Feats that Age Well

[wayfare]

Hey folks:

I am planning out my build for my character, a paladin, and I was wondering which feats age well (aside from lucky, which seems like an eventual must pick).

I am specifically looking for thoughts on heavy armor mastery, but any other feats that age well are appreciated!

Thanks

--Wayfare

[Draken]

Hey folks:

I am planning out my build for my character, a paladin, and I was wondering which feats age well (aside from lucky, which seems like an eventual must pick).

I am specifically looking for thoughts on heavy armor mastery, but any other feats that age well are appreciated!

Thanks

--Wayfare

How well Heavy Armor Mastery ages depends a lot on what enemies the DM uses. Once you are a few levels in it is much better against dragons than it is against giants, for example.

The big three, Sharpshooter, Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master pretty much never lose their shine. Crossbow Expert, Alert and Mobile also don't really lose steam at any point if you have them.

Truth be said, most feats that are worth taking are also worth keeping. Of the lot, HAM is probably the most situational of them.

[RulesJD]

Elemental Affinity

Alert

Resiliency (Con or Wis)

[Sullivan]

Resiliency (Con or Wis)

I would say take Resiliency in Con for a pally. It will go a long way to keeping your concentration buffs up and it will scale with you as you grow in level. You also get the +1 so you aren't missing out that much. Although, even without the +1 I would still take it.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Isn't taking Resilient a bit redundant on a paladin? They get Aura of Protection at lvl 6, buffing all their saves.

[jaydubs]

On a similar note, has anyone played with the Lucky feat? How useful (or not) does it tend to be in the long run?

I'm building a valor bard archer around swift quiver, and am planning the following feats (I found a way to fit 3 and max dex/cha):

-Sharpshooter
-Resilient (con)
-Lucky

But I'd consider switching lucky (or maybe resilient, keeping sharpshooter) for something like Crossbow Mastery, War Caster, or Alert. Any suggestions?

[Windrammer]

On a similar note, has anyone played with the Lucky feat? How useful (or not) does it tend to be in the long run?

I'm building a valor bard archer around swift quiver, and am planning the following feats (I found a way to fit 3 and max dex/cha):

-Sharpshooter
-Resilient (con)
-Lucky

But I'd consider switching lucky (or maybe resilient, keeping sharpshooter) for something like Crossbow Mastery, War Caster, or Alert. Any suggestions?

Lucky is very much worth having and is strong enough for me to hear complaints about it. While there is always the chance that you just fail again, it generally protects you well from, well... Bad luck. Think of it like having advantage whenever you want.

[Strill]

Isn't taking Resilient a bit redundant on a paladin? They get Aura of Protection at lvl 6, buffing all their saves.

And if you combine that with Resilient, you go from having a small chance of failing CON saves, to having no chance of failing CON saves. It's pretty hard to fail when you have a +16 to your saves.

[Chronos]

As a paladin, my first priority would be to max out both my fighting stat (Str or Dex) and my Charisma, because +Cha to all saves for the entire party is just that good. Plus, of course, spell DCs, uses of Divine Sense and Cleansing Touch, various oath options, etc.

Depending on race and stat generation method, this probably only leaves you with a single feat to choose, and not until high level.

I would certainly not bother with Resilient (Con) on a paladin-- They won't have to worry as much about losing concentration, because most of their concentration spells, they only need to keep up for a single round. Plus, while going from "seldom fail a save" to "almost never fail a save" is nice, it's not nearly as significant as the benefits other feats or ASIs can give you.

[wayfare]

As a paladin, my first priority would be to max out both my fighting stat (Str or Dex) and my Charisma, because +Cha to all saves for the entire party is just that good. Plus, of course, spell DCs, uses of Divine Sense and Cleansing Touch, various oath options, etc.

Depending on race and stat generation method, this probably only leaves you with a single feat to choose, and not until high level.

I would certainly not bother with Resilient (Con) on a paladin-- They won't have to worry as much about losing concentration, because most of their concentration spells, they only need to keep up for a single round. Plus, while going from "seldom fail a save" to "almost never fail a save" is nice, it's not nearly as significant as the benefits other feats or ASIs can give you.

I was looking at Heavy Armor Mastery because I've got a 19 Strength and that +1 will kick me up to where I want to be, though alternatives are welcome too! I'm worried that Heavy Armor Mastery won't age too well, and not just because the absorption is so low. Don't higher level foes often have gear or natural attacks that count as magical?

