Feats which need to be fixed [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Friv

2018-01-24, 12:37 PM

Uh, you can boost your con by 2 using an ASI rather than a feat? What did they leave out?
I'd not mind seeing 'you can recover one level of exhaustion on a short rest" or something like that to give this feat a bit more oomph.

You may want to keep reading. The Durable feat wraps across the page. It does the following:
* Gives you +1 Constitution, making it one of the "half ASI" feats, and
* Whenever you roll Hit Dice to heal yourself, your minimum heal is double your Con modifier (or 2, whichever is higher). So effectively, you can't roll a result lower than your Constitution modifier.

Now, this doesn't make it good. The amount of HP you're guaranteeing a recover on is almost nothing. The best possible case would be a wizard (d6) with Con 20 (er) who would, on average, recover 8.5 HP per hit die without the feat, and 10.15 HP per hit die with it. Which is... it's just so, so little. All it really does is make sure that you won't roll a very low result on your die, but a very low result is still only 1-3 HP you don't recover, and that's again, so so little.

If you wanted Durable to actually be useful at all, and reflect the idea that you heal fast, a better version would be:
* +1 Constitution
* Whenever you recover HP from any source, recover additional HP equal to your Con modifier (minimum 1). This can't more than double the amount of HP you recover.

Ignimortis

2018-01-24, 12:38 PM

I've seen precisely three feats taken often. GWM, Sharpshooter, and Shield Master. First two are obvious, the third one is a reliable way to gain advantage in melee. The way I see, the feat has to compare to dumping two points into your primary attribute, especially if it's DEX. Maybe it even has to compare favorably, because they are usually (except for the aforementioned three) less useful than just having a better chance to do something basic.

I've personally taken Alert and Elemental Adept but I took them as a Vhuman bonus, not instead of an ASI. I've seen some other feats taken - like Mobile (very fun) and Martial Adept. But you know what? All of those were taken as a bonus feat. Very few people want to spend a feat on anything until they've hit 20 in their primary.

qube

2018-01-24, 12:40 PM

What they need to fix is (IMO)

Uh, you can boost your con by 2 using an ASI rather than a feat? What did they leave out?
I'd not mind seeing 'you can recover one level of exhaustion on a short rest" or something like that to give this feat a bit more oomph.
To quote:

- Increase your Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
- 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 of 2).

Is the second ability worth 1 CON? Well, disregarding odd/even CON for a second, and assuming you use all your healing die, your 1 CON is equivalent to
your level in hp (it's half a hp per level, and half a hp per healing die),
+ .5 in con saving throws
+ .5 in concentration
Now, Considering you have equal hit dice to your level, and heal average+CON, the moment that differes 1 with 2*CON ... or baiscally the moment your average hit die is 1 less then your con mod, it gives it's comensated for the hp difference.

... , I'd say it's slightly underpowered. We're talking about a
- d4 class requiring 17 con (2.5 die-roll vs 3.5 con mod)
- d6 class requiring 19 con (2.5 die-roll vs 3.5 con mod)
before it has equivalent use to the hp buffer (never mind the other bonusses)

HOWEVER - Durable seems that kind of feat you'd take to make an odd stat even: getting the exact same bonusses as a +2 stat, plus some additional gravy. So, in a sense, I don't know if it should equivalent or better then +2 CON.

Easy_Lee

2018-01-24, 12:41 PM

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-24, 01:11 PM

You may want to keep reading.
The Durable feat wraps across the page. It does the following:
* Gives you +1 Constitution, making it one of the "half ASI" feats, and
* Whenever you roll Hit Dice to heal yourself, your minimum heal is double your Con modifier (or 2, whichever is higher). So effectively, you can't roll a result lower than your Constitution modifier.
Aha, I was referring to my text file that I typed stuff into, looks like I failed to type it all. Thank you very much, I'll fix that file.

If you wanted Durable to actually be useful at all, and reflect the idea that you heal fast, a better version would be:
* +1 Constitution
* Whenever you recover HP from any source, recover additional HP equal to your Con modifier (minimum 1). This can't more than double the amount of HP you recover.
I like it.

- Increase your Constitution score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
- 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 of 2).
As above, thank you, I'll fix my text file. :smallwink:

Demonslayer666

2018-01-24, 01:31 PM

I agree that the feats needs some balancing, but I certainly don't have the cure.

Some feats are crazy good like PAM and Alert, while others never get taken.

Edit: and I'd really like to see more feats. Lots more.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-01-24, 01:47 PM

1. Alert for the +5 initiatives and unable to get surprised. It should be +2 to initiative and add something to perception vs surprised

It's +5 because that corresponds to passive advantage, even though it's incongruously used with an active check, presumably to "stack" with advantage from another source. 5E doesn't bother with small modifiers.

Lucky should not give super-advantage on disadvantage. It should be be applied to each of the disadvantage rolls in isolation (costing one "charge" for each).

Sharpshooter and GWM go against design principles and should be reworked completely or scratched. Probably Crossbow Expert too.

There are some more things I'd change but they're comparatively minor.

Vaz

2018-01-24, 01:56 PM

Those feats are fine as they are. It's the other feats which are so **** they need upgrading. Great Weapon Master/Sharp Shooter is fine as is. The rest? Pile of single used socks.

LeonBH

2018-01-24, 02:04 PM

Weapon Master, Durable, Tough. On the other side, Elven Accuracy.

Waterdeep Merch

2018-01-24, 02:27 PM

I'm with the 'buff the weak feats' crowd. A feat is something that's specific enough that not every character will take it, but extraordinary enough that those characters that can use it will willingly give up a +2 to their favorite attribute to get it.

Alert and Lucky are the closest things to universal feats in the game, and I've used Alert precisely once and never taken Lucky. Not because either are bad, but because I have stats that need raising and core competency feats that take precedent.

ChampionWiggles

2018-01-24, 02:34 PM

Like others have said, considering the cost you're giving up in order to take a feat, they're fine as is. A lot of other feats could definitely use a bump, since there's a lot of "Trap" feat picks. I remember taking Dual Wielder feat and regretting it. Your proposed changes would take the two feats from "These are good and worth the ASI trade if you have use for them" into "They are nice, but probably not worth the trade".

I don't see the problem with Alert. It's important for some characters to act first in combat or some don't like to be surprised, because they are squishy. Even for optimized builds, Alert is seen as a "Good, but not optimal" feat to take and Lucky is probably the only feat that is good and benefits any character, no matter the build.

strangebloke

2018-01-24, 02:44 PM

I thought that the popular opinion was that GWM and SS should give scaling damage because the boost at level 4/5 is too high? Like when you get it, it's essentially a -6/+9... I guess that's reasonable. I've heard the idea: 'forgo your proficiency bonus to deal damage equal to double your proficiency.' bounced around a lot by pretty intelligent people on these boards.

Charger is, humorously, not bad on a rogue, but it was clearly designed with the idea that we were still in 3x and making more than one attack after moving would fold the universe in half.
Grappler, when first printed, referenced rules that don't exist.
I feel that while 'Inspiring Leader' is fine from a balance perspective, it just feels weird. Like, how do I roleplay this? I just walk around the campfire handing out fistbumps and everyone's effective HP doubles?
Observant is the source of so many fights. "Do I passively notice any hidden treasures?" "You're investigating?" "Passively. I mean, you know, I'm pretty observant."
I don't like Elven Accuracy, not because it's too good, but because it's restricted to elves. An interaction with a core mechanic like that should not be closed off away from everyone else.
Duel Wielder is balanced against an ASI and the other weapon feats aren't.

I'd also be a fan if Linguist, Skilled, Weapon Master, etc. were more mix-and-match. So I can finally get disguise kit expertise, proficiency with a greatsword, and the ability to speak Primordial in one handy stop.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-01-24, 03:31 PM

Duel Wielder is balanced against an ASI and the other weapon feats aren't.

One proposed change to Dual Wielder I like is to swap the "non-light weapons" and "stat to damage" points between DW and the TWF fighting style. It makes a lot more sense that fighters and such would TWF with bigger weapons than a rogue.

One general change I would consider is making all half-feats give you a free choice of stat, or at the very least, let a stat overflow from 20 into any other. First, this makes sense if you think of a half-feat as half an ASI. Second, anything is good that lets people not plan out their builds from the start without discovering pitfalls later on. Ideally, there should have been some option to have half-feats never have only half effect.

GlenSmash!

2018-01-24, 03:34 PM

My girlfriend and I are playing Elven Accuracy characters right now, as it turns out that this feat is "worth it." I still hold that popular feats are not the problem. Rather, their power level should be the norm.

I think so too. I really hope there is a a day when there is a Versatile Weapon Feat that makes me really consider it over GWM or PAM.

samcifer

2018-01-24, 03:46 PM

I'll guess it's because opinions are like navels: everybody has one. :smallyuk:

Not if you're Dragonborn you don't. (They hatch out of eggs.)

greenstone

2018-01-24, 04:00 PM

2. Lucky re-roll attack save or ability roll or re roll an attack against you. 3 Times
Should be use your luck per short rest which I hope would have less uses.

I just want to make sure you know that this is "3 times during the day", not "3 times on one roll".

You can only spend one luck point (making one additional roll) for each attack, ability check or save. You can't keep going and blow all three luck points on one roll.

From DNDBeyond: "Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20."

That is "spend one luck point" and "an additional d20", not "spend luck points" and "roll additional d20s".

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-24, 05:06 PM

Not if you're Dragonborn you don't. (They hatch out of eggs.)
Touche. (The bartender should be bringing your free beer to you anon).

Feuerphoenix

2018-01-24, 05:15 PM

And I thought PAM, GWM, SS, SM or Xbox xpert need to be fixed...wow I was so wrong xDD

GlenSmash!

2018-01-24, 05:35 PM

And I thought PAM, GWM, SS, SM or Xbox xpert need to be fixed...wow I was so wrong xDD

There are people that thinks this way.

However, I find that those feats are really good at closing the Caster/Martial divide. Which IMHO still exists in 5e though it's a much closer gap than in 3.5.

Of course YMMV.

Vaz

2018-01-24, 05:41 PM

There are people that thinks this way.

However, I find that those feats are really good at closing the Caster/Martial divide. Which IMHO still exists in 5e though it's a much closer gap than in 3.5.

Of course YMMV.
Less to do with raising the floor of what a 5e martial can do, and more to do with gutting everything from casters. Shock Trooper Power Attsck existent in 5e.

Feuerphoenix

2018-01-24, 05:48 PM

There are people that thinks this way.

However, I find that those feats are really good at closing the Caster/Martial divide. Which IMHO still exists in 5e though it's a much closer gap than in 3.5.

Of course YMMV.

Well my main problem with PAM is its quaterstaff part, while the rest is more up to discuss. Still these feats are powerboosts, that only certain builds appear viable options. This, in my opinion, shows that something is wrong. Especially these builds become unattractive, if you permit feats...

Theodoxus

2018-01-24, 05:48 PM

I like the idea of bringing all feats closer to the PAM/GWM/SS trifecta.

However, I LOVE the idea of granting feats every odd level, bringing them all to the level of 'half' feats and adding a ton more. So I did.

It's still a work in progress, and not where I want it to be, yet - but it's getting there. (http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/HJ7iI67hNM)

GlenSmash!

2018-01-24, 06:01 PM

Less to do with raising the floor of what a 5e martial can do, and more to do with gutting everything from casters. Shock Trooper Power Attsck existent in 5e.

I understand the first sentence here and I can't say I disagree with it but overall I think it was a good move.

As far as Leap Attack Shock troopers go, are you referring to a Recklessly Attacking GWM Barbarian? Or any GWM character with a source of Advantage?

Well my main problem with PAM is its quaterstaff part, while the rest is more up to discuss. Still these feats are powerboosts, that only certain builds appear viable options. This, in my opinion, shows that something is wrong. Especially these builds become unattractive, if you permit feats...

Yep. I houseruled Quarterstaff to only work when used in 2-hands. I also added Spear to the feat with the same caveat. I agree that it makes certain builds more desirable than others, which is why I want those other builds brought up into line.

And I say that as someone whose favorite Feat is Tavern Brawler.

I think featless games can be fun if that's what your Table wants. But at higher levels I think I would start to miss feats, for sure.

Vaz

2018-01-24, 06:23 PM

Meant to say existed in 3.5e, but thumb typing while trying to feed 3 two year olds means it sometimes goes into predictive mode if I spell to much wrong 😂 😂

GlenSmash!

2018-01-24, 06:31 PM

Meant to say existed in 3.5e, but thumb typing while trying to feed 3 two year olds means it sometimes goes into predictive mode if I spell to much wrong 😂 😂

You have my sympathizer sir.

I have had many a battle with the Predictive mode and it is indeed a challenging foe. And I can say even a single 2 year old can tip that encounter to deadly.

mephnick

2018-01-24, 06:43 PM

I remove Lucky because I think it makes the game less interesting. It should have been printed like this:

Lucky

Three times per long rest a character can remove drama from the game.

GlenSmash!

2018-01-24, 06:52 PM

I remove Lucky because I think it makes the game less interesting. It should have been printed like this:

Lucky

Three times per long rest a character can remove drama from the game.

I think a character whose essential characteristic is luck is a common enough trope to have in the game in some way. I just dislike re-rolls. They slow down the game.

