classes-and-Specializations-in-the-D-D-Players-Handbook) said:
A Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer gains breath weapons, wings, scales - the whole nine yards.

[Merc_Kilsek]

I haven't looked at the Alpha, so I wouldn't know, I'm going by what the Escapist (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136513-Heres-the-Classes-and-Specializations-in-the-D-D-Players-Handbook) said:

It doesn't surprise me. Some of the information remains the same; other bits from the official previews are clearly different then what I have.

Breath weapons for the dragonic bloodline = :smallbiggrin: !

[Theodoxus]

Except, from a numbers standpoint it's still just worse for the fighter than the wizard, no matter how you slice it:

If it's the way it seems to me it's:
Wizard without Durable: 3.5+Con Mod on average
Wizard with Durable: 3.5+11*(Con Mod)/12+(Con Mod)^2/12 (a bonus of [con mod][con mod - 1]/12)

Fighter without Durable: 5.5+Con Mod on average
Fighter with Durable: 5.5+19*(Con Mod)/20+(Con Mod)^2/20 (a bonus of [con mod][con mod - 1]/20)

Thus the bonus from Durable is only 60% as large for fighters, compared to wizards, for characters with equal Con Mods. This isn't even relative to their total HP, but purely numerical

Even assuming it's the die, not the roll (and it is capped at 6 for wizard dice, even with higher than +3 con), it works out to be:

Wizard without Durable: 3.5+Con Mod on average
Wizard with Durable: 3.5+5*(con Mod)/6+(Con Mod)^2/3 (to a max of 6+Con Mod) (a bonus of [con mod][2*con mod - 1]/6 or 2.5 whichever is better)

Fighter without Durable: 5.5+Con Mod on average
Fighter with Durable: 5.5+9*(con mod)/10+(con mod)^2/5 (a bonus of [con mod][2*con mod - 1]/10)

The only times this is better for the fighter is when the fighter has 18-20 Con (and for 18-19 Con, it's only a fraction of a hit point better) Also, note, if it's not capped at 6 for a Wizard's HD, it's just as much better for wizards over fighters, as the above way at 5/3rds the bonus.

Can you dumb down this math? Cuz no one actually plays this way - are you rolling the hit die and adding your con mod, comparing that to your con mod *2 and taking the higher, or are you only rolling if your hit die is greater than your con mod*2 and then adding your con mod and comparing that to your con mod *2 and taking the higher?

Or wait, is it option 3, where you roll your hit die, compare it to your con mod *2, take whichever is greater and then add your con mod? Cuz I'm pretty sure option 3 is RAW. In which case, if you have a 20 con, you're getting back 15-17 hit points (16 or 17 for barbi, 15 for everyone else. If you have an 18 con, you're getting back 13-17 hit points (14-17 for d10&d12 HD dudes, 13 for everyone else), etc.

[Tholomyes]

Can you dumb down this math? Cuz no one actually plays this way - are you rolling the hit die and adding your con mod, comparing that to your con mod *2 and taking the higher, or are you only rolling if your hit die is greater than your con mod*2 and then adding your con mod and comparing that to your con mod *2 and taking the higher?

Ok, here's how it works out: When you have a set of sequential randomly chosen integers, the average can be described as the sum of the integers, n*(n+1)/2, divided by the number of sides, n, which works out to be the (n+1)/2 average for dice. However when you determine that any number under a threshold is treated as that threshold number (let's call it m), that can be likewise described as a sum of sequential integers , added to first sum of integers, before being divided by the number of sides (if m=4, then a roll of 1 needs to add 3 to the roll, and a roll of 2 needs to add 2, a roll of 3 needs to add 1, so the total impact of the threshold is 1+2+3, or or (m)(m-1)/2, added to the sum of the sides). As such, we can describe the average of the die roll with durable to be written in this form.

Since there's some debate as to whether the threshold was on the die result or on the roll (including the Con mod), the threshold value would be different. My belief is that it is on the roll itself, so the 2*Con mod threshold is talking about HD+Con Mod. In this case the threshold for the die roll is m=Con mod, and thus the expression which describes the average value is (n+1)/2+m+(m)(m-1)/(2n). Subtracting the average result, (n+1)/2+m, without Durable, gives the amount of Hit Points, on average, Durable provides per Hit Die spent, as (Con Mod)(Con Mod-1)/(2n). As such, you can see, if the con mod is constant, you actually get a benefit inversely proportional to your HD size.

Of course, under the assumption that the 2*Con mod refers to the die result, m=2*Con Mod. Thus the expression that describes the average roll is (n+1)/2+m/2+(m)(m-1)/(2n). Subtracting the average result without durable, (n+1)/2+m/2, you get the same (m)(m-1)/(2n), which 2*Con Mod can be plugged in, to get (2*Con Mod)(2*Con Mod-1)/(2n), which reduces down to (Con Mod)(2*Con Mod-1)/(n).