We rolled for stats, and i am away from sheet, but my breakdown looks something like:

Str 19
Dex 14
Con 16
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 16

(I know the dex and wis should probably be flipped, but i sort of changed builds in the middle of creation and never got around to moving dex. So now I am stuck with it).

[Giant2005]

I was looking at Heavy Armor Mastery because I've got a 19 Strength and that +1 will kick me up to where I want to be, though alternatives are welcome too! I'm worried that Heavy Armor Mastery won't age too well, and not just because the absorption is so low. Don't higher level foes often have gear or natural attacks that count as magical?

We rolled for stats, and i am away from sheet, but my breakdown looks something like:

Str 19
Dex 14
Con 16
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 16

(I know the dex and wis should probably be flipped, but i sort of changed builds in the middle of creation and never got around to moving dex. So now I am stuck with it).

Heavy Armor Mastery scales pretty poorly not because of the magical damage bypassing it (Although that is a negative quality) but because of the amount of damage you are taking. At low levels when you get getting hit for 6 damage, Heavy Armor Mastery is lowering your incoming damage by 50% but at level 12 when you are getting hit for 30 damage, Heavy Armor Mastery is only lowering the incoming damage by 10%. I just made up those numbers on the spot, but I'm sure you understand the point.
If I were you, I'd find a feat I wanted that boosted either Con or Cha by 1 (Resilient: Con would work) and use and ASI to increase both Str and that stat by 1, then use the better feat to increase whatever stat you put at an odd number.

[LucianoAr]

On a similar note, has anyone played with the Lucky feat? How useful (or not) does it tend to be in the long run?

I'm building a valor bard archer around swift quiver, and am planning the following feats (I found a way to fit 3 and max dex/cha):

-Sharpshooter
-Resilient (con)
-Lucky

But I'd consider switching lucky (or maybe resilient, keeping sharpshooter) for something like Crossbow Mastery, War Caster, or Alert. Any suggestions?

lucky is so ridiculously overpowered everyone in my table picked it up, and the gm ended up nerfing it to two uses, or just one against an enemy.

you cant go wrong with it. thank me later.

[SharkForce]

heavy armour master only scales poorly against enemies that hit for high numbers, and even then it's still excellent, especially if you can synergize it with something else. for enemies that hit lots of times for more moderate numbers, it does even better. it will make you do extremely well against large numbers of weak enemies.

[EvanescentHero]

Am I crazy in thinking Tough is a decent long-term feat?

[Gritmonger]

Am I crazy in thinking Tough is a decent long-term feat?

Stack it with a Sorcerous:Draconic bloodline, and start with a high CON, and you could be looking at +6 HP/Level or more, meaning if you max your CON by 20th level, you'd be looking at +160 HP over a similarly built character without that class and feat.

[SharkForce]

it isn't terrible, but it probably isn't at the top of the list for just about anyone. a straight up +2 con would give you +1 HP per level and +1 to con saves. healer or inspiring leader will probably give your whole party more HP per short rest than tough gives you per day.

it's something to consider, but imo isn't likely to ever go beyond something to consider unless you're playing with a lot more feats in your game than most people. on a build very specifically focused on having lots of HP, not bad i guess, but there's so much more you can do with it.

[Mandragola]

I'm always amazed at the stats people roll. Statistical probability certainly isn't reflected in the results you see on these boards. Lots of people with the lucky feat!

Anyway, heavy armour mastery is good. It doesn't scale well. But since you've got godlike stats - already better than a level 20 points buy character could achieve, you've got the option of taking several feats. In that context, and with an odd number in strength, then you don't really have anything to lose.

[coredump]

The only reason people think HAM doesn't scale well, is because it is kinda OP at early levels.

Even most creatures that have 'other' damage (fire, necrotic,etc) also have a physical component. Granted some creatures will bypass it entirely, the vast majority will still be reduced by 15-30%, even at higher levels.

Someone above said it didn't work very well against Giants... but even the CR9 CLoud giant will have its Morningstar reduced by 14%, and the CR 13 Storm giant has its greatsword reduced by 10%. And the above poster was correct, those are pretty much a worst case scenario.