Reworking it into Lucky: Instead of being able to only have one use of inspiration at a time, you can store up to three (maybe 5) uses of Inspiration at a time.

Now it's just regular Advantage, and has to be used when you roll instead of after. It is more DM dependent though.

MadBear

2018-01-24, 07:51 PM

With one of my players, we just added too dual wielder that they can:

- If an enemy attacks you with a melee attack, you can lose the +1AC for the round to immediately make an attack as a reaction.

Effectively, it allows the twf characters to get more attacks (so now they have their base attacks + bonus action attacks + reaction attacks). It's still not going to out compete GWM or SS, but you get to roll more dice more often.

Not sure about how to fix the others yet, although maybe removing the bonus action requirement on charger could help (so now they can make a single attack with charger and still have a bonus action).

Errata

2018-01-24, 08:39 PM

Reworking it into Lucky: Instead of being able to only have one use of inspiration at a time, you can store up to three (maybe 5) uses of Inspiration at a time.

Who would ever take that feat? It's not useless, but we don't get infinite feats. For any given character, there would have to be at least 10 better feats, and they won't get to take 10 feats.

Unoriginal

2018-01-24, 08:48 PM

This thread kinda makes me understand why "fixing" can be synonymous with "castrating".

Joke aside, which Feats do you consider truly broken, as opposed to just not liking the effects?

Malifice

2018-01-24, 09:32 PM

Because, like the OP said, people seldom take feats like Durable or Charger. If the feats aren't being used then they're a waste of text. And if the reason the feats aren't being used is because they're not as powerful as other feats, then they need to be buffed.

Im still trying to find a use for Charger. It works best on a class that relies on the "one big swing" like Rogues, but they can already dash as a bonus action.

Its sort of OK on fighters when they action surge. Move [dash] [bonus action knock down] [action surge attack action].

Even then I'd only bother when I couldnt reach the target using my normal move.

Situational at best.

furby076

2018-01-24, 10:37 PM

I just want to make sure you know that this is "3 times during the day", not "3 times on one roll".

You can only spend one luck point (making one additional roll) for each attack, ability check or save. You can't keep going and blow all three luck points on one roll.

From DNDBeyond: "Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20."

That is "spend one luck point" and "an additional d20", not "spend luck points" and "roll additional d20s".

Yea, but that additional d20 is an attack roll, which falls under the earlier part of the sentence "whenever you make an attack roll"

SociopathFriend

2018-01-24, 11:26 PM

I think one point that bears mentioning is that a majority of feats are likely taken for combat purposes. Stuff like Actor is actually ridiculously good in a setting where it's worth having like sneaking around, subterfuge, intrigue, that sort of thing. But it's nigh-useless in a traditional campaign of killing monsters and the like.

Just something I think is relevant. You'll also see more combat feats because the class with the most ASI (Fighter) cares about combat more than other things like being able to pretend to be someone else.

That doesn't mean Actor sucks. Just that it's not as useful to the campaign most times as being able to get off an extra 5 damage or being able to get an extra 2HP per level and even if it WAS as useful- the class with the most opportunities to take it typically won't want it.

mephnick

2018-01-24, 11:59 PM

Im still trying to find a use for Charger. It works best on a class that relies on the "one big swing" like Rogues, but they can already dash as a bonus action.

I had a Paladin take it that let her charge in and smite if she needed. It was fairly useful...but was on my list of free 1st level feats that everyone got to choose from. I doubt she would have taken it normally.

LeonBH

2018-01-25, 12:59 AM

Grappler needs to be fixed as well, badly.

Jerrykhor

2018-01-25, 01:14 AM

Alert being taken a lot? That's weird, I have not seen anyone take it, ever.

I myself have used it, and I swear I rolled more nat 1s on initiative with it than without.

ad_hoc

2018-01-25, 01:44 AM

I have removed Lucky because it doesn't represent its theme and it's annoying to have in the game.

It doesn't represent luck. It's about strategic use of a limited resource.

The Halfling's Lucky ability represents luck. It just happens sometimes.

Arkhios

2018-01-25, 02:14 AM

Right now I'm more interested in how whit will respond to all these reasonable arguments.

As many before me, I don't see Alert and Lucky being overpowered at all.

Gort

2018-01-25, 02:23 AM

Why gimp anuthing that players use. Actually never seen Alert as a major factor in a game and as for lucky... dice are like an unfaithful lover.

I've seen both used a lot. Admittedly after the PC had obtained a 20 in their primary stat.

Alertness is a pain in the ass for a GM as it negates surprise. Far too annoying in my opinion. +5 to initiative is also very strong.

Lucky is very valuable for a PC with good defenses. It can negate criticals.

Arkhios

2018-01-25, 02:31 AM

+5 to initiative is also very strong.

Not really. It's definitely strong, but not too much so.

It's basically equivalent to having "passive advantage" on an ability check. I don't remember the page or related rule right now, but an advantage granting a +5 bonus to passive ability has precedency within the rules (I'm pretty sure it was in PHB).

hymer

2018-01-25, 02:53 AM

What did they leave out?

In my PHB, the text continues in the next column. It seets a minimum on what you can roll when expending hit dice for healing, based on your constitution bonus. If you have a high con, you may be maxing your hit dice healing rolls.

Malifice

2018-01-25, 02:56 AM

Alertness is a pain in the ass for a GM as it negates surprise. Far too annoying in my opinion.

So what if surprise is negated? Surprise is pretty rare as is.

How often would this even come up? Once every fourth session or something?

Gort

2018-01-25, 03:52 AM

Not really. It's definitely strong, but not too much so.

It's basically equivalent to having "passive advantage" on an ability check. I don't remember the page or related rule right now, but an advantage granting a +5 bonus to passive ability has precedency within the rules (I'm pretty sure it was in PHB).

My experience with 5th ed is that typically a combat lasts ~3 rounds before it is effectively over. +5 to initiative is approximately a 25% chance of having an extra turn.

Thats strong. Significantly more so than most other abilities even if the mechanics are similar.

Then you add in the ability to negate your opponents surprise round - depending on exactly how often your GM plays surprise. I'd argue it is mechanically superior to +2 to a PC's primary stat, even if that primary stat was dexterity.

Gort

2018-01-25, 04:00 AM

Those feats are fine as they are. It's the other feats which are so **** they need upgrading. Great Weapon Master/Sharp Shooter is fine as is. The rest? Pile of single used socks.
I broadly agree. Despite me arguing certain feats are strong. I think the solution is to get rid of the dross. Bring the other feats up to the standard of the half dozen feats which get regularly used in game.
I'm tired of their being good feat options for polearms and crossbows but not other types of weapons. Where is the love for axes or the thrown dagger? Some more non combat options too would be nice.

ProsecutorGodot

2018-01-25, 04:17 AM

My experience with 5th ed is that typically a combat lasts ~3 rounds before it is effectively over. +5 to initiative is approximately a 25% chance of having an extra turn.

Thats strong. Significantly more so than most other abilities even if the mechanics are similar.

Then you add in the ability to negate your opponents surprise round - depending on exactly how often your GM plays surprise. I'd argue it is mechanically superior to +2 to a PC's primary stat, even if that primary stat was dexterity.
Entirely nitpicking on this, but surprise rounds aren't a thing. The feat makes it so that the character who picks it can't be surprised but with the way surprise works anyone who doesn't have the feat could be ruled as surprised anyway.

And on that note of the negating of surprise, the only time I can see this being spectacular is that it somehow prevents you from being surprised from an invisible assailant. The type of character who is picking up alert instead of another feat (looking at you rogue) is already unlikely to have been surprised and the +5 to initiative is to more or less guarantee their assassinate bonus. Barbarian's also have their level 7 feature which is almost a mirror of the feat, advantage just maths out to a +3 iirc.

I'm also curious how you worked out a +5 to initiative giving you a 25% of taking an extra turn, I would think there would be too much variance to put an accurate number on it.

Arkhios

2018-01-25, 04:18 AM

My experience with 5th ed is that typically a combat lasts ~3 rounds before it is effectively over. +5 to initiative is approximately a 25% chance of having an extra turn.

Thats strong. Significantly more so than most other abilities even if the mechanics are similar.

Then you add in the ability to negate your opponents surprise round - depending on exactly how often your GM plays surprise. I'd argue it is mechanically superior to +2 to a PC's primary stat, even if that primary stat was dexterity.

That's just it though. There's no separate "surprise round" in 5th edition. Determining who's surprised is (supposed to be) always the first thing you do when a combat begins, but having you surprised doesn't give the opponents an additional turn. If you're surprised, you just don't get to take action or reaction, nor move during your first turn of combat. That's it. Being surprised does not make you inherently more vulnerable to anything. Only those who have special abilities (such as Assassin) have an upper hand on that turn.

In other words, "depending on exactly how often your GM plays surprise" means your GM is doing something wrong. It should happen, by RAW, at the start of every combat, given that there's a chance for someone to be surprised (which obviously isn't always the case, but that's irrelevant. You still have to determine that at the start of the combat, not at the end of it, not tomorrow, not next year).

Glorthindel

2018-01-25, 04:52 AM

My issue is that the "weight" of some feats seem wrong. GWM, SS, Alert, Magic Initiate, Crossbow Expert, Lucky, and a few others all feel correct at costing 2 ASI - that is a big cost for a big power/flexibility upgrade. But then you have things like Savage Attacker and Skilled, which are worth 2 ASI, which really don't feel worth that cost.

They have obviously noticed that some feats cant be made worth it by having the "half and half" feats that give an ability and one ASI. But then the fact they enforce a specific stat instead of allowing you to pick, renders such feats more costly for some classes than others (for example, Keen Mind and Linguist have some value to a Wizard as he will benefit from the +1 Int, but for any other class, the Int bonus is almost worthless, so these feats are effectively costing 2 ASI for them). Also, most players will have rounded off their principle stats as early as possible (since an odd point is a wasted point), unless they have factored getting these feats into their build, they wont want just a +1 later in the game.

To my mind, an easy fix would be to divide Feats into a "Lesser" and "Greater" categories, with the Lesser ones costing 1 ASI, and the Greater ones 2. Remove all the +stats from the feats that have them (since these feats will now all be Lesser feats). That way, characters that want a particular weak feat for whatever reason can still take a useful ASI, or even take two weak feats.

Gort

2018-01-25, 04:53 AM

ad_hoc

2018-01-25, 05:10 AM

That's just it though. There's no separate "surprise round" in 5th edition. Determining who's surprised is (supposed to be) always the first thing you do when a combat begins, but having you surprised doesn't give the opponents an additional turn. If you're surprised, you just don't get to take action or reaction, nor move during your first turn of combat. That's it. Being surprised does not make you inherently more vulnerable to anything. Only those who have special abilities (such as Assassin) have an upper hand on that turn.

In other words, "depending on exactly how often your GM plays surprise" means your GM is doing something wrong. It should happen, by RAW, at the start of every combat, given that there's a chance for someone to be surprised (which obviously isn't always the case, but that's irrelevant. You still have to determine that at the start of the combat, not at the end of it, not tomorrow, not next year).

The other thing is that surprise is checked for each character/creature, not each side.

One character can avoid being surprised while the rest of the party is surprised.

My experience with 5th ed is that typically a combat lasts ~3 rounds before it is effectively over. +5 to initiative is approximately a 25% chance of having an extra turn.

The math doesn't actually work out like that.

The first bit to bring up is that the delta is only +4 because the character is giving up +2 Dex.

Also, one character having an extra tempo is not the same as having an extra turn.

For example if initiative is:

Alert
Monsters
Rest of party

Then the likelihood is that the monsters will have as many or more turns than the part as a whole. If we say that the battle ends in 3 rounds the odds are that it ends after the monsters have had their 3 turns. A significant amount of the party needs to win initiative for the difference to be felt often.

The power of Alert depends on the character. Barring Assassin it isn't great on Rogues. It is probably best on heavily armoured fighters as it helps them to protect party members, especially when the rest of the party is surprised. While spellcasters also benefit from it they would probably prefer the +2 Dex.

Arkhios

2018-01-25, 05:35 AM

The other thing is that surprise is checked for each character/creature, not each side.

One character can avoid being surprised while the rest of the party is surprised.

Indeed.

The math doesn't actually work out like that.

The first bit to bring up is that the delta is only +4 because the character is giving up +2 Dex.

Also, one character having an extra tempo is not the same as having an extra turn.

For example if initiative is:

Alert
Monsters
Rest of party

Then the likelihood is that the monsters will have as many or more turns than the part as a whole. If we say that the battle ends in 3 rounds the odds are that it ends after the monsters have had their 3 turns. A significant amount of the party needs to win initiative for the difference to be felt often.

The power of Alert depends on the character. Barring Assassin it isn't great on Rogues. It is probably best on heavily armoured fighters as it helps them to protect party members, especially when the rest of the party is surprised. While spellcasters also benefit from it they would probably prefer the +2 Dex.

Agreed. Alert is best taken by someone whose Dexterity is lower than average. Especially if that character has something important to do with his or her reactions. Especially, actually, if you have the Protection Style and/or Shield Master feat. Being able to react, even if you were slow to act otherwise is certainly powerful, but not overpowered. The flat +5 bonus to whatever you had in the first place is largely irrelevant really. Especially if you already have high Dexterity in which case you're already above the curve and more likely on the top of initiative regardless of the feat.

goremonger

2018-01-25, 07:08 AM

Grappler needs to be fixed as well, badly.

