Your honest opinion on some feats

[djreynolds]

I'd like your opinion on some feats.

I've read all the guides and have listened and read everyone posts and threads and its great stuff.

Sometimes I select feats and it seems I've almost selected them for a specific event that may never occur.

Mage Slayer looks fantastic, I mean every benefit seems really good, so I tried it, and as a fighter never got to use. I could never get to the wizard. It looked like a great feat, but IMO perhaps it is better suited to a rogue, monk, or someone with the capacity to get to a wizard like OoV paladin.

Though it appears weak, savage attacker is something you can use every turn... isn't that a value? There is extra damage or your initial roll, its never a negative. I know it doesn't seem much but you do get some mileage out of it.

Now often I will roll all my attacks at once, whether I have 2 or 3, is it okay RAW or RAI to say I will reroll the weakest damage of those 2 or 3 attacks after seeing them, or must I roll each damage individually and have to decide to use savage attacker after one of those separate rolls without this foreknowledge.

For instance say I'm using a scimitar 1d6 and we know I will roll 4 on damage on the first attack and 3 damage on the second attack and 6 on the third, can I look at all 3 rolls and then determine that I will reroll that 3, or must I decide to reroll after each attack separately and I would reroll the 4 because I do not want to chance rolling two 6s on the damage of my next two attacks and not get to use savage attack then.

Lucky is very good, but I either blow through it or have 3 uses I never used. It could be me the player.

Mobile is actually very strong, I haven't seen many enemy with sentinel. Sometimes, you are fighting mobs so you can't use it. But the movement bonus is nice for a dwarf.

Athlete looks like it could be good just because you can use 5ft to get up after being knocked down, how often are you getting tripped up?

[Slipperychicken]

@Mage Slayer: I can only recommend it if your DM is fond of spellcasting opponents, or if he houserules that a successful reaction attack triggers a concentration check to avoid losing the spell being cast.

@Savage Attacker: I don't like it. It's such a tiny change in damage, and only once per turn. Even when you're rolling loads of damage dice, like with a sneak attack, it's just not a big enough increase to be worthwhile. Instead, you should be maxing out your attack stat, increasing constitution, or taking another feat.

@Lucky: I share your feelings on it. It's a long rest power that you can go through very quickly. You get the most out of it by saving it for when it really counts. That means when you roll low on a wisdom save or an important social skill roll. You can also use it to make an enemy reroll a nat 20 attack roll, which can definitely have an impact. For some downtime rolls (where you have very few rolls on a given day), it might as well be free advantage. If you only have 1-3 fights in an adventuring day, then lucky is even more attractive.

@Mobile: I haven't seen it in a real game yet, so I can't say for sure. I just haven't seen that many situations where I'd rather have it instead of another feat. I'm not sure when exactly you want to hit a creature in melee while running away from it. I guess if you can set up a kiting situation, but it seems hard to set that up.

@Athlete: I haven't ever had trouble getting a running start for a jump, nor has my group ever looked at PCs' climbing speeds unless they were transformed into something that has them. The prone thing definitely makes a bigger difference if you're both prone and have a high speed or are dashing. I find knockdowns are pretty regular.

[Strill]

Though it appears weak, savage attacker is something you can use every turn... isn't that a value? There is extra damage or your initial roll, its never a negative. I know it doesn't seem much but you do get some mileage out of it.

It's weak because it's worse than +2 Strength, which gives more damage, and has other benefits as well.

[djreynolds]

So athlete's is a good feat, it seems that being able to sacrifice 5ft instead of half is great. But when someone knocks you down, they're not running away unless you are dead, and next round you are probably not going anywhere because they're still there. But if you can stand and use your action to disengage and still have a good amount of movement left over to retreat with... yes it could be beneficial for anybody.

Savage attacker, say you add an extra 2-3 points of damage an attack isn't it worth it assuming you've maxed out your attack stat. I'm mean it is every turn. I have never used this feat and somedays I look at it and laugh and some days... I'm like this looks awesome because I landed three attacks and rolled 3s and 4s on them.