Fighting that CR16 adult dragon reduces their attacks by 17-20%.

[EvanescentHero]

I'm always amazed at the stats people "roll."

Fixed that for you.

[themaque]

What about Magic initiate? Cantrips scale with level, and extra options are always nice.

[Strill]

What about Magic initiate? Cantrips scale with level, and extra options are always nice.

ATTACK cantrips scale with level. Other cantrips don't scale. Moreover, attack cantrips only scale enough that they don't become completely obsolete. They're worthless for martial characters, and usually redundant for casters.

[JNAProductions]

If your DM allows Goodberry (ab)use with the Life Cleric abilities, it's absolutely fantastic. (40 HP in 10 4 HP chunks for a 1st level spell? Yes please.)

If not... Meh. It's not bad.

[Ralanr]

If you're using a shield and will always use a shield, I'd go with shield master.

I kinda hate weapon based feats in this edition and it's the same reason I hate fighting styles. Some classes end up choosing how their characters are going to fight early on and it hurts them a bit if they find out they don't like the combat style.

[TrollCapAmerica]

lucky is so ridiculously overpowered everyone in my table picked it up, and the gm ended up nerfing it to two uses, or just one against an enemy.

you cant go wrong with it. thank me later.

I think of Lucky as the Leadership of 5E. It's not central to any build but provides massive benefits to anyone. Theres almost never a reason to not have it especially after a few levels and getting whatever is central to your build

Well I got Crossbow Master Sharpshooter Resilient (Whatever) and.... Lucky

I got Polearm Master Sentinel and Alertness and now .....Lucky

Got me some Mobility Mage Slayer and...why not Lucky?

[Chronos]

So, with only one odd stat, and that in one of your primary abilities, you'll definitely want to take a +1 stat feat at some point, in either Str or Cha, or maybe Con. It looks like your options there are Athlete, Actor, Heavy Armor Master, Resilient, or Tavern Brawler.

Of those, the advantage of boosting Con over taking the Tough feat is just a single point to Con saves, which shouldn't be a big deal to you. Given that Resilient (Con) has as its other benefit another increase to Con saves, it's probably not worthwhile. Resilient (Str) again just boosts your already-high saves, this time in an uncommonly targeted ability, and Resilient (Cha) would be totally wasted, given that you're already proficient in Cha saves.

Athlete is completely underwhelming, and Actor probably isn't the sort of thing you're trying to do (paladins don't usually go for disguises and bluffs). Tavern Brawler is fun, but doesn't add much in the way of actual capability for anyone but a bladelock. So it looks like, unless you actually could use Actor after all, Heavy Armor Master just might be your best choice after all.

Between that and maxing out Cha, you'll have room for two more full feats. I'd go for Inspiring Leader for one of those: It's not as good at later levels as it is early on, but it's still a decent boost, and applies to your whole party, which multiplies its effectiveness. Tough gives you two HP per level, while Inspiring Leader gives more than one per level... times six, times your number of rests per day.

[TheOOB]

lucky is so ridiculously overpowered everyone in my table picked it up, and the gm ended up nerfing it to two uses, or just one against an enemy.

you cant go wrong with it. thank me later.

Lucky is good, but not overpowered. At best it only helps you out 3 times per day, and at unpredictable intervals. Further, each time you use it there's about a 40% chance it doesn't really do anything(by getting a roll that's still a failure on your part). Further, it doesn't make you better at anything or able to do more things.

It's good for characters who are already happy with their stats/feats, but actually increasing something that you use will almost always be a better choice.

[Kerleth]

A party I am dming for has a variant human paladin as the tank. He has a 16 dexterity and picked up medium armor mastery at 1st level (human). He is 4th (well technically 5th but he hasn't been played since the level up). Grabbing lucky allowed him to compensate for the devastating critical hits enemies dished out and made a noticeable difference in his ability to reliably tank.

[Doug Lampert]

I'm always amazed at the stats people roll. Statistical probability certainly isn't reflected in the results you see on these boards. Lots of people with the lucky feat!