I have a fix for Grappler. Just get rid of the feat entirely, and revise Tavern Brawler to allow allow a grapple attack after any weapon attack,not just improvised, and including unarmed attacks. Change the name to Brawler.

I don't think it's overpowered, but it would certainly become popular with lots of martial PCs and NPCs taking it.

Gort

2018-01-25, 07:54 AM

Indeed.

Agreed. Alert is best taken by someone whose Dexterity is lower than average. Especially if that character has something important to do with his or her reactions. Especially, actually, if you have the Protection Style and/or Shield Master feat. Being able to react, even if you were slow to act otherwise is certainly powerful, but not overpowered. The flat +5 bonus to whatever you had in the first place is largely irrelevant really. Especially if you already have high Dexterity in which case you're already above the curve and more likely on the top of initiative regardless of the feat.

Again. I'm not going to disagree with the rules you are explaining. Let me repharase.

Combats are typically just a few rounds a side before they are effectively over. In my experience that is often about 3 in 5th ed.
Negating the penalty of surprise for a character is close to gaining a turn for that character. That is a large bonus depending how often surprise occurs.
The initiative bonus of plus 5 will give you approximately a 25% additional chance of going first. This is effectively a chance at an extra turn that combat.

Already having a high initiative does change the value of the initiative bonus. I don't have the maths at my finger tips but it is still signficant. Initiative is a d20 roll. Higher level monsters tend to have better initiative and those are the initiative rolls you want to win.

Yes the actual value for any character build will vary, but mechanically they all should want it. As you say I've seen plenty of rogues regret winning initiative because they can't gain their sneak attack dice on the first round and really want their fellow PCs to get into position first. Often they can use sneak attack though if they are creative with their movement/skills/magic prior to combat or are of the right build. It's still better than losing initiative. Sadly 5th ed doesn't allow them to slip down the initiative order. But often rogues are asked to scout ahead of the party. Then winning initiative and avoiding surprise can be life or death allowing the rogue to escape.

Alertness has a major effect on the number of actions a character gets in an encounter. Approximately a 50% chance of getting an extra turn (about half of that from going first and half from not being surprised) Typically a player will only have maybe 3 turns in a battle.

Arkhios

2018-01-25, 08:02 AM

Again. I'm not going to disagree with the rules you are explaining. Let me repharase.

Combats are typically just a few rounds a side before they are effectively over. In my experience that is often about 3 in 5th ed.
Negating the penalty of surprise for a character is close to gaining a turn for that character. That is a large bonus depending how often surprise occurs.
The initiative bonus of plus 5 will give you approximately a 25% additional chance of going first. This is effectively a chance at an extra turn that combat.

Already having a high initiative does change the value of the initiative bonus. I don't have the maths at my finger tips but it is still signficant. Initiative is a d20 roll. Higher level monsters tend to have better initiative and those are the initiative rolls you want to win.

Yes the actual value for any character build will vary, but mechanically they all should want it. As you say I've seen plenty of rogues regret winning initiative because they can't gain their sneak attack dice on the first round and really want their fellow PCs to get into position first. Often they can use sneak attack though if they are creative with their movement/skills/magic prior to combat or are of the right build. It's still better than losing initiative. Sadly 5th ed doesn't allow them to slip down the initiative order. But often rogues are asked to scout ahead of the party. Then winning initiative and avoiding surprise can be life or death allowing the rogue to escape.

Alertness has a major effect on the number of actions a character gets in an encounter. Approximately a 50% chance of getting an extra turn (about half of that from going first and half from not being surprised) Typically a player will only have maybe 3 turns in a battle.

I see where you're coming from, but Alert doesn't need a nerf. It's a good feat, but not too good.

Unoriginal

2018-01-25, 08:09 AM

Alert doesn't give you an extra turn. If your combats last 3 turns, it just makes you use your 3 turns slightly before the others.

LeonBH

2018-01-25, 08:13 AM

If you're surprised, which I think is a large part of the discussion around Alert, you take your first turn doing nothing.

Malifice

2018-01-25, 08:48 AM

Again. I'm not going to disagree with the rules you are explaining. Let me repharase.

Combats are typically just a few rounds a side before they are effectively over. In my experience that is often about 3 in 5th ed.
Negating the penalty of surprise for a character is close to gaining a turn for that character. That is a large bonus depending how often surprise occurs.
The initiative bonus of plus 5 will give you approximately a 25% additional chance of going first. This is effectively a chance at an extra turn that combat.

Already having a high initiative does change the value of the initiative bonus. I don't have the maths at my finger tips but it is still signficant. Initiative is a d20 roll. Higher level monsters tend to have better initiative and those are the initiative rolls you want to win.

Yes the actual value for any character build will vary, but mechanically they all should want it. As you say I've seen plenty of rogues regret winning initiative because they can't gain their sneak attack dice on the first round and really want their fellow PCs to get into position first. Often they can use sneak attack though if they are creative with their movement/skills/magic prior to combat or are of the right build. It's still better than losing initiative. Sadly 5th ed doesn't allow them to slip down the initiative order. But often rogues are asked to scout ahead of the party. Then winning initiative and avoiding surprise can be life or death allowing the rogue to escape.

Alertness has a major effect on the number of actions a character gets in an encounter. Approximately a 50% chance of getting an extra turn (about half of that from going first and half from not being surprised) Typically a player will only have maybe 3 turns in a battle.

'I ready an action to shoot/ stab the monster when the fighter gets adjacent to it.'

Platypusbill

2018-01-25, 09:35 AM

You may want to keep reading. The Durable feat wraps across the page. It does the following:
* Gives you +1 Constitution, making it one of the "half ASI" feats, and
* Whenever you roll Hit Dice to heal yourself, your minimum heal is double your Con modifier (or 2, whichever is higher). So effectively, you can't roll a result lower than your Constitution modifier.

Not quite.

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 of 2).

I.e. If you have a Constitution modifier of +5, your minimum healing from the hit dice is 10, but you still add your Con modifier as normal on top of this. You're just replacing the random roll with a fixed value. Assuming your hit dice can't roll a number higher than twice your Con mod, you get 3x your Con modifier every time.

A Wizard with 20 Con would therefore get 15 per hit die instead of 6-11 (average 8.5).

But honestly, it's only really worth it if you're rounding out an odd Constitution score, just like the other feats with a +1 to a stat.

MadBear

2018-01-25, 09:41 AM

strangebloke

2018-01-25, 09:54 AM

Tanarii

2018-01-25, 10:04 AM

There are people that thinks this way.

However, I find that those feats are really good at closing the Caster/Martial divide. Which IMHO still exists in 5e though it's a much closer gap than in 3.5.

Of course YMMV.
I play run without Feats in T1 & T2, and I find the "Caster/Martial divide" is only a "Champion & Berserker vs everyone else divide".

LeonBH

2018-01-25, 10:04 AM

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-25, 10:18 AM

I remove Lucky because I think it makes the game less interesting. It should have been printed like this:

Lucky

Three times per long rest a character can remove drama from the game. I think that the Lucky feat is an attempt to put into game terms the following adage: it is sometimes better to be lucky than good. :smallbiggrin:

If you're surprised, which I think is a large part of the discussion around Alert, you take your first turn doing nothing. Alert lets you avoid that, at the cost of an ASI or a different feat. Seems a good trade if you are the scout ... or if you are up against assassins.

clash

2018-01-25, 10:18 AM

It's entirely possible that I'm missing something, but if you're surprised and you spend your first turn doing nothing, how is that truly different then the other side getting a free first turn against you? Based on the responses, there is a meaningful difference, I'm just not seeing it.

Their are two meaningful distinctions here.

1) Surprise round(ie 3.5) means that one entire side is surprised and the other side gets all gets free turns before the first side can take an action. Surprised condition(ie 5e) means that creatures are either surprised or not surprised individually. Meaning if a character has the alert feat, they are not surprised when ambushed and they get their turn as normal but their entire party is still surprised and does not get to do anything on their respective turns.

2) Surprise rounds means surprised characters cant do anything for the entire first round. Surprised condition ends after your first turn, meaning you can still take a reaction for the rest of the round. With the condition if someone rolls high initiative and goes before the ambushers, his turn happens, he does nothing then he is no longer surprised when they attack, so he can use his reaction, anyone with assassinate ability doesn't score an automatic crit against him etc.

Tanarii

2018-01-25, 10:36 AM

It's entirely possible that I'm missing something, but if you're surprised and you spend your first turn doing nothing, how is that truly different then the other side getting a free first turn against you? Based on the responses, there is a meaningful difference, I'm just not seeing it.the main difference is frequently creatures on both sides are not surprised. So it doesn't make sense for creatures successfully surprising to "gain a surprise round" rather than creatures being surprised to gain a pseudo-condition of "surprised", losing part of their first round. Conceptually, surprise rounds are just an idea from old editions that don't carry over any more, since they imply one entire side is successfully surprising the other entire side.

The other major differences are:
- they can use their reaction unless you win the initiative
- things that trigger off an enemy being surprised also require you to win the initiative

mephnick

2018-01-25, 10:52 AM

I think that the Lucky feat is an attempt to put into game terms the following adage: it is sometimes better to be lucky than good. :smallbiggrin:

Sure, I get what they're going for, I just think they designed it in the most boring way possible. The fact that it's good enough that everyone wants it waters games down. Crits and failed spells are the swings in combat that make it fun. Allowing players to just say "nope" when something dramatic happens is the opposite of what the game should be shooting for.

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-25, 10:57 AM

If you're surprised, which I think is a large part of the discussion around Alert, you take your first turn doing nothing.

Sure, I get what they're going for, I just think they designed it in the most boring way possible. The fact that it's good enough that everyone wants it waters games down. Crits and failed spells are the swings in combat that make it fun. Allowing players to just say "nope" when something dramatic happens is the opposite of what the game should be shooting for.
Would I be correct in assuming that you don't like the Divination Wizard's Portent ability either? Similar effect. Likewise Bardic inspiration. Inspiration points.

strangebloke

2018-01-25, 11:06 AM

Would I be correct in assuming that you don't like the Divination Wizard's Portent ability either? Similar effect. Likewise Bardic inspiration. Inspiration points.

I don't know I think I agree with Mephnick here.

Portent is different, because you use it before the roll. Whereas lucky allows you to retroactively turn crits into misses, failed saves into successes, etc. You can even turn disadvantage into super advantage!

A usage of bardic inspiration doesn't have nearly the impact of a usage of Lucky, and even with cutting words you actually can't use it to get rid of crits and the like, since it's a flat modifier and not a re-roll.

Inspiration points are comparable, which is partially why I don't use them. I also don't use them because, well... geez, some of my players are better at roleplaying, and also better at combat. I don't want to be seen as playing favorites.

mephnick

2018-01-25, 11:16 AM

GlenSmash!

2018-01-25, 11:25 AM

I play run without Feats in T1 & T2, and I find the "Caster/Martial divide" is only a "Champion & Berserker vs everyone else divide".

That's nice to hear.

Although, isn't T1 & T2 where a lot characters are spending ASIs on maxing Main stat anyway? I've seen a few not even take a feat until 12.

N810

2018-01-25, 11:38 AM

I broadly agree. Despite me arguing certain feats are strong. I think the solution is to get rid of the dross. Bring the other feats up to the standard of the half dozen feats which get regularly used in game.
I'm tired of their being good feat options for polearms and crossbows but not other types of weapons. Where is the love for axes or the thrown dagger? Some more non combat options too would be nice.

They are in the UA feats.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OPJymMfbJM0J:https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/dnd/ua-feats-v1.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Warhammer Master
Fell Handed (axe mastery)
Blade Mastery
Spear Mastery
Flail Mastery

GlenSmash!

2018-01-25, 12:06 PM

They are in the UA feats.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OPJymMfbJM0J:https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/dnd/ua-feats-v1.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Warhammer Master
Fell Handed (axe mastery)
Blade Mastery
Spear Mastery
Flail Mastery

I really liked Fell Handed. It made your lower roll from advantage matter which was a cool new way to interact with Advantage. I hope to see more stuff like it.

N810

2018-01-25, 12:10 PM

Yea, Fell handed is my favorite too.
*(Plays great axe berserker)

Friv

2018-01-25, 12:21 PM

Not quite.

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 of 2).

I.e. If you have a Constitution modifier of +5, your minimum healing from the hit dice is 10, but you still add your Con modifier as normal on top of this. You're just replacing the random roll with a fixed value. Assuming your hit dice can't roll a number higher than twice your Con mod, you get 3x your Con modifier every time.

A Wizard with 20 Con would therefore get 15 per hit die instead of 6-11 (average 8.5).

But honestly, it's only really worth it if you're rounding out an odd Constitution score, just like the other feats with a +1 to a stat.

So, I did a bit of reading! Originally, Mike Mearls stated in Sage Advice that "roll" refers to the die result plus all modifiers, and thus that the Con modifier is included in the minimum. However, it looks like people called him on it (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/durable-feat/) and he reversed his opinion.