I'm not sure how much that helped, but hopefully you can at least see some of the process.


Or wait, is it option 3, where you roll your hit die, compare it to your con mod *2, take whichever is greater and then add your con mod? Cuz I'm pretty sure option 3 is RAW. In which case, if you have a 20 con, you're getting back 15-17 hit points (16 or 17 for barbi, 15 for everyone else. If you have an 18 con, you're getting back 13-17 hit points (14-17 for d10&d12 HD dudes, 13 for everyone else), etc.I don't think this is what is intended. At least from the way that 5e refers to rolls, it seems to include any modifiers, when it talks about the result of the roll. The only places I can find where the rules talk about the natural result of the die roll specify that they're talking about the die roll. Critical hits, for example say "if the d20 roll for an attack is 20[...]". Great Weapon Fighting and Elemental Adept both talk about the die result in "when you roll a 1 or a 2 on a damage die for an attack [...]" and "[...] you can treat any 1 on a damage die as a 2", respectively. It's a little unclear, but I feel, given the precedents I see, I don't believe they intended it to mean the die result.

[pwykersotz]

As much as I hate it, I'm going to have to weigh in on them meaning the Con mod is counted in the term 'roll'. Trying to parse the RAI, think about it. There's no d4 Hit Die anymore. A +5 is less than the Hit Die every time. Keeping in mind that they mentioned nothing about caps on what can be recovered based on hit dice, it fits better. Perhaps this would be a good question to tweet to Mike Mearls though.

Unfortunately this reading is certainly not up to snuff for a feat.

[archaeo]

Given how impressive feats are supposed to be, I haven't seen much that has wow'ed me. Lucky is, so far, the most powerful, by a large margin, but it's also one of the most boring feats to spend character resources on, in terms of distinguishing your character from every other member of that class and race.

I suspect they picked this page because of the art and because three complete feats fit on it. It's a cool painting! I like how the knight's face is in shadow!

But yeah, none of these feats are all that exciting. A lot of the "add +1 to a stat and get a freebee" seem like they'll mostly be useful for evening out odd stats to get that modifier upgrade. It seems like both point-buy and the standard stat array peg your highest score at a 15, so lots of characters will want to buy those feats first off to get onto an even score. I bet there'll be a range of feats, some of them will be more obviously interesting than others, and several will be outright situational. Oh well!

On the subject of Durable, here's how I'm reading it, correct me if I'm wrong: when you roll a Hit Die (so for each die you roll), the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Con mod (min 2). So if I'm 4th level Str Dwarf Fighter and I take this feat, I'm now at 16 Con (I did point buy, 15 15 15 8 8 8), and the absolute lowest hit die result I can get is a 6.

This seems like a decent enough ability. You bump your con mod by 1 and you have more reliable healing, though it depends on how often your team ends up taking short rests.

Which isn't really anything new to add to the conversation. I do like that painting though!

[Noldo]

The Elemental Savant seems to be an enabling feat that makes is possible to play certain concept, in this case a blaster mage that uses certain element, without crippling the character’s effectiveness. Just like the Tavern Brawler (which enables the concept of unarmed fighter to be effective), it does not make the supported style the most effective so that each should character should pick the feat, but makes such a character, at least in the first glance, sufficiently competent that staying true to the concept is feasible. By allowing immunities still to work the feat avoids the question on how on earth one should be able to burn a fire elemental in the first place.

Of course, if you are planning to play an elementalist blaster that prefers other element than fire, sensible thing to do is to discuss with your DM whether your character could have access to Vitriolic Blob (dealing acid damage) instead of fire ball or Thunderball (dealing electricity damage) instead of Flaming Sphere. If the DM thinks that lack or abundance of resistances to your selected element will not be problem, changing the element (for good) should not be problem and if the DM is planning a game where you should need a wide variety of elements to deal damage, that can be sorted out at the same situation (and your electricity focused blaster may be modified to more general elementalist blaster to meet the preference of both you and the DM).

[Chaosvii7]

Well throw the rerolling 1's into my version so it has that too. My concern with the WotC version is that its very boring and can be exploited to make game breaking combos.

Except yours can do considerably greater damage because you could change the spell's element to exploit vulnerability in enemies that have it. Meaning that anything that fails the save takes double damage and anything that passes takes, at best, regular damage. The WoTC version of the feat prevents that from making fights easy to walk over by turning your spells into the proper opposing element.

If you wanted to fix it, I'd say that you should add a line that says "A spell whose element has been changed is made of a weaker magical substance than that of a standard version of the spell, and thus targets have advantage on saving throws against." That way it eliminates some of the heavy-handed nature of the significant buff that this feat would give you.