Ask people who roll about rolling methods.
5d6 seven times, reroll all 1s and 2s, keep the best 6 rolls.
Everyone rolls by standard methods (GM rolls twice), then everyone picks array they like best out of the total set.
Roll 4d6k3 for a six by six array of rolls, then pick any row, column, or diagonal (gives you the choice of the best of 14 only loosely correlated arrays).
25-27-29, add two more points anywhere, then add racial mods. (Pretty well guaranteed to have at least one 18, and the average value prior to racial adjustments is almost 14). And this is (correctly) praised by advocates as not as overpowered as other rolling methods.

I once did an analysis of a bunch of methods suggested in a rolled ability score discussion for 3.x, and the weakest method proposed produced an "average" character at over 50 points point buy. 32 was the strongest point buy recommended in the DMG for that edition.

And note: When rolling if you get a "bad" set of rolls there's always the "suicide by ork and reroll" method, or the "DM lets you reroll out of pity method". The average rolled character actually played is in fact well above average even after you account for the rolling method chosen.

I am firmly convinced that most rolling is a reaction to the pitifully underpowered point buy methods WotC gives us. Wow! You can start with a 15! That can be a 16-17 after racial adjustments, aren't you special. This after being told since 1973 that 3d6 in order generates a random healthy adult. WOW! My elite PC can start off better at his best ability than about 90% of the world's untrained commoners! Only about 5% of the total dweebs are clearly better than he is. Isn't he special?

Point buy that produces reasonable characters is better (it's simpler, more consistent, and produces characters more like what you want to play), but as long as WotC insists in point buy that an ability higher than 15 is impossible, while their recommended rolling method (and hence pretty well the worst rolling method anyone will use) produces over half of all rolled characters starting with at least 1 16+ prior to racial adjustments, expect rolling to be common and to make point buy look very weak by comparison.

[Submortimer]

Isn't taking Resilient a bit redundant on a paladin? They get Aura of Protection at lvl 6, buffing all their saves.

Nope. Con 20, Cha 20 pally at level 20 has a +10 to his con save. Resilient Pally has a +16. That's a MAJOR jump in 5e, and even more important when you consider that Con is aguably the third most important stat for a pally.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Yes, you can make the large number even bigger, but Paladin ASIs are finite, and you'll likely want max STR (or DEX) and CHA, a high CON and likely some other feats to compliment your fighting style (Polearm, Great Weapon, Sentinel, Shield master, Heavy Armor Master etc.). So for a class where your saves are already higher than the norm, buffing them further has less relative value.

[Submortimer]

Ask people who roll about rolling methods.
5d6 seven times, reroll all 1s and 2s, keep the best 6 rolls.
Everyone rolls by standard methods (GM rolls twice), then everyone picks array they like best out of the total set.
Roll 4d6k3 for a six by six array of rolls, then pick any row, column, or diagonal (gives you the choice of the best of 14 only loosely correlated arrays).
25-27-29, add two more points anywhere, then add racial mods. (Pretty well guaranteed to have at least one 18, and the average value prior to racial adjustments is almost 14). And this is (correctly) praised by advocates as not as overpowered as other rolling methods.

I once did an analysis of a bunch of methods suggested in a rolled ability score discussion for 3.x, and the weakest method proposed produced an "average" character at over 50 points point buy. 32 was the strongest point buy recommended in the DMG for that edition.

And note: When rolling if you get a "bad" set of rolls there's always the "suicide by ork and reroll" method, or the "DM lets you reroll out of pity method". The average rolled character actually played is in fact well above average even after you account for the rolling method chosen.

I am firmly convinced that most rolling is a reaction to the pitifully underpowered point buy methods WotC gives us. Wow! You can start with a 15! That can be a 16-17 after racial adjustments, aren't you special. This after being told since 1973 that 3d6 in order generates a random healthy adult. WOW! My elite PC can start off better at his best ability than about 90% of the world's untrained commoners! Only about 5% of the total dweebs are clearly better than he is. Isn't he special?

Point buy that produces reasonable characters is better (it's simpler, more consistent, and produces characters more like what you want to play), but as long as WotC insists in point buy that an ability higher than 15 is impossible, while their recommended rolling method (and hence pretty well the worst rolling method anyone will use) produces over half of all rolled characters starting with at least 1 16+ prior to racial adjustments, expect rolling to be common and to make point buy look very weak by comparison.


This is why every game I run uses a strong array: 18 16 14 12 10 8 spread, before racial modifers. Players are happy that they can put good numbers into the one or two stats they really care about, they're not going to have a suck-ass con score unless they CHOOSE to, and they have at a least one glaring weakness. I've disappointed many a munchkin at my table by enforcing that spread.