Vaz

2018-01-25, 12:23 PM

So, I did a bit of reading! Originally, Mike Mearls stated in Sage Advice that "roll" refers to the die result plus all modifiers, and thus that the Con modifier is included in the minimum. However, it looks like people called him on it (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/01/durable-feat/) and he reversed his opinion.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/de068ed0345d654757058c896a75a00f/tenor.gif

Tanarii

2018-01-25, 12:28 PM

That's nice to hear.I certainly found it interesting that the only classes players seriously avoid without feats and without multiclassing are the only two with no magic & no real super special tricks other than hit things harder. (Also probably because everyone thinks Berserker Barbarians are broken anyway.)

Although, isn't T1 & T2 where a lot characters are spending ASIs on maxing Main stat anyway? I've seen a few not even take a feat until 12.I wouldn't know. I've never seen a game that went to Tier 3, although I'm starting to plan it for my open table campaign. I used to hear rumors they existed when I played AL, but never actually caught one scheduled, across multiple game stores and a fairly large private group I'm a part of that organizes by email distro. I'm coming to realize more and more that WotC was right in treating T2 as the primary place game play happens. And starting to think not only is T4 play an extreme rarity, but even T3 play is a bit of an urban myth.

Feuerphoenix

2018-01-25, 12:38 PM

I certainly found it interesting that the only classes players seriously avoid without feats and without multiclassing are the only two with no magic & no real super special tricks other than hit things harder. (Also probably because everyone thinks Berserker Barbarians are broken anyway.)

I wouldn't know. I've never seen a game that went to Tier 3, although I'm starting to plan it for my open table campaign. I used to hear rumors they existed when I played AL, but never actually caught one scheduled, across multiple game stores and a fairly large private group I'm a part of that organizes by email distro. I'm coming to realize more and more that WotC was right in treating T2 as the primary place game play happens. And starting to think not only is T4 play an extreme rarity, but even T3 play is a bit of an urban myth.

Well I can refer only to the limited games I played, but usually everyone took a feat at 4th level, especially if your tactic relied on it on the first place (PAM etc). my second ASI I will also spend on a feat (GWM) as my char is trying to deal more damage, and already rolled good stats.

But I think the T3/4 part is a little bit on WotC's fault also. First your AL char starts at lv 1, and they are the ones they get reliable data from, as it is all protocolled online. Second there are not a lot of adventure, who are traveling beyond lv 10 or 15. Most the the official adventures tend to end around lv 7-10. And afterwards, there is not that much possibility to continue. At least not in AL, and this is what they are mainly punishing for.

Tanarii

2018-01-25, 12:47 PM

Well I can refer only to the limited games I played, but usually everyone took a feat at 4th level, especially if your tactic relied on it on the first place (PAM etc). my second ASI I will also spend on a feat (GWM) as my char is trying to deal more damage, and already rolled good stats.Oh yeah, sorry, I didn't address the actual comment. When playing AL I saw Feats at levels 1 (variant human) or 4 all the time. Extremely common. But almost always they're "core" feats, usually the ones that have a massive impact on combat, or a half-feat. GWM, SS, PAM, Resilient (Con), Shield Master & War Caster being the most common.

Which not-at-all coincidentally are the ones I generally look at as overpowered.

But I think the T3/4 part is a little bit on WotC's fault also.It's not their "fault". But they certainly took something that already happened at most tables IMX (and per their data), and totally reinforced it like crazy with their XP table and campaign-adventures.

GlenSmash!

2018-01-25, 12:57 PM

strangebloke

2018-01-25, 12:57 PM

I certainly found it interesting that the only classes players seriously avoid without feats and without multiclassing are the only two with no magic & no real super special tricks other than hit things harder. (Also probably because everyone thinks Berserker Barbarians are broken anyway.)

I wouldn't know. I've never seen a game that went to Tier 3, although I'm starting to plan it for my open table campaign. I used to hear rumors they existed when I played AL, but never actually caught one scheduled, across multiple game stores and a fairly large private group I'm a part of that organizes by email distro. I'm coming to realize more and more that WotC was right in treating T2 as the primary place game play happens. And starting to think not only is T4 play an extreme rarity, but even T3 play is a bit of an urban myth.

Vuman's are very popular exactly because you can get that feat (and therefore, that character concept) off the ground right away.

In my last campaign it was pretty even. 4 characters had no feats (3 of those died/retired before level 8) 4 had one feat, and 3 had two feats, and 1 had 3 feats. Except for the Champion, all of them who made it to the end (level 15) had at least one feat. Heh, I guess there's your mythical tier 3 campaign. Generally the feats I saw were not the traditional 'OP' feats. I saw Observant get picked twice, Ritual Caster once, Mobile twice, Alert once, Actor once, Shield Master once, Tavern Brawler once... the rest escape me. But I didn't see a single character pick up Lucky, Sharpshooter, GWM, or Magic Initiate. But my campaign was pretty low-optimization and had a lot of RP time, so... eh.

The game starts in the same place as, say 3e, but the curve is a lot flatter once things get going. Levels 5-15 in 5e are roughly comparable to levels 5-9 in 3e.

Coffee_Dragon

2018-01-25, 01:10 PM

Yea, but that additional d20 is an attack roll, which falls under the earlier part of the sentence "whenever you make an attack roll"

I'm pretty "attack roll" refers to the whole procedure, not a single physical roll of a die, and it could be called "attack check" if that didn't sound stupid.

Theodoxus

2018-01-25, 03:48 PM

Agreed. Portent is different because you generate the rolls at the beginning of the day with no idea what situation they'll be deployed in and it requires some strategy to be used well. It feels like more of a proactive, fun character ability when the wizard says "You will fail this save. Eat it." It feels like it adds excitement to combat, while Lucky feels like it's taking something away. With Lucky we all know the monster made his save, or you missed, but you changed it. With Portent the monster never made his save. Your crit was always a crit. It doesn't feel cheap? It feels different to me.

So, what if Lucky were changed to match Portent?

Basically, I'd do it something like:

"Lucky
When you choose this feat, glimmers of prescient luck begin to press in on your awareness. When you finish a short or long rest, roll a d20 and record the number rolled. You can replace any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature that you can see with this luck roll. You must choose to do so before the roll is made.
When you finish a short or long rest, you lose an unused luck roll and roll a new one."

It's the same mechanic, but only 1 roll per short rest instead of 2 per long. In most games, this provides the same number of uses that Lucky normally would - 1 at the start of the day, and another 2 after short rests (presuming 2 shorts between a long).

This also keeps the Halfling Lucky ability unique and Elven Accuracy unique, and while it steps on Divination's toes - that's a single archetype out of a lot... so having both in a game would be rare (though it's nearly a 'must have' for a Divination wizard, so is Lucky as it's in the PHB - so that's a wash).

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-25, 04:16 PM

I'm pretty "attack roll" refers to the whole procedure, not a single physical roll of a die, and it could be called "attack check" if that didn't sound stupid.

That's correct. Just like a saving throw means {1,2}d20 + MODIFIERS, an attack roll is the whole thing. You can only use Lucky once per whole roll. You can burn through all of them in one turn, for sure--3 attack rolls (e.g. scorching ray)

strangebloke

2018-01-25, 05:14 PM

So, what if Lucky were changed to match Portent?

Basically, I'd do it something like:

"Lucky
When you choose this feat, glimmers of prescient luck begin to press in on your awareness. When you finish a short or long rest, roll a d20 and record the number rolled. You can replace any attack roll, saving throw, or ability check made by you or a creature that you can see with this luck roll. You must choose to do so before the roll is made.
When you finish a short or long rest, you lose an unused luck roll and roll a new one."

I like where you're going with this, but I think that thematically this is very different from what they were going for. If they simply left Lucky to work before the roll was made, then it would be different.

IE:
"Before you make an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you may give yourself advantage, even if you otherwise would have had disadvantage on the roll. You can also impose disadvantage upon an attack roll made against you, even if that attack roll would normally have advantage. You may use this feature five times between each long rest."

GlenSmash!

2018-01-25, 05:19 PM

IE:
"Before you make an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, you may give yourself advantage, even if you otherwise would have had disadvantage on the roll. You can also impose disadvantage upon an attack roll made against you, even if that attack roll would normally have advantage. You may use this feature five times between each long rest."

Yes. I like this the best.

Theodoxus

2018-01-25, 05:49 PM

I just don't see advantage/disadvantage as being particularly lucky. it's more chance, or fate. If I'm sitting on a low d20 roll, I can express it as luck: dancing out of the way of a bad swing; forcing the enemy to suck on their dex save by slipping on a banana peel (so to speak).

Replacing rolls is a more certain result, i.e. lucky, than hoping at least one of your two rolls on dis/ad is what you're looking for.

Now, I wouldn't be against adding a new feat called "Chance" or "Fickle Fate" or something, that works like the book, or even your rework and lets your roll a second d20. If you're meant to hit (or your enemy is meant to miss) then fate intervenes and that happens... but it's not guaranteed, like Lucky (especially as "better lucky than good") implies.

Eric Diaz

2018-01-25, 06:08 PM

Just my 2c:

I think there are three kinds of feats:

A - Those that are basically mandatory, being usually better than a +1 mod to you PRIMARY ability.
B - Those that are so bad that they are usually worse than NON-PRIMARY ability.
C - And everything in the middle.

Now, most (all?) classes have five or more ASIs, and most characters start with AT LEAST 15 on their primary ability.

Of course, MAD/SAD might change this stuff - fro a MAD class, taking a feat should "balanced", and for a SAD class with primary ability 20 a feat or two should be obviously beneficial.

So, every feat should be "type C" IMO, if possible.

But there are also "half feats".

Anyway.

Lucky I dislike just because of the "turns disad into super-advantage"... Otherwise I think it is okay.

GWM would be cool, but it makes other fighting styles a lot worse IMO. Same for PAM. SS, TBH I think ranged is too powerful already. If ALL weapons had decent feats I might like those a bit more, but overall I'm okay with GWM/SS.

Dual Wielder is terrible IMO, because it would ONLY be useful if you have DEX 20... or like throwing stuff. But ranged is so powerful that throwing weapons seem like a bad idea.

On the weak side there are the obvious ones... Grappler is probably the worst offender IMO.

ad_hoc

2018-01-25, 09:34 PM

A - Those that are basically mandatory, being usually better than a +1 mod to you PRIMARY ability.

I would characterize these to be broad feats. These are ones that make the character better at a thing that an ability typically covers, mostly combat stuff. These feats are either too strong or too weak. There is no middle ground with these sorts. This is why GWM, SS, and PAM are poorly designed.

B - Those that are so bad that they are usually worse than NON-PRIMARY ability.

Either broad or narrow there are definitely some weak feats.

C - And everything in the middle.

The feats that are balanced are ones that make a character very good at a narrow thing.

The character's overall strength would be greater if they took the +2 ASI, but the feat makes them very good at a narrow scope of the game.

This results in feats that are sometimes taken but not taken often.

I suppose another type of balanced feat is the half feat. Taken when the character has only 1 odd stat that they want to raise and they get a perk to go with it.

strangebloke

2018-01-26, 12:00 AM

Feats should be good. Very good, for a niche build.

I think mobile and prodigy are my go to examples for perfect feats. If your character concept wants em, they're there. If they don't... You don't.

Wryte

2018-01-26, 11:47 PM

I think the poster child for worthless feats has to be Weapon Master. Just who exactly is it for? The only martial classes that don't already have universal weapon proficiency are rogues and monks, both of whom have class features that only function with a narrower range of weapons that they do have natural proficiency in. Any caster that goes into a half-martial archetype also gets additional weapon proficiencies along with it, and usually comes with requirements on their martial features that make having access to a wide range of weapons unnecessary. And even if anyone without universal proficiency really did want access to more weapons that badly, taking a 1 level dip into Fighter grants universal weapon proficiency, proficiency with shields and all armor but heavy, a fighting style, a healing ability, and the second highest hit die in the game.

All that put together leaves Weapon Master just... useless. It's an improvement that no one actually needs, and anyone who actually wants what it offers can get that and much more very easily.

Also, nitpick, but the name - Weapon Master - just rubs me wrong. It implies that the feat is something that any martial class should be interested in as a way to improve their fighting ability ala the weapon focus feats from previous editions, but it really bears absolutely no benefit for them whatsoever.

Suggested rework:

Weapon Master
You have practiced extensively with a variety of weapons, gaining the following benefits:
* Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
* You gain proficiency with four weapons of your choice. Each one must be a simple or a martial weapon.
* You learn one of the following Fighting Styles. You can't take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again.
** Archery: You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons.
** Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.
** Great Weapon Fighting: When you roll a 1 or a 2 on a damage die when you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.
** Two-Weapon Fighting: When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack.

The trick here is that Weapon Master isn't competing against other feats so much as it's competing against a 1 level dip into Fighter. By adding a fighting style to the feat, it closes the gap between the feat and the dip by giving the player one of the other major benefits of the dip: synergy support for their new weapon proficiencies. The dip still strictly gives more (armor and shield proficiencies, Second Wind, higher hit die) than the feat, but the benefit of the feat is that you get to actually be capable with your chosen weapons without interrupting or cutting short your level gains in your main class. It also gives martial classes a reason to take the feat either for a little extra oomph if they don't get one naturally, or a little added versatility if they do. Niche, but no longer useless.

Tanarii

2018-01-27, 01:09 AM

I think the poster child for worthless feats has to be Weapon Master. Just who exactly is it for?
It might see some minor use in a single class campaign that allowed feats, if a character without martial weapons wanted to use some.