I almost feel Lucky is really needed for fighters, because as good as indomitable sounds, your saves suck versus magic and such. Even taking resilient wisdom, which I feel is a huge must, being on the other end of hold person is just down right awful.

I think a lot of these feats are more class specific then they let on. Mobile appears to have benefits for monks in saving KI. And mage slayer feels good for a rogue who could get to a caster. But for my fighter, I never see an opportunity to use it, I'm too busy fighting other fighters and mooks and giants.

Does mage slayer work versus monsters who have natural spell casting abilities?

Obviously shield master is fantastic, and sharpshooter and PAM and GWM.

Sentinel looks and feels awesome, but you need a tandem for it to work.

I like defensive duelist, for PCs without access to the shield spell or uncanny dodge, having a 13 in dex isn't expensive and using a rapier isn't detrimental.

Tavern brawler could be useful, IMO, for a strength based warrior trying to kite someone and you ran out of javelins and have to resort to rocks. Or being disarmed, but's its a 1d4 + strength which may not be any better than 1 + strength.

Moderately armored wasn't bad, but it is very specific to the game being run. Like you can have feats but cannot multiclass.

[JellyPooga]

In my opinion, Lucky and Mobile are absolutely worth taking. The others? I can't see ever taking them. Either too situational and/or the bonuses are too small.

Mage Slayer might be good in a game where 90% of your foes are casters, but otherwise you just won't get the oppotunity to use it.

Savage Attacker is just too small a boon. If it included a bonus to critical hits as well, I might consider it for a crit-fisher build, or if it allowed you to re-roll bonus damage (e.g. Sneak Attack) as well, you might see worthwhile use, but as it is, it's a Feat you'll use almost every turn for little actual effect.

Athlete, unfortunately, just isn't worth bothering with. Climbing and jumping ar obfuscated by flight after level 5 and how often does your character hit the deck? I could only see taking it if I had one odd score in Str or Dex and even then, there's better options.

Just my opinion, though.

[djreynolds]

In my opinion, Lucky and Mobile are absolutely worth taking. The others? I can't see ever taking them. Either too situational and/or the bonuses are too small.

Mage Slayer might be good in a game where 90% of your foes are casters, but otherwise you just won't get the oppotunity to use it.

Savage Attacker is just too small a boon. If it included a bonus to critical hits as well, I might consider it for a crit-fisher build, or if it allowed you to re-roll bonus damage (e.g. Sneak Attack) as well, you might see worthwhile use, but as it is, it's a Feat you'll use almost every turn for little actual effect.

Athlete, unfortunately, just isn't worth bothering with. Climbing and jumping ar obfuscated by flight after level 5 and how often does your character hit the deck? I could only see taking it if I had one odd score in Str or Dex and even then, there's better options.

Just my opinion, though.

For a S&B fighter, shield master and defensive duelist? Do you find enough magical short swords, scimitars, and rapiers to make it worth it?

[JellyPooga]

For a S&B fighter, shield master and defensive duelist? Do you find enough magical short swords, scimitars, and rapiers to make it worth it?

I don't rate Defensive Duelist, but Shield Master is awesome. DD is another feat with too small a bonus to really worth bothering with IMO. A Battlemaster Fighter with the Parry maneuver achieves similar results with less investment.

I would rather pair Shield Master with Mobile for a S&B Fighter. Mobile lets you get to where you need to be to make the most out of having the high AC a shield grants. A Rogue dip for Cunning Action multiplies the usefulness of this build immensely; Expertise in Athletics and bonus action Dash for a shield-bashing, attack evading machine!

Another option to pair with Shield Master is Sentinel. On the surface, using a polearm suits Sentinel more, but it's great for S&B with your high AC and ability to knock foes down after stopping them in their tracks.

Finding magical swords is entirely dependent on your GM.

[smcmike]

Another option to pair with Shield Master is Sentinel. On the surface, using a polearm suits Sentinel more, but it's great for S&B with your high AC and ability to knock foes down after stopping them in their tracks.

This is super nice with the rogue mixed in, for extra sneak attacks.