Or, I suppose you could trade off the 1s and 2s thing so that you don't have to give enemies advantage against a spell, but the ability to deal double damage with a strong spell against vulnerable target is still killer IMO.

That said, I love the ability to cause minor magical effects related to your element. It's definitely worth a feat investment and not at all killer, because at the best possible output it's advantage for a player who's really good at descriptive text in their actions, and I am all for doling that out.

[Callin]

Or wait, is it option 3, where you roll your hit die, compare it to your con mod *2, take whichever is greater and then add your con mod? Cuz I'm pretty sure option 3 is RAW. In which case, if you have a 20 con, you're getting back 15-17 hit points (16 or 17 for barbi, 15 for everyone else. If you have an 18 con, you're getting back 13-17 hit points (14-17 for d10&d12 HD dudes, 13 for everyone else), etc.

At least im not the only one who sees it this way. I AM NOT CRAZY HAHAHA.

[Beleriphon]

That's putting aside the fact that you can find secret doors without this feat anyway. And again, the advantage is pointless since most secret doors will be found with passive checks - unless it's obvious there should be one nearby, in which case everyone in the group will actively search, someone will find it for sure and your feat is still wasted.

Advantage on passive checks grants a +5 bonus to the passive check.

[Sartharina]

Except yours can do considerably greater damage because you could change the spell's element to exploit vulnerability in enemies that have it. Meaning that anything that fails the save takes double damage and anything that passes takes, at best, regular damage. The WoTC version of the feat prevents that from making fights easy to walk over by turning your spells into the proper opposing element.

Actually, it kinda does, but only if the element you chose is the oppositional one. Frankly, my favorite part about my Djinni Sorceress from Pathfinder was the free energy substitution effect so that she was shooting lightning all over the place with what were supposed to be Fire spells.

[Thrythlind]

The complaints about the feats here are the reasons I don't take stock in optimization threads.

Dungeon Delver is an amazingly awesome feat for any character, rogue or otherwise, who spends a lot of time in dungeons. I'm sorry, but I've been in plenty of campaigns where the GM after the fact posted "hey if you searched here you would have found a secret door that would have allowed you to bypass this whole section of treasure-less hit point draining section of dangers."

Durable not useful for fighters? First of all, the argument only comes when you reach "at 20 Constitution" which will take a while. Second, even then it's not useless....good grief, a short rest at Con 20 would get you a minimum of 11 HP back.

And Elemental Adept is certainly for an elemental specialist, but still!

[Tholomyes]

The complaints about the feats here are the reasons I don't take stock in optimization threads.

Dungeon Delver is an amazingly awesome feat for any character, rogue or otherwise, who spends a lot of time in dungeons. I'm sorry, but I've been in plenty of campaigns where the GM after the fact posted "hey if you searched here you would have found a secret door that would have allowed you to bypass this whole section of treasure-less hit point draining section of dangers."

Durable not useful for fighters? First of all, the argument only comes when you reach "at 20 Constitution" which will take a while. Second, even then it's not useless....good grief, a short rest at Con 20 would get you a minimum of 11 HP back.

And Elemental Adept is certainly for an elemental specialist, but still!

These aren't even really "optimization" issues. Dungeon Delver may have its uses in some campaigns, but unless it's a pure dungeon crawl, it will likely end up being entirely useless in most sessions.

Durable isn't an issue purely at Con 20; it is 66% more effective for wizards, no matter what level or Con mod, compared to a fighter of equal Con. But even ignoring how it's just way better for wizards, you're also missing that it's actually at it's best at 20 Con, due to the quadratic nature of the benefit. With 14 Con, it's only a benefit of +0.1 HP per HD spent, on average. With 16 Con, it's still only a benefit of +0.3 HP per HD spent.

And Elemental Adept is hard to peg, depending on how common Resistances are, but the 'all 1s are counted as 2s' bit will generally work out to be only 1 extra damage, on average.

It's not about whether these are 'optimal,' it's about whether they're worth giving up a feat or an ability score increase or not. And for the most part, I'm not seeing anything that answers 'yes' to that. And while most players, I don't think, will do the math on how minimally these feats are effective, I think they will see their impact as lackluster.

[da_chicken]

These aren't even really "optimization" issues. Dungeon Delver may have its uses in some campaigns, but unless it's a pure dungeon crawl, it will likely end up being entirely useless in most sessions.

I disagree. Dungeon Delver means that, unless you're running, you're always searching for traps, and you get a +5 to your passive perception to find them. If you're a Rogue and get Expertise in Perception, you're not going to miss any traps ever. The feat is functional immunity to traps.

I mean, you're right in that it's not useful in every session, but no skill is. And you're right that it's not useful in every campaign, but, again, no skill is (although Perception is close). I've run campaigns where traps were ubiquitous, and games where they've never appeared. It depends on what you encounter, like Elemental Adept.