It's pretty ridiculously niche, but I'm pretty sure that's the 'logic' behind it. You want a whip wielding Rogue or your Dragonborn Dragon Sorc to sometimes smash face with a Greatsword? Well, here's this feat you can take to allow that ...

mephnick

2018-01-27, 07:52 AM

I used Weapon Master at a table that allowed feats, but not multiclassing, to bump up a stat point and use a whip rogue. I could only justify it to myself as a Variant Human. I would have just played a different concept if I had to blow my level 4 feat on it.

Spacehamster

2018-01-27, 07:56 AM

Nah both those feats are fine, only borderline feats are the -5/+10 ones and maaaaaybe elven accuracy

thoroughlyS

2018-01-28, 08:14 PM

Durable and Tough should be combined, losing the +1 Con.
Elemental Adept should let you deal minimum damage to creatures with immunity.
Grappler should get its third benefit back, just augmented for the existing rules: "You can attempt to grapple a creature even when they are more than one size larger than you." Pinning should replace an attack instead of costing an action, maybe even lifting the restrain condition on you.
Great Weapon Master should be a half feat, removing the -5/+10 mechanic.*
Healer should be the target's max HD + your proficiency bonus.†
Heavily Armored should have "Prerequisite: Proficiency with light armor, medium armor, or shields."
Heavy Armor Master should reduce all weapon damage (including magical weapons) by 2.‡
Inspiring Leader should be each target's max HD + your proficiency bonus.†
Keen Mind should grant two tool proficiencies.
Lightly Armored and Moderately Armored should be combined: "Increase your Strength or Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20. You gain proficiency with light armor, medium armor, and shields."
Linguist should grant two languages.
Martial Adept should give 2d8 superiority dice which do not scale.**
Medium Armor Master should remove the Dexterity cap entirely.††
Polearm Master should include spears, but should require two hands for the bonus attack (no quarterstaff and shield).
Ritual Caster should have "Prerequisite: Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma 13 or higher" and should allow you to add found spells from any class list.‡‡
Savage Attacker should also add a bonus die on critical attacks.
Sentinel should have the third benefit apply to any creature within your reach.
Sharpshooter should be a half feat, removing the -5/+10 mechanic.*
Skilled should include languages, and have the following benefit "You may forgo proficiency in two skills to choose one of your skill proficiencies. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses the chosen proficiency."
Weapon Master should lose the ASI, grant proficiency with simple weapons and martial weapons, and have the following benefit "Choose one weapon with which you have proficiency. Once per turn, before you make an attack with the chosen weapon, you can choose to subtract your proficiency bonus from the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add twice your proficiency modifier to the attack's damage. You can select this feat multiple times. Each time you do so, you must choose a different weapon."*

*Moving the -5/+10 to Weapon Master kills two birds with one stone, and I'm in the camp that thinks it would be better if it wasn't so strong at early levels.
†Healer is a tad too strong at early levels, so I made it scale. I also noticed the parallels between Healer and Inspiring Leader, so I made them scale the same.
‡Heavy Armor Master is strong at low levels, and falls off at high levels. Making it affect magical weapons gives it some staying power.
**This feat feels very limited in practice, so allowing it to be used twice between rests actually makes it worth taking. Unfortunately I couldn't think of a way to stop this from becoming even better for the Battle Master. I made the dice d8s so they are about equal with the Battle Master to start, but eventually fall behind (much like the 1st-level spell from Magic Initiate).
††Paying a feat so that your AC can cap at Plate level sucks.
‡‡I find it irritating how often a Warlock class feature (in this case Book of Ancient Secrets) is strictly superior to a corresponding feature outside the class. I'm just bringing this up to par. Other examples of this phenomenon are Thirsting Blade being available a level before other gishes can get Extra Attack, or Repelling Blast being better than Open Hand Technique (works at range, automatic, no resource cost, lower level).

And that's just in the PHB.

Willie the Duck

2018-01-28, 09:26 PM

Joke aside, which Feats do you consider truly broken, as opposed to just not liking the effects?

Honestly, none.
With the caveat that I define broken to mean truly upends ones' game, makes another character completely obsolete, or is so powerful that the DM has to greatly change what was otherwise appropriate challenges just to keep you from auto-winning.
None. Nothing does that. The closest thing to changing how things work is War Caster, which makes otherwise unfeasible/highly challenging builds (gish with both hands occupied, melee paladin who uses their spell slots for Bless instead of Smites, etc.) possible. And while War Caster opens up options, I don't know many people who find it broken.

The worst I can say is that some things make it seem a little like people are playing a different game. The way I play, you are never assured a specific magic item, so my martial types tend to chose the defensive fighting style, since you can switch between weapon and shield to two weapon to greatsword to polearm (plus all he ranged options). I've had great fun with a Vuman Battlemaster (now level 8) with the feats Skilled, Ritual Caster (wizard), Healer, and Medium Armor Master. It is a fun build, who can help in the all the pillars of play, has contributed with healing and sneaking and casting comprehend languages as much as he has with fighting and is a great bit of fun. But I know if I brought him into my friend's AL campaign... where there is always a wizard in the party for the ritual spells, and no use for gold other than healing potions such that the healer feat is unnecessary, and dedicated rogues with stealth scores in the double digits, and you can kinda guarantee getting a magic halberd... a fighter with PAM and GWM or a ranged one with SS and Elven Accuracy would be so much more optimized. It is hard not to feel like those are two different games. And that's as close to 'broken' as I think 5e gets (baring maybe wish+simulcreum cheese, and other things that got banned by most within weeks of 5e's release).

Malifice

2018-01-28, 09:38 PM

I wouldn't know. I've never seen a game that went to Tier 3.

Wow really? That would suck badly.

My campaigns PCs have just hit 19th level, and arent far off 20th. Three year campaign.

You really need experience playing and (especially) DMing at that level. Sadly most DMs rage-quit once PCs hit around 9th-11th level, due to not being able to deal with high level powers (due to lack of experience dealing with high level powers).

Which of course creates a nasty cycle. They lack experience to DM mid-high level parties, which leads them to never DM those parties, which means they never get the experience needed to DM at that level.

Asmotherion

2018-01-28, 10:20 PM

The two feats I see used all the time
Are
1. Alert for the +5 initiatives and unable to get surprised. It should be +2 to initiative and add something to perception vs surprised
2. Lucky re-roll attack save or ability roll or re roll an attack against you. 3 Times
Should be use your luck per short rest which I hope would have less uses.

I personally have no problem with either as it is; I want my players to succeed at what they're doing, not fail. I also don't like to encourage PvP (though if it happens in an RP logical environment, I won't go out of my way to stop it either).

If your players use those two feats all the time, perhaps it is due to you emphasising their utility too much. This is especially true on the Alert feat. You can Alter the game in a Way were they won't feel those feats are as important.

If my DM made sure to always have a surprse attack during the Night, sure, I'd make sure to take the Alert Feat, if anything else, from an RP perspective alone. If on the other hand we had to face Harsh Weather conditions a lot instead, perhaps I would consider some other Feat...?

mephnick

2018-01-28, 11:15 PM

You really need experience playing and (especially) DMing at that level. Sadly most DMs rage-quit once PCs hit around 9th-11th level, due to not being able to deal with high level powers (due to lack of experience dealing with high level powers).

Ehhh, I've DM'd and played plenty of high level D&D over the years and I still dislike it. It does become a different game.

Anyone who enjoys low level, gritty survival D&D, I'm not sure they're missing much they would enjoy. I think it's pretty easy for people to extrapolate whether they'd enjoy Tier 4 from what they've heard, because it's mostly accurate.

Malifice

2018-01-28, 11:25 PM

Ehhh, I've DM'd and played plenty of high level D&D over the years and I still dislike it. It does become a different game.

It does indeed, but in my experience most of the negative experiences and stories can be traced back to DMs who lack experience DMing high level games.

Once you've played in a game with a DM who has run a lot of high level campaigns well, its a totally different story.

Plus; I hate playing a character for 6 months or a year only for the campaign to end.

Anyone who enjoys low level, gritty survival D&D, I'm not sure they're missing much they would enjoy. I think it's pretty easy for people to extrapolate whether they'd enjoy Tier 4 from what they've heard, because it's mostly accurate.

Gritty survival DnD is great; but if that's all you're ever doing it gets boring. Like you say above, play at high levels is a different game. Kicking back with Gods, establishing kingdowms, travelling the planes, and stopping world ending threats is satisfying; moreso when you started out as a snot nosed ****kicker poking holes in kobolds for a few SP.

ad_hoc

2018-01-28, 11:52 PM

Wow really? That would suck badly.

My campaigns PCs have just hit 19th level, and arent far off 20th. Three year campaign.

You really need experience playing and (especially) DMing at that level. Sadly most DMs rage-quit once PCs hit around 9th-11th level, due to not being able to deal with high level powers (due to lack of experience dealing with high level powers).

Which of course creates a nasty cycle. They lack experience to DM mid-high level parties, which leads them to never DM those parties, which means they never get the experience needed to DM at that level.

Or we just don't want to.

Just because there are 20 levels provided doesn't mean everyone should play up to that. 5e was designed so that 5-11 are the core of the game.

I have no interest in playing demi-gods. When the dungeons become the multiverse and dragons become gods I'm out.

It's not 'rage-quitting'. For 3e I played e6 for similar reasons. I'm really happy with 5e that I can play up to level 11 and then have one adventure where all the PCs are super powered to cap things off. This was similar to my experience with 2e, and from what I understand previous editions as well.

Malifice

2018-01-29, 03:47 AM

Or we just don't want to.

Just because there are 20 levels provided doesn't mean everyone should play up to that. 5e was designed so that 5-11 are the core of the game.

I have no interest in playing demi-gods. When the dungeons become the multiverse and dragons become gods I'm out.

It's not 'rage-quitting'. For 3e I played e6 for similar reasons. I'm really happy with 5e that I can play up to level 11 and then have one adventure where all the PCs are super powered to cap things off. This was similar to my experience with 2e, and from what I understand previous editions as well.

Horses for courses I guess.

I prefer open ended games where there is no defined end game. Preferably sandboxes.

You play your PC until you decide to retire him (and how).

Coffee_Dragon

2018-01-29, 11:07 AM

Elemental Adept should let you treat immunity to the chosen damage type as resistance.

I'd be hesitant about the constraint this puts on monster design and just what immunity represents. I'm also far from convinced the feat needs it to be attractive. If the underlying idea is that immunity is unfun and should be mitigated, that seems like something that should be addressed generally, not in a feat.

Vaz

2018-01-29, 11:13 AM

I'd be hesitant about the constraint this puts on monster design and just what immunity represents. I'm also far from convinced the feat needs it to be attractive. If the underlying idea is that immunity is unfun and should be mitigated, that seems like something that should be addressed generally, not in a feat.

Resistance and Immunity feels like a bit of a ridiculous concept. "Hi Fire Guy, that thing you built to be good at? I'm not gonna let you do that? Why? Because I don't want you to be."

Coffee_Dragon

2018-01-29, 11:24 AM

Resistance and Immunity feels like a bit of a ridiculous concept. "Hi Fire Guy, that thing you built to be good at? I'm not gonna let you do that? Why? Because I don't want you to be."

Yeah, and what's up with walls? "You know that thing you use to get places, walking? NOPE."

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-29, 11:35 AM

Resistance and Immunity feels like a bit of a ridiculous concept. "Hi Fire Guy, that thing you built to be good at? I'm not gonna let you do that? Why? Because I don't want you to be."

No, it's because poisoning a giant rock (earth elemental) or burning a fire elemental doesn't make sense in the fiction. And there should be at least some connection there.

No class is so pigeonholed that they can only have one element/damage type. If you built that way then any issue is yours, not the DMs. Unless of course your DM lied about what kinds of things you'd be facing at session 0, so you built a fire blaster (thinking you'd be facing mostly normal creatures) for a campaign taking place entirely on the Plane of Elemental Fire. Then the DM is being a jerk if he doesn't allow a rebuild.

Vaz

2018-01-29, 12:32 PM

Yeah, and what's up with walls? "You know that thing you use to get places, walking? NOPE."

Yeah, let's just Force Wall the BSF. Let's have a Dedicated Counterspeller. Let's the fight participate underwater and not provide any form of swimming or underwater breathing.

Bore off.

strangebloke

2018-01-29, 01:30 PM

Yeah, let's just Force Wall the BSF. Let's have a Dedicated Counterspeller. Let's the fight participate underwater and not provide any form of swimming or underwater breathing.

Bore off.

It's almost as if a single character can't handle every situation and versatility is a key feature of any well-designed team of adventurers.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-29, 01:51 PM

It's almost as if a single character can't handle every situation and versatility is a key feature of any well-designed team of adventurers.

I will say that I'm not fond of repeatedly hard-countering a single PC. I find it somewhat of a jerk move and, when a campaign needs to be warped around a single player, it usually means that it'd be better to talk to the player and tone things more generally. It's one reason I don't like 3e's approach, where having hard-counters to the SoD effects was an absolute necessity. Occasional hard counters (encounters with flying monsters against ground-bound barbarians) can be interesting and force improvisation, but repeatedly doing it to the same PC is annoying.

But otherwise, yes. 5e (unlike 3e) does not reward super-specialization, especially in damage types. A more balanced approach (both within a character and within a party) is needed to succeed.