[JellyPooga]

This is super nice with the rogue mixed in, for extra sneak attacks.

A little bit of Rogue goes a long way! :D

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Mobile is great for a monk or anyone doing Booming Blade.

Lucky is great for everyone, reroll those enemy criticals or a missed save. Just don't waste it on a missed attack. Lucky is a true lifesaver.

Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, and Polearm Master are basically broken.

Athlete and Mage Slayer are worthless.

Savage Attacker isn't as bad as people say. If you are Barbarian, Savage Attacker and Great Weapon Master are both worth having. If you a martial character doing more than two attacks, Savage Attacker isn't really worth it, though.

Sentinel is damn good for a tank.

Heavy Armor Master is damn good for a tank.

[R.Shackleford]

Most feats are quite lackluster and boring. Even feats like lucky, great weapon master, and polearm master are boring.

A lot of feats have tons of potential though and some are great.

I take mobile on a Rogue, that's how good that feat is. Attack + Sneak Attack + Free "disengage" + Move + Dash/Hide? Holy hell is that great.

Sentinel isn't really worth a feat. It should have been a low level fighter feature, should have kept that from 4e.

The damage boosters (GWM, SS, Savage Attacker) should have just been half feats at most or made into feats that don't just turn the game into an arms race to do moar dmg.

The classes that benefit from these feats already do weapon damage so... It is mostly a waste and a trap. Not in the sense it is useless but... You are taking a limited option to just do what you already can do without said feat. It would be like taking weapon master, yeah you get these new options but your class already supports the weapons you get access to and typically won't support new weapons. There are some exceptions but generally it falls under this.

I'm OK with feats that give combat options, I just want them to be something I or others couldn't do before. Also, scaling feats. I love scaling feats. Not feat chains, but show me that as I level up I get better at using my feat.

I also don't think spell casters should take feats. But that's a story for another day.

Example Feat (for the current 5e system)

Improved Maneuver
Prerequisite: 4th Level, 13 Str or Dex

Starting when you take this feat you may replace your OA with a Shove (Push) or Grapple contest.

On your turn you may use your bonus action to make a Shove (Push) or Grapple contest.

At level 12 you may replace your OA with a Shove (Prone) contest. Additionally you may use a bonus action to restrain creatures you have grappled.

Starting at level 19 you count as your size or gargantuan, whichever is more favorable, when dealing with maneuvers.

Simple, new things to do with your bonus action, and makes your OA useful if you aren't a Paladin or Rogue.

[DanyBallon]

In my opinion, the usefulness of the feats all depends on what you are looking. If you want to pick a feat for flavor and get to do a cool trick once in a while, most feats are interesting, if you are trying to figure out what would be the most effective to do with your ASI, then there are far less feats useful for your build.

Its all a matter of personal choice and impression. :smallsmile:

[R.Shackleford]

In my opinion, the usefulness of the feats all depends on what you are looking. If you want to pick a feat for flavor and get to do a cool trick once in a while, most feats are interesting, if you are trying to figure out what would be the most effective to do with your ASI, then there are far less feats useful for your build.

Its all a matter of personal choice and impression. :smallsmile:

You reminded me of something.

I really don't like that feats compete with ASI in 5e. Even with half feats it is just...

Doesn't feel right.

[DanyBallon]

You reminded me of something.

I really don't like that feats compete with ASI in 5e. Even with half feats it is just...

Doesn't feel right.

See, I don't see any problem with that, even more I think it was a nice design choice as it offer many ways to build a diversity of characters using "limited" class options.
But I agree that it can be very frustrating for those that want to create a most effective character.

[JellyPooga]

See, I don't see any problem with that, even more I think it was a nice design choice as it offer many ways to build a diversity of characters using "limited" class options.
But I agree that it can be very frustrating for those that want to create a most effective character.

Seconded. On a tangent, I think it was also a good design choice to tie ASI/Feats to Class level rather than Character level; it makes building a multiclass character a trade off between versatility and specialisation, as it should be. Feats competing with ASI's creates a similar element of choice.