[Vogonjeltz]

lucky is so ridiculously overpowered everyone in my table picked it up, and the gm ended up nerfing it to two uses, or just one against an enemy.

you cant go wrong with it. thank me later.

So who made the Lucky Halfling Diviner? (re-roll any 1s, 3 chances to roll a 2nd die, 2 (later 3) chances to auto-substitute an outcome of your choice for anything). I look forward to playing that as my next class.

Lucky is basically at-will advantage/disadvantage, except it also stacks with those. I don't find it overpowered, especially when compared to the other feats that, generally speaking, grant 3 new abilities. (Sharpshooter for example removes disadvantage on long range weapon attack rolls, which is sort of like applying Lucky; War Caster gives advantage on Con saving throws to maintain concentration, which is like having unlimited lucky rolls for that type of roll; Mounted Combat granting advantage on attack rolls for unmounted creatures smaller than your mount is like having lucky on basically all your attacks, which is pretty amazing considering you're almost certainly going to be making more than 3 attacks per combat). There are more examples, and yes, Lucky can apply to more things, but it's also very few uses per day (3).

[Goodberry]

lucky is so ridiculously overpowered everyone in my table picked it up, and the gm ended up nerfing it to two uses, or just one against an enemy.

you cant go wrong with it. thank me later.

Lucky really depends on your DM's style and the type of campaign. In a game where you take a long rest after every 1-2 fights, it's great. In a prolonged dungeon crawl with 15+ encounters per day, it loses some lustre. Also, its randomness can get frustrating.

[Chronos]

The randomness of not having it can get even more frustrating. The feat decreases your dependence on luck, it doesn't increase it. If you mean that it's annoying when you spend a limited resource and, by luck, it doesn't work (in this case, the reroll is lower than the original), well, that happens all the time. A caster can spend a spell slot on a save-negates spell and have the enemy save. A fighter can use his Second Wind to attack again, and miss. But Lucky reduces how often that happens.

[Mara]

Idk why you would need to start with an 18 in this edition. It's not the tredmill of 3.5 and you increase your scores FAR easier than 2e.

[Yagyujubei]

Ask people who roll about rolling methods.
5d6 seven times, reroll all 1s and 2s, keep the best 6 rolls.
Everyone rolls by standard methods (GM rolls twice), then everyone picks array they like best out of the total set.
Roll 4d6k3 for a six by six array of rolls, then pick any row, column, or diagonal (gives you the choice of the best of 14 only loosely correlated arrays).
25-27-29, add two more points anywhere, then add racial mods. (Pretty well guaranteed to have at least one 18, and the average value prior to racial adjustments is almost 14). And this is (correctly) praised by advocates as not as overpowered as other rolling methods.

I once did an analysis of a bunch of methods suggested in a rolled ability score discussion for 3.x, and the weakest method proposed produced an "average" character at over 50 points point buy. 32 was the strongest point buy recommended in the DMG for that edition.

And note: When rolling if you get a "bad" set of rolls there's always the "suicide by ork and reroll" method, or the "DM lets you reroll out of pity method". The average rolled character actually played is in fact well above average even after you account for the rolling method chosen.

I am firmly convinced that most rolling is a reaction to the pitifully underpowered point buy methods WotC gives us. Wow! You can start with a 15! That can be a 16-17 after racial adjustments, aren't you special. This after being told since 1973 that 3d6 in order generates a random healthy adult. WOW! My elite PC can start off better at his best ability than about 90% of the world's untrained commoners! Only about 5% of the total dweebs are clearly better than he is. Isn't he special?

Point buy that produces reasonable characters is better (it's simpler, more consistent, and produces characters more like what you want to play), but as long as WotC insists in point buy that an ability higher than 15 is impossible, while their recommended rolling method (and hence pretty well the worst rolling method anyone will use) produces over half of all rolled characters starting with at least 1 16+ prior to racial adjustments, expect rolling to be common and to make point buy look very weak by comparison.

all of those methods are so ridiculously overpowered....this is 5E you arent supposed to start the game with 18's in your two main stats.

also just wanted to throw in my vote for inspiring leader. as a paladin this feat is almost a must have imho (depending upon how rests work in your game).