Vaz

2018-01-29, 02:48 PM

It's almost as if a single character can't handle every situation and versatility is a key feature of any well-designed team of adventurers.

Its almost as if telling someone that they shouldn't bother turning up is not a good way of doing anything.

Beelzebubba

2018-01-29, 03:29 PM

Its almost as if telling someone that they shouldn't bother turning up is not a good way of doing anything.

If he'd said that, you would have had a point.

Vaz

2018-01-29, 03:39 PM

If he'd said that, you would have had a point.
So he was being non-sequiteur, when he tried to refute my point. I don't see you jumping down his throat to tell him off? Jog on.

strangebloke

2018-01-29, 04:15 PM

So he was being non-sequiteur, when he tried to refute my point. I don't see you jumping down his throat to tell him off? Jog on.

If you get thwarted constantly no matter what strategy you employ, the DM hates your guts and is a bad DM.

If you specialized in a single tactic, and you get thwarted occasionally (IE you're a evoker and you go up against an abjuration specialist) that's by design.

A flying enemy thwarts a melee specialist. A dedicated counterspeller counters an active spellcaster. A devil thwarts a guy who specialized in fire damage.

This shakes combat up and requires you to adapt. It prevents a single guy from dominating every combat with the same stupid spiked chain+leap attack+combat reflexes combo.

It's also why GWM isn't overpowered except at low levels, but SS is, a little bit. Ranged characters trade DPR for being harder to counter. SS hands them a bunch of DPR at no real cost, and allows them to subvert cover, one of their few counter. If it was up to me, I would nerf SS. You can only get the bonus damage from SS once per turn, and SS doesn't negate cover. I also like the idea of a fighting style that doubles the AC bonus from a shield against ranged attacks. Or one where if you don't move on your turn, you can take cover behind your shield for +4 AC. Not that S&B needs more fighting style support, I just think it would be great from a simulatory and balance perspective. :smallsigh:

Sigreid

2018-01-29, 07:52 PM

I will say that I'm not fond of repeatedly hard-countering a single PC. I find it somewhat of a jerk move and, when a campaign needs to be warped around a single player, it usually means that it'd be better to talk to the player and tone things more generally. It's one reason I don't like 3e's approach, where having hard-counters to the SoD effects was an absolute necessity. Occasional hard counters (encounters with flying monsters against ground-bound barbarians) can be interesting and force improvisation, but repeatedly doing it to the same PC is annoying.

But otherwise, yes. 5e (unlike 3e) does not reward super-specialization, especially in damage types. A more balanced approach (both within a character and within a party) is needed to succeed.

If a character's favored abilities or tactics are always hard countered, that's a problem. If most of the time you're fine, but once in a while you face an opponent that seems to be your own personal devil, that's just things staying interesting. If you find yourself forced into a situation where the opposition can hard counter your entire group with no way around it, that's problem railroading or vindictiveness. If you know you're going to raid the temple of the fire elements and your evoker chooses to prepare only offensive fire combat spells, that's not on the DM at all.

Vaz

2018-01-29, 08:22 PM

If a character's favored abilities or tactics are always hard countered, that's a problem. If most of the time you're fine, but once in a while you face an opponent that seems to be your own personal devil, that's just things staying interesting. If you find yourself forced into a situation where the opposition can hard counter your entire group with no way around it, that's problem railroading or vindictiveness. If you know you're going to raid the temple of the fire elements and your evoker chooses to prepare only offensive fire combat spells, that's not on the DM at all.

Your DM is putting the fire temple specifically in front of you, knowing that the character you want to play is someone who uses Fire spells. If that's not a DM saying '**** you, and **** your character concept' I don't know what is.

It's just not a fun mechanic. There is nothing 'fun' about 'you are dog **** unless you're preparing for a DM to **** you over' because that is precisely what Immunity and Resistance is.

If you have a character who is specifically build around being a Postman and just sending burning balls of flame, they shouldn't have to be forced to try and fix the DM's gotcha.

Imagine playing football, when you get ounched in the face. Ref allows it. Why do you get punched in the face? Apparently it's because you are left footed and the ref decided to not like Lefties.

If you are that much of a **** DM to tell someone that they can't do anything because you don't like them and feel like hiding behind some bull**** like 'it's the stories fault' when you literally command the story, well, feel free to keep thinking 'Resistance is fine in the hands of a DM'.

Do yourself a favour, and take away resistance and immunities from monsters. Watch how **** all happens to the game, apart from you become better as a DM, and actually throw a decent challenge rather than artificially bulking HP. Maybe throw in a few more vulnerabilities ratger than resistances to reward someone who is willing to switch. Fire Dragon, vulnerable to Cold? Well i'll be damned. The fire wizard isn't penalized except they may consider next time taking Snowball Swarm rather than Fireball. The Fighter may look at picking up a Frost Brand rather than their simple +2 Halberd.

It's like you idiots need it explaining. When i trained people, I allowed them to have Liberty Weekends for doing well. I was seen as benevolent, Mr Nice Guy. Trainees performed harder, better, because they wanted to do well. Other instructors took Shore Leave away from people who failed. Carrot and stick. Reward people, don't punish people.

Absolutely gopping attitudes, you lot.

Sigreid

2018-01-29, 09:58 PM

Your DM is putting the fire temple specifically in front of you, knowing that the character you want to play is someone who uses Fire spells. If that's not a DM saying '**** you, and **** your character concept' I don't know what is.

It's just not a fun mechanic. There is nothing 'fun' about 'you are dog **** unless you're preparing for a DM to **** you over' because that is precisely what Immunity and Resistance is.

If you have a character who is specifically build around being a Postman and just sending burning balls of flame, they shouldn't have to be forced to try and fix the DM's gotcha.

Imagine playing football, when you get ounched in the face. Ref allows it. Why do you get punched in the face? Apparently it's because you are left footed and the ref decided to not like Lefties.

If you are that much of a **** DM to tell someone that they can't do anything because you don't like them and feel like hiding behind some bull**** like 'it's the stories fault' when you literally command the story, well, feel free to keep thinking 'Resistance is fine in the hands of a DM'.

Do yourself a favour, and take away resistance and immunities from monsters. Watch how **** all happens to the game, apart from you become better as a DM, and actually throw a decent challenge rather than artificially bulking HP. Maybe throw in a few more vulnerabilities ratger than resistances to reward someone who is willing to switch. Fire Dragon, vulnerable to Cold? Well i'll be damned. The fire wizard isn't penalized except they may consider next time taking Snowball Swarm rather than Fireball. The Fighter may look at picking up a Frost Brand rather than their simple +2 Halberd.

It's like you idiots need it explaining. When i trained people, I allowed them to have Liberty Weekends for doing well. I was seen as benevolent, Mr Nice Guy. Trainees performed harder, better, because they wanted to do well. Other instructors took Shore Leave away from people who failed. Carrot and stick. Reward people, don't punish people.

Absolutely gopping attitudes, you lot.

I guess you and I will differ. I've not had a DM intentionally screw the characters since I was a kid. Of course I also don't play in games that aren't sandbox. If the party is going to the temple of the fire elementals, it's because that's where they want to go.

Some of what I'm hearing here is people are playing, or have played a particularly ugly style of D&D I'm glad doesn't apply to my group.

danpit2991

2018-01-29, 10:34 PM

Why gimp anuthing that players use. Actually never seen Alert as a major factor in a game and as for lucky... dice are like an unfaithful lover.

the dice are ever faithful... but they are jealous and vengeful

thoroughlyS

2018-01-29, 11:31 PM

I'd be hesitant about the constraint this puts on monster design and just what immunity represents.
I don't see how this feat would be at all constraining to monster design specifically. If you want a creature to have an immunity, it can still have that immunity; the likelihood that a given party will have a character with this feat—of the appropriate damage type—is pretty negligible.

As for encounter design, the resistance aspect of this feat already affects a small number of monster to begin with. The best case scenario for a character with the original feat is that they circumvent cold resistance for 46 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage) monsters out of the 322 in the monster manual (including animals and NPCs). The best case scenario for a character with this change is that they will have an edge against the 40 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379165-MM-Resistances-Immunities-Vulnerabilities-and-Damage) monsters immune to fire. And remember that those monsters would still have resistance to the damage, and still be harder for that character to fight than a creature of equivalent CR without that immunity (statistically, the more likely case).

I'm also far from convinced the feat needs it to be attractive.
That is completely true; the feat was already a popular choice. This change is entirely based on preference, but as discussed above probably won't shift the balance of the game.

If the underlying idea is that immunity is unfun and should be mitigated, that seems like something that should be addressed generally, not in a feat.
The underlying idea is not that immunity is unfun, the idea is that bypassing immunity is really fun! There's something quite evocative about burning a red dragon to death...

strangebloke

2018-01-29, 11:49 PM

The underlying idea is not that immunity is unfun, the idea is that bypassing immunity is really fun! There's something quite evocative about burning a red dragon to death...

It's also kind of dumb.

Burning a fire elemental? Poisoning a water elemental? Killing a zombie with necrotic damage?

Stupid.

Fixes should be done in order of importance to the overall health of the game. This is unnecessary and pointless.

Malifice

2018-01-29, 11:53 PM

It's also kind of dumb.

Burning a fire elemental? Poisoning a water elemental? Killing a zombie with necrotic damage?

Stupid.

Not all all.

Your Fire spells use Hellfire or chennel the plasmatic fury of a dying star, or use ebon flame or whatever; its fire so hot/ special/ mystical/ divine it can even burn Fire elementals to death.

Thats not stupid. Thats cool.

Arkhios

2018-01-30, 12:05 AM

Not all all.

Your Fire spells use Hellfire or chennel the plasmatic fury of a dying star, or use ebon flame or whatever; its fire so hot/ special/ mystical/ divine it can even burn Fire elementals to death.

Thats not stupid. Thats cool.

Yeah. A fire can burn in different heats. It depends on the fuel how hot it burns. (also, the color is an indicator).

A fireman's suit is fireproof, but only to a certain limit (which is so high that it's basically immunity). But hot enough flames can burn through that too.

ad_hoc

2018-01-30, 12:09 AM

Horses for courses I guess.

I prefer open ended games where there is no defined end game. Preferably sandboxes.

You play your PC until you decide to retire him (and how).

So you're happy to play to level 40 and beyond?

There is always a defined end game. The end game is when people want to stop playing. It's tautological. You just want your end game to happen later than I want mine.

I am happy enough with adventure paths but I prefer sandboxes. High tier play isn't more of a sandbox than low and mid tier play.

Malifice

2018-01-30, 12:16 AM

Yeah. A fire can burn in different heats. It depends on the fuel how hot it burns. (also, the color is an indicator).

A fireman's suit is fireproof, but only to a certain limit (which is so high that it's basically immunity). But hot enough flames can burn through that too.

Plus you know; magic.

'My fire spells are Ebon Fire; fire that burns with the Mystical light of the Elder evils, and is ensorcelled to burn even those creatures immune to fire.'

Or maybe (for something a little more relevant and relatable) maybe even: 'I bear the Sacred flame of Anor, gifted to me by Eru the one, and it burns even a creature of Flame and Smoke like a Balrog. Back fell beast, YOU SHALL NOT PASS!'

Stupid or awesomely cool?

I go with the latter.

Arkhios

2018-01-30, 12:27 AM

So you're happy to play to level 40 and beyond?

There is always a defined end game. The end game is when people want to stop playing. It's tautological. You just want your end game to happen later than I want mine.

I am happy enough with adventure paths but I prefer sandboxes. High tier play isn't more of a sandbox than low and mid tier play.

I associate "end game" as a term to something truly remarkable the characters will take part before becoming part of history - or legends even - regardless of what their level is at that point.

A game that just ends due to lack of interest... it's same as if you watched a movie on VHS tape and the end of the tape is damaged to a point that the movie ends abruptly and you are left wondering "how does the story end?"

There's a difference. In a game, there isn't always a defined end game.

Malifice

2018-01-30, 12:52 AM

So you're happy to play to level 40 and beyond?

Yes. If the campaign/ DM is worth his salt absolutely.

My favorite campaign ever was a Rolemaster campaign in my youth where we played every weekend (often all weekend) for 5 years. It was a Sandbox (the DM used the old MERP maps, and we would wander off to a dungeon on the maps, he'd spontaneously draw a dungeon, stat rooms with monsters from Creatures and Treasures, and we'd kick the **** out of it, and head back to town to sell loot). Once we got powerful and wealthy enough we all went off to establish churches, build castles, gain titles, train apprentices etc.

Same campaign, DM and campaign world (although many PCs died off, or retired, so we wound up with several groups adventuring in different parts of the world, some of whom were lower level apprentices to higher level PCs etc).

Highest level PC was a 60th level Mage, who had M/C-ed into Cleric (and was also 60th level in that class).

Few DMs are capable of running such a game. That particular DM was able to run a Sandbox campaign world, using Rolemaster no less as a game system, in a campaign world featuring 3-4 different parties of PCs (of varying levels of power, including some that were near god like in power) all roaming around the world and interacting with each other.

There is always a defined end game. The end game is when people want to stop playing. It's tautological. You just want your end game to happen later than I want mine.

No-one wanted to stop playing. We kind of had to stop when real life got in the way, and we all got jobs, joined the army, went to prison or got married/ had kids (depending on the player).