[Zman]

Lucky is stupid good. Mobile is fantastic. Mageslauer is situalationally useful, but takes work to make work. Athlete is ok for a NonCombat feat. Savage attacker is bad, it needs +1 Str or allow you to reroll all attacks.

[Professor Gnoll]

Mobile is a nice suite of abilities, but you have to be sure you're actually using it. Does the extra 10ft consistently help you out? Do you make use of the free disengage? If not, you're probably better off with Lucky.
That said, I do love the feat. I've made use of it in several characters, and it's always proved its worth.

[MrStabby]

One of my players took mage slayer. It was pretty uninspiring until they raided a temple. 5 warrior clerics each casting spirit guardians caused problems for a lot of the other characters. Reaction attacks, advantage on saves and breaking concentration really turned that encounter around.

[JellyPooga]

Athlete is ok for a NonCombat feat.

It's pretty bad for a non-combat feat. Dungeon Delver, Skulker and Actor are hands down better for the situations they're designed for. Heck, Mobile gets halfway to to the full effect of Athlete by virtue of increasing your speed and it's useful in a ruck (30+10÷2=20ft climb speed...not shabby compared to climbing at full rate without the 10ft bonus).

[R.Shackleford]

Mobile is a nice suite of abilities, but you have to be sure you're actually using it. Does the extra 10ft consistently help you out? Do you make use of the free disengage? If not, you're probably better off with Lucky.
That said, I do love the feat. I've made use of it in several characters, and it's always proved its worth.

If you are taking it then your plans is to be a mobile character... So that extra 10' will help as will the free disengage. You don't take this feat if you want to be more stationary.


Edit

Athlete and Mobile should have been one feat.

[Grod_The_Giant]

See, I don't see any problem with that, even more I think it was a nice design choice as it offer many ways to build a diversity of characters using "limited" class options.
But I agree that it can be very frustrating for those that want to create a most effective character.
I strongly disagree. A game should not force you to choose between the boring, responsible option (an ASI to keep your numbers on track) and the interesting, fun one (a feat to add something new). That's the problem with real life that really doesn't need to appear in our fantasy.

[DanyBallon]

I strongly disagree. A game should not force you to choose between the boring, responsible option (an ASI to keep your numbers on track) and the interesting, fun one (a feat to add something new). That's the problem with real life that really doesn't need to appear in our fantasy.

Then you must not play many board games, because they are all about having to choose between options. Also ASI is not alway the right option to choose, it depends on your gameplay. In my case, it's never been a problem, as you don't need to get high numbers to be effective. In the style of game we play, 20 in your main stat is a nice to have, but 14 is good enough.

[TripleD]

Then you must not play many board games, because they are all about having to choose between options.

Second that. The trade off is what makes the choice feel meaningful. This is just me talking, but I don't think ASIs are boring or a bad choice. They give me tangible evidence that my character is getting better at what they do. Feats are optional and some tables, mine included, don't even use them.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Then you must not play many board games, because they are all about having to choose between options.
Yes, I do. And the choice should be, oh, Mobility vs Magic Initiate vs Actor, not Mobility vs "+1 to a few numbers." It's a much better way to show improvement.

[MaxWilson]

Lucky is very good, but I either blow through it or have 3 uses I never used. It could be me the player.

Is that a bad thing? Defense in depth still counts as defense even if the enemy never penetrates the outer layers. In fact, that's a good thing! It means you're playing well.

Still, if you have a problem with that outcome, segregate: allocate two Lucky dice to use eagerly and quickly (succeeding on Stealth rolls, shortening certain fights by turning re-rolling misses), and save one for emergencies (crits when you're low on HP, etc.).

[AvatarVecna]

The feats I tend to have problems with are the ones that don't really get better as you level up; sure, all feats stay the same, but there's a difference between those that add never-changing capabilities to your list of options, and those that enhance your existing options...and feats that enhance existing options get better by virtue of those existing options getting better. My main test for whether a feat works in this regard is to see if I would take it for a high-level character; sure, a low-level character might get a lot of use out of most any feat, but if it's worth a lot less to a high-level character, I know it's long-term bad for the low-level character too.