Ive never played in as amazing a campaign before or since. If only I realized then just how awesome that campaign was, and that even now some 25 years later, and after playing and DMing across several continents in dozens of groups, I've never come close to experiencing something so immersive and awesome.

LeonBH

2018-01-30, 01:46 AM

Yeah. A fire can burn in different heats. It depends on the fuel how hot it burns. (also, the color is an indicator).

A fireman's suit is fireproof, but only to a certain limit (which is so high that it's basically immunity). But hot enough flames can burn through that too.

A fire that is so hot that it can bypass immunity should intuitively be so hot that it can deal more damage to non-immune creatures.

So if the fire from a Fireball could burn through a Fire elemental's protections, that means it should absolutely burn and scald and even kill the PC standing next to it. But it doesn't, because they will both take 8d6 damage.

It could be bypassed by saying "it's magic" though.

Malifice

2018-01-30, 01:55 AM

A fire that is so hot that it can bypass immunity should intuitively be so hot that it can deal more damage to non-immune creatures.

So if the fire from a Fireball could burn through a Fire elemental's protections, that means it should absolutely burn and scald and even kill the PC standing next to it. But it doesn't, because they will both take 8d6 damage.

It could be bypassed by saying "it's magic" though.

Presuming that how the physics of Fire elementals and Fireball spells work.

Which considering the subject matter of both sources of heat (a mystical creature made of fire, and a magical spell that evokes sorcereous fire), it almost certainly doesnt adhere to those physics.

LeonBH

2018-01-30, 02:11 AM

Presuming that how the physics of Fire elementals and Fireball spells work.

Which considering the subject matter of both sources of heat (a mystical creature made of fire, and a magical spell that evokes sorcereous fire), it almost certainly doesnt adhere to those physics.

Considering the context of my reply (fires burn at different colors from heat of the flame, fire immunity could break down at high enough temperatures as with a fireman's suit), then absolutely. We presume fire works the same way as in real life.

And like I said, it can be fixed by saying "it's magic."

Malifice

2018-01-30, 02:29 AM

Considering the context of my reply (fires burn at different colors from heat of the flame, fire immunity could break down at high enough temperatures as with a fireman's suit), then absolutely. We presume fire works the same way as in real life.

And like I said, it can be fixed by saying "it's magic."

I'm just saying your premise is flawed.

I'm certainly not going to make presumptions about how magic fire interacts with fantasy beings made of fire.

Arkhios

2018-01-30, 02:33 AM

A fire that is so hot that it can bypass immunity should intuitively be so hot that it can deal more damage to non-immune creatures.

So if the fire from a Fireball could burn through a Fire elemental's protections, that means it should absolutely burn and scald and even kill the PC standing next to it. But it doesn't, because they will both take 8d6 damage.

It could be bypassed by saying "it's magic" though.

I think you may have taken the fireman's suit example a tad too seriously. I only used that as a reference point to reality. Not that it should apply 1-to-1 with the game statistics.

Yes, of course, "because magic" is the most context-appropriate answer, but it's also a very lazy answer. Sometimes metaphors and real-world examples are better.

LeonBH

2018-01-30, 03:20 AM

I'm just saying your premise is flawed.

I'm certainly not going to make presumptions about how magic fire interacts with fantasy beings made of fire.

Not my premise.

I think you may have taken the fireman's suit example a tad too seriously. I only used that as a reference point to reality. Not that it should apply 1-to-1 with the game statistics.

Yes, of course, "because magic" is the most context-appropriate answer, but it's also a very lazy answer. Sometimes metaphors and real-world examples are better.

Agreed it's a lazy answer to say "because magic." I was just pointing out explaining it by heat wouldn't make the explanation self consistent. There are theoretically other ways "fire immunity" can be bypassed by fire in the real world.

strangebloke

2018-01-30, 08:12 AM

Plus you know; magic.

'My fire spells are Ebon Fire; fire that burns with the Mystical light of the Elder evils, and is ensorcelled to burn even those creatures immune to fire.'

Or maybe (for something a little more relevant and relatable) maybe even: 'I bear the Sacred flame of Anor, gifted to me by Eru the one, and it burns even a creature of Flame and Smoke like a Balrog. Back fell beast, YOU SHALL NOT PASS!'

Stupid or awesomely cool?

I go with the latter.

Except, you know.

It isn't.

I mean, hellfire? Are you comitting to that? 'cause as it turns out, devils are one of the creature's with immunities whose abilities you'll be bypassing. Ebon flame? WTH is that? this is DND.

You can justify it, sure, you can make up a new variety of super fire. But why does no one else have access to super special fire?

More to the point, if you're homebrewing something, just Homebrew in a super fire spell or ability. Hellfire that only deals extra damage to fire elementals is pretty freaking lame. A special over channel ability that destroys everything? That's way cooler. Why alter a balanced feat when there's so many silly ones already?

Vaz

2018-01-30, 10:09 AM

Except, you know.

It isn't.

I mean, hellfire? Are you comitting to that? 'cause as it turns out, devils are one of the creature's with immunities whose abilities you'll be bypassing. Ebon flame? WTH is that? this is DND.

You can justify it, sure, you can make up a new variety of super fire. But why does no one else have access to super special fire?

More to the point, if you're homebrewing something, just Homebrew in a super fire spell or ability. Hellfire that only deals extra damage to fire elementals is pretty freaking lame. A special over channel ability that destroys everything? That's way cooler. Why alter a balanced feat when there's so many silly ones already?

"Just homebrew a super fire spell or ability" You mean like giving someone who wants to specialize in fire spells the ability to bypass immunity (and either hit normally, or resisted), and/or resistance? Perhaps by taking something significant as part of build resources? Say, like perhaps a feat? But what happens if you then don't have Fire Immune monsters erryday in front of you? Well, that's a waste of your build, and you done goofed, because your DM isn't throwing a challenge at your party that you can overcome, similar to how not having a rogue means that parties often don't face traps. So, because you've wasted those resources, you've actually done worse than a character who is just generalising, all because you want to specialise, so we need to make it worthwhile. Say, perhaps by making it deal more consistently higher numbers of damage, say by treating 1's as 2's.

Oh look. What do we have here. Exactly what the suggestion was. Back in your hole. Shoo.

Tanarii

2018-01-30, 11:09 AM

A game that just ends due to lack of interest... it's same as if you watched a movie on VHS tape and the end of the tape is damaged to a point that the movie ends abruptly and you are left wondering "how does the story end?"This depends on viewing your game as a story. If you view it as imaginary characters living their imaginary life in an imaginary world, then there is no story to end. The characters went on living their life when the "game" ends.

But also, "end game" already has specific implication, which comes from normal games in which it is possible to win. The meaning is "big finale of the game where you pour on the extra effort to win". Analogies about movies or books or stories onoy works insofar as they have a big finale in which the characters pour on extra effort to win. If you're playing a game of D&D that doesn't have a win condition for the campaign, the campaign doesn't have an end game as it approaches that point.

strangebloke

2018-01-30, 12:37 PM

"Just homebrew a super fire spell or ability" You mean like giving someone who wants to specialize in fire spells the ability to bypass immunity (and either hit normally, or resisted), and/or resistance? Perhaps by taking something significant as part of build resources? Say, like perhaps a feat? But what happens if you then don't have Fire Immune monsters erryday in front of you? Well, that's a waste of your build, and you done goofed, because your DM isn't throwing a challenge at your party that you can overcome, similar to how not having a rogue means that parties often don't face traps. So, because you've wasted those resources, you've actually done worse than a character who is just generalising, all because you want to specialise, so we need to make it worthwhile. Say, perhaps by making it deal more consistently higher numbers of damage, say by treating 1's as 2's.

Oh look. What do we have here. Exactly what the suggestion was. Back in your hole. Shoo.

You're a real sweetheart, you know that?

No strategy should work every time, otherwise there's no cost to specialization. Fire spells specifically deal extra damage, but that's countered by the fact that more things have fire resistance and immunity. So, yeah, specialize in fire, but have backups. You take fireball, burning hands, scorching ray, and firebolt, but you also pick up chromatic orb and cone of cold and thunderwave.

Building a character who can only do one thing is stupid.

And as to the ability I suggested... elemental adept as you've described it is a pretty lame 'special fire.' If this is some crazy esoteric crap that can literally burn fire I'm going to want some additional riders. An extra 1-3 damage per spell isn't that exciting.

I'm not saying that it's broken or terrible. It's a fine thing to do at a specific table if someone built heavily into fire damage and there are high numbers of fire-immune monsters showing up. I'm just saying that as a general-purpose 'fix' its pointless. The feat is strong as-is, immunity is generally fine, and there are other things that are more broken.

Vaz

2018-01-30, 01:21 PM

You're a real sweetheart, you know that?
Poor baby. Bless.

No strategy should work every time,
Why? We're not talking war. We're not talking competitive sports. We're talking 5 or more friends sitting around chilling having a beer, and rolling dice telling stories to one another. Why the **** do you want to tell one friend that you want to specifically punish them?

otherwise there's no cost to specialization. Fire spells specifically deal extra damage, but that's countered by the fact that more things have fire resistance and immunity. So, yeah, specialize in fire, but have backups. You take fireball, burning hands, scorching ray, and firebolt, but you also pick up chromatic orb and cone of cold and thunderwave.
Why? Why should a character who wants to focus on Fire, and take Minute Meteors, Flaming Sphere, and Wall of Fire be penalized, apart from you want to say "**** you"?

Building a character who can only do one thing is stupid.
No. Telling someone that their way of having fun is stupid. If someone wants to be able to specialize

And as to the ability I suggested... elemental adept as you've described it is a pretty lame 'special fire.' If this is some crazy esoteric crap that can literally burn fire I'm going to want some additional riders. An extra 1-3 damage per spell isn't that exciting.
I thought it was balanced, you said? Except now the player isn't penalized by **** head DM's like you thinking that "challenge" revolves around telling someone that they can't do the thing they've spent like the last 3 months doing. But hey, it's "unexciting".

I'm not saying that it's broken or terrible. It's a fine thing to do at a specific table if someone built heavily into fire damage and there are high numbers of fire-immune monsters showing up. I'm just saying that as a general-purpose 'fix' its pointless. The feat is strong as-is, immunity is generally fine, and there are other things that are more broken.
I thought you just said elemental adept is unexciting?

Holy ****ing hell, you flip flop like a god-damn penguin from you position. Not gonna lie, you're gonna need a big ass shovel to dig yourself out of this hole you've just put yourself in to justify your position.

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-30, 01:33 PM

I Inspiration points are comparable, which is partially why I don't use them. I also don't use them because, well... geez, some of my players are better at roleplaying, and also better at combat. I don't want to be seen as playing favorites. Seems to be a too restrictive view of how to award inspiration. Anything awesome (even a good idea) that has an impact on the story/adventure can be where inspiration is awarded. You don't have to restrict it to "oh, cool, you RP'd a flaw so you get an inspiration point" even though that's the example used in the DMG.

Our DM awards inspiration now and again, and in one case I got inspiration for something cool that happened in battle when I took a huge risk ... and it paid off for the party.

Sigreid

2018-01-30, 01:39 PM

Seems to be a too restrictive view of how to award inspiration. Anything awesome (even a good idea) that has an impact on the story/adventure can be where inspiration is awarded. You don't have to restrict it to "oh, cool, you RP'd a flaw so you get an inspiration point" even though that's the example used in the DMG.

Our DM awards inspiration now and again, and in one case I got inspiration for something cool that happened in battle when I took a huge risk ... and it paid off for the party.

I award inspiration for promoting a fun time for all, however that happens.

strangebloke

2018-01-30, 01:47 PM

snip

A: A single tactic should not always be the most effective. The melee specialist has trouble against flying enemies. The necrotic damage specialist is useless against zombies. The enchanter is weak against things immune to charms. A ranged fighter will have trouble with a small room, or a room with lots of obscurement and cover. These are realistic limitations of those specialist's abilities.

If we reduce a character down to a guy who can just stand in one place in every single encounter use the same exact ability in every single encounter and do very well in every single encounter, thats... boring. It's why DnD combat is fun. You have lots of buttons, any one of which might be applicable in a given situation. If you're less effective than normal because you hyper-specialized in fire and you're fighting fire elementals, well, you're paying the price for the benefits that your specialization earned you in earlier encounters.

The fire dragon sorcerer in my group was exactly the hyper-specialized fire evoker you're talking about, and on the rare occasion that fire-immune enemies appeared, she would immediately switch to using her three non-fire spells. (Fly, chromatic orb, and haste) She was less effective like this, but it wasn't like she couldn't play the game. Anyway, that was never more than one or two encounters out of fifty.

If I sent her up against only fire elementals, yeah, you'd be right to call me a ****, but that isn't even remotely what I'm talking about.

B: Elemental Adept is balanced. It's fine. I've never said otherwise. The "treat 1's as 2's" is a small but reasonable damage boost for the cost (1/2 feat) that is comparable with fighting styles like dueling or GWF, (which are also considered to have a value of 1/2 feat. It isn't flashy, however, in the same way that dueling or GWF isn't flashy. It's a nice bonus to all fire spells. The overcoming resistance part is also good value for half a feat.