One of the reasons GWM is a top-tier feat is because both benefits get better as you level up: the -5/+10 tradeoff gets more viable as you level up, because you get more accurate while ACs mostly stay the same (making the idea of giving up accuracy more and more viable as you level up higher and higher), and the more attacks you get per round, the more times you can stack that damage bonus (this feat is potentially +90 damage for an Action Surging dual-wielding Fighter 20). Similarly, the other benefit (a bonus action attack triggered by critting or felling an enemy) becomes more likely to get triggered the more attacks you get in a round. This option enhances your attacks, but because your attacks naturally get better as you level up, these abilities get better as you level up as well. Taking GWM at level 1 via V Human is useful, but taking it at level 19 is fine too; the feat will never not be useful, as long as your the kind of character that would take it.

Compare this to Heavy Armor Master. HAM is absolutely awesome for a Variant Human Fighter or Paladin at level 1; barely any enemies are using spells or magic weapons, and their damage is low enough that taking 3 points off will always be significant. But by level 10, magic weapon attacks are more common, non-weapon-based tactics (spells, AoEs, etc) are more common, and what foes are using nonmagic weapons have damage rolls big enough that taking off 3 points is pretty lame. Taking HAM at level 1 is practically OP; taking it at level 19 is wasting your feat.

Magic Initiate isn't much better in this regard: a Champion 1 with a couple cantrips and a 1/day 1st lvl spell just has some slight magic powers that are useful (hell, even a Wizard 1 could have reason to take Magic Initiate to pick up, say, Cure Wounds). But would a Champion 19 take Magic Initiate? Hell no. Would a Wizard 19? HELL NO.

Also, a feat I hate that doesn't fall into this category of "great early, sucks late" is Weapon Master, but that's because Weapon Master sucks regardless of when you take it.

[Kish]

Yeah, I think Grod's being strawmanned. There's all the difference in the world between "you have to choose between an interesting, fun, powerful ability, or a differently interesting, fun, powerful ability, you cannot have both" and "interesting and fun, or powerful--pick one!" And I agree with Grod that the second version is bad design.

[DanyBallon]

Yeah, I think Grod's being strawmanned. There's all the difference in the world between "you have to choose between an interesting, fun, powerful ability, or a differently interesting, fun, powerful ability, you cannot have both" and "interesting and fun, or powerful--pick one!" And I agree with Grod that the second version is bad design.

And I agree with you, but as it is now, 5e is the first case where you have the choice between getting a cool ability that can be used from time to time, and the possibility to show your character growth. Its a problem for those trying to get the best numbers that are, but such goal, while not prohibitate, is not the paradigm 5e is design around. 5e is design so that you don't need to have the best numbers to be effective and be able to survive. Contrary to 3.P, a character with a 14 in its main stat is totally a viable character, sure the one with 20 will be better, but it's not a necessity anymore.

[R.Shackleford]

I strongly disagree. A game should not force you to choose between the boring, responsible option (an ASI to keep your numbers on track) and the interesting, fun one (a feat to add something new). That's the problem with real life that really doesn't need to appear in our fantasy.

You are correct, a game shouldn't do this.

I think three different ways could stop this from happening.

1: Split up interesting features with mandatory features (this is what I'm doing)

2: Build the game around the idea that your ability scores never increase. You may learn new ways to use your ability scores, which shows growth, but they don't numerically go up or down.

3: Remove ability scores all together. They are kinda archaic in their current form, but people would flip over that. Just use the proficiency system + skill system. Might need to boost prof in some way but have you being skilled at dodging be how your character shows they are dexterous, not a number.

[Foxhound438]

(this feat is potentially +90 damage for an Action Surging dual-wielding Fighter 20).

wat?

all of the heavy weapons in the game are 2 handed, you can't dual wield those

[AvatarVecna]

wat?

all of the heavy weapons in the game are 2 handed, you can't dual wield those

Apologies, I misspoke. Really, any source of bonus action attacks allows you to pull off 9 attacks in a round (as long as it's a Fighter 20 using an Action Surge)...including the bonus action attack you can get from GWM.