I'm just saying that if I, as a DM, created an ability that could burn fire I'd want to make it flashier. It's not a balance thing. It's a rule of cool thing. Conceptually, I just feel that burning fire should be a bigger deal. Like:

"When you cast a spell that deals 'x' damage, expend sorcery points equal to the level of the spell. The spell deals damage as though it had rolled maximum on all damage die. Resistance of the target(s) to the damage type is ignored, immunity of the target(s) to the damage type is treated as resistance."

Or a metamagic option that converts the damage type of a spell from one elemental damage to another. From 'fire' to 'cold fire.'

Other classes would need different solutions, if this is a change you want to implement.

KorvinStarmast

2018-01-30, 01:51 PM

Spear Mastery I hope they tweak this one just right so that it can be added to the game. I like that particular feat a lot, and spears were and are one of the most basic, most frequently used weapons in the genre era we are talking about. There are a few great threads about spear master on this board ... most probably at necro stage by this point.

Do yourself a favour, and take away resistance and immunities from monsters. Watch how **** all happens to the game, apart from you become better as a DM, and actually throw a decent challenge rather than artificially bulking HP. Maybe throw in a few more vulnerabilities ratger than resistances to reward someone who is willing to switch. Fire Dragon, vulnerable to Cold? Well i'll be damned. The fire wizard isn't penalized except they may consider next time taking Snowball Swarm rather than Fireball. The Fighter may look at picking up a Frost Brand rather than their simple +2 Halberd.

It's like you idiots need it explaining. When i trained people, I allowed them to have Liberty Weekends for doing well. I was seen as benevolent, Mr Nice Guy. Trainees performed harder, better, because they wanted to do well. Other instructors took Shore Leave away from people who failed. Carrot and stick. Reward people, don't punish people. I agree with immunity and resistance being far too often used to artificially pump up the HP bag, while vulnerabilities are nearly non existent. (When one reviews the MM, it's really flagrant). I tend to agree with this portion of your post, and your other point about incentivizing desired behaviors.
I award inspiration for promoting a fun time for all, however that happens. Yeah, that's the way to do it.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-30, 02:13 PM

I agree with immunity and resistance being far too often used to artificially pump up the HP bag, while vulnerabilities are nearly non existent. (When one reviews the MM, it's really flagrant).

It's actually intentional. There's guidance in the DMG that if something is vulnerable to more than one thing, just cut the HP instead. Basically, vulnerability is supposed (for whatever reason) to be rare. Probably a simplicity issue. Do I agree? Maybe. Not sure.

strangebloke

2018-01-30, 02:18 PM

It's actually intentional. There's guidance in the DMG that if something is vulnerable to more than one thing, just cut the HP instead. Basically, vulnerability is supposed (for whatever reason) to be rare. Probably a simplicity issue. Do I agree? Maybe. Not sure.

As a general principle, vulnerability/resistance are fun as they force players to adapt to an enemy and try to think around it. I can see that not being true at other tables. You got this otherwise unstoppable shadow-beast and then the paladin whips out his radiant damage... beautiful. Same could be said of a fire spell against a plant monster.

That said, there are way too many creatures resilient to non-magical weapons, and not nearly enough that interact with the piercing/slashing/bludgeoning nonsense. And there are too many resistant creatures relative to the number of vulnerable creatures.

Phoenix042

2018-01-30, 02:23 PM

I gave one of my players a scepter called the hellfire scepter. Among it's powers was this:

Fires of Amon
When you cast a spell that deals fire damage, you can spend one charge to empower your spell with fiendish energy. The spell deals additional fire damage equal to the spell's level, and the spell ignores resistance to fire. Creatures that are immune to fire take half of the fire damage dealt by the spell, instead of none.

clash

2018-01-30, 02:27 PM

The problem with vulnerability in general is that it penalizes characters far more resistance does.

Bob is a sorcerer with mostly fire spells, and thunder-wave for when things are resistant to fire.
Hank is a wizard who can prepare any damage type under the sun and likes to keep his options open.
Tim is a fighter who has a +1 magic item and never has to worry about resistance from that point forward.

Case one:
They are journeying through the elemental temples fighting guys with resistance to fire, then cold, then thunder.
Bob is slightly behind the power curve in the fire temple using thunderwave but is fine in every other temple.
Nothing changes for Hank.
Nothing changes for Tim.

Case two:
Same as above except each elemental has vulnerability to the opposing element.
Bob is slightly behind the power curve in the fire temple using thunderwave but is fine in every other temple.
Nothing changes for Tim.
Hank the wizard has the right spell to deal double damage to every single elemental.
Bob and Tim are both way behind this new "power curve"
Bob and Tim go home feeling useless.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-30, 02:27 PM

As a general principle, vulnerability/resistance are fun as they force players to adapt to an enemy and try to think around it. I can see that not being true at other tables. You got this otherwise unstoppable shadow-beast and then the paladin whips out his radiant damage... beautiful. Same could be said of a fire spell against a plant monster.

That said, there are way too many creatures resilient to non-magical weapons, and not nearly enough that interact with the piercing/slashing/bludgeoning nonsense. And there are too many resistant creatures relative to the number of vulnerable creatures.

I'd pair immune and vulnerable, not resistant and vulnerable. Dealing 50% damage is still not bad. Dealing nothing forces a change in tactics.

After spending a lot of time in the MM, I've decided the following.

Resistance to non-magical BPS is a flag for "you're not ready for this yet." It allows a limited level gate, because by the time you're ready for them, casters can do magic weapon, paladins have enough slots to smite, AT/EK can use cantrips, etc. or you can just brute-force through the HP with increased damage (poor barbarians). If instead you increased actual HP (not effective HP) you'd have huge bloated totals that don't show this step-change effect. This way things go from being serious challenges to every-day fights, right about the right levels. This signals that you've arrived.

Resistances/immunities to energy-type damage is almost entirely based on theme. Those aren't used as gates.

Vulnerabilities come mostly in traits, not in extra damage. CF a fire elemental's vulnerability to water or the light sensitivity traits. Just switching up damage types for massive damage seems pretty boring to me, and I'm not fond of the golf-bag style (a weapon for every occasion) as it strains my suspension of disbelief.

strangebloke

2018-01-30, 03:02 PM

I'd pair immune and vulnerable, not resistant and vulnerable. Dealing 50% damage is still not bad. Dealing nothing forces a change in tactics.

After spending a lot of time in the MM, I've decided the following.

Resistance to non-magical BPS is a flag for "you're not ready for this yet." It allows a limited level gate, because by the time you're ready for them, casters can do magic weapon, paladins have enough slots to smite, AT/EK can use cantrips, etc. or you can just brute-force through the HP with increased damage (poor barbarians). If instead you increased actual HP (not effective HP) you'd have huge bloated totals that don't show this step-change effect. This way things go from being serious challenges to every-day fights, right about the right levels. This signals that you've arrived.

Resistances/immunities to energy-type damage is almost entirely based on theme. Those aren't used as gates.

Vulnerabilities come mostly in traits, not in extra damage. CF a fire elemental's vulnerability to water or the light sensitivity traits. Just switching up damage types for massive damage seems pretty boring to me, and I'm not fond of the golf-bag style (a weapon for every occasion) as it strains my suspension of disbelief.

Good points about non-magic resistance. Still, it prevents a lot of otherwise decent builds, and I'll forever resent it for that.

The thing I think of as 'fun' with regards to vulnerability was a big undead monster from 3x that I thought was really cool. It was this huge, ugly thing covered in giant sores. He had ludicrous HP for his CR, but every attack that hit him that include piercing or slashing damage got an extra ten per attack. I remember thinking. "This is super disgusting but also thematic and great."

Which is a bit different from vulnerability, I now realize.

anways. Off-topic.

Waterdeep Merch

2018-01-30, 03:14 PM

Good points about non-magic resistance. Still, it prevents a lot of otherwise decent builds, and I'll forever resent it for that.

The thing I think of as 'fun' with regards to vulnerability was a big undead monster from 3x that I thought was really cool. It was this huge, ugly thing covered in giant sores. He had ludicrous HP for his CR, but every attack that hit him that include piercing or slashing damage got an extra ten per attack. I remember thinking. "This is super disgusting but also thematic and great."

Which is a bit different from vulnerability, I now realize.

anways. Off-topic.

I've been trying to come up with some more interesting boss fights, and one idea I've had is that a boss has levels of immunity/resistance/vulnerability that change according to how you attack it. For example- a heavily armored beast might be fully immune to slashing and piercing damage at first. But if you deal either fire, cold, or acid damage, it weakens the immunity- they're now resistant thanks to the armor becoming malleable or brittle. And if you then hit it with a bludgeoning attack, it shatters the armor, now making it vulnerable to slashing and piercing.

Or a ghost begins as immune to all physical damage, but once hit by radiant damage, it becomes corporeal and vulnerable to all physical damage. Or a nightwalker begins as resistant to necrotic damage, but using any healing magic on it gives it a living heart, now making it vulnerable to necrotic. Stuff like this, where its resistances/vulnerabilities tell an interactive story and reward some cleverness.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-30, 03:17 PM

Good points about non-magic resistance. Still, it prevents a lot of otherwise decent builds, and I'll forever resent it for that.

Like what? In anything but the lowest-magic worlds, you'll probably have a magic weapon (remember, that doesn't have to have any +X bonuses--a simple moontouched weapon works). For the rest, you can have the wizard or sorcerer cast magic weapon, etc.

The thing I think of as 'fun' with regards to vulnerability was a big undead monster from 3x that I thought was really cool. It was this huge, ugly thing covered in giant sores. He had ludicrous HP for his CR, but every attack that hit him that include piercing or slashing damage got an extra ten per attack. I remember thinking. "This is super disgusting but also thematic and great."

Which is a bit different from vulnerability, I now realize.

That would work as a Trait. That's a key point about 5e monsters--most of the action is in the traits and actions, not in the base stats. Traits are what make things thematic and different.

strangebloke

2018-01-30, 03:25 PM

Like what? In anything but the lowest-magic worlds, you'll probably have a magic weapon (remember, that doesn't have to have any +X bonuses--a simple moontouched weapon works). For the rest, you can have the wizard or sorcerer cast magic weapon, etc.

not any optimal builds, but I've had three players who wanted to use tavern brawler to play a fist-fighter kind of character without being a monk. No accounting for taste I guess. Easy enough to fix, anyway.

That would work as a Trait. That's a key point about 5e monsters--most of the action is in the traits and actions, not in the base stats. Traits are what make things thematic and different.

yeah, I realized that. We're pretty off-topic now, though.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-30, 03:31 PM

yeah, I realized that. We're pretty off-topic now, though.

I may have monsters on the brain right now...:smallcool:

AHF

2018-01-30, 07:47 PM

Lucky I dislike just because of the "turns disad into super-advantage"... Otherwise I think it is okay.

Out of curiosity for a relative newbie at 5e, what is "super-advantage"? I've seen it referenced several times on this thread. Thanks!

AHF

2018-01-30, 07:51 PM

Killing a zombie with necrotic damage?

The necrotic damage specialist is useless against zombies.

Aren't zombies just as vulnerable as Humans to necrotic damage in 5e?

Zombie -
Damage Immunities: poison
Condition Immunities: poisoned

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-30, 07:53 PM

Aren't zombies just as vulnerable as Humans to necrotic damage in 5e?

Exactly. There are only a few undead with necrotic resistance, mostly at high levels. And that makes sense, since necrotic damage is rot and decay, entropy in action. That can make the flesh/bones disintegrate quicker.

Necrotic/radiant aren't negative/positive energy in the same way they once were. Radiant is more like radiation damage, necrotic is more hastened decay.

Sigreid

2018-01-30, 08:35 PM

Exactly. There are only a few undead with necrotic resistance, mostly at high levels. And that makes sense, since necrotic damage is rot and decay, entropy in action. That can make the flesh/bones disintegrate quicker.

Necrotic/radiant aren't negative/positive energy in the same way they once were. Radiant is more like radiation damage, necrotic is more hastened decay.

I kind of miss necrotic being negative planner energy described as a draining, hunger. I just find it a more frightening and thematic description.

Wryte

2018-01-30, 08:38 PM

Out of curiosity for a relative newbie at 5e, what is "super-advantage"? I've seen it referenced several times on this thread. Thanks!

Super-Advantage isn't actually a thing. Those posts are referring to the Elven Accuracy feat that was added in Xanathar's Guide, which allows elves who take it to roll 3 dice instead of just 2 whenever they have advantage on non-Strength attack rolls. Because regular advantage is 2 dice, they are colloquially calling this 3-dice version super advantage.

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-30, 08:43 PM

I kind of miss necrotic being negative planner energy described as a draining, hunger. I just find it a more frightening and thematic description.

Draining doesn't really make sense to me (never has, really). I like the idea of causing someone's flesh to melt off their bones or making things powder at your command. YMMV.

thoroughlyS

2018-01-30, 08:48 PM

Dudewithknives

2018-01-30, 08:53 PM

I feel like the thread kind of got caught up in discussions about damage immunity/resistance/vulnerability. Are there other issues anyone sees with my suggestions?

Most of those look pretty solid.

If you change martial adept to 2 d8s I would say only one maneuver choice.

Skilled I would just make it 2 skills and an expertise.

PAM make the 1d4 bonus attack count as a different weapon and follow the TWF rules.
It us the fact it gets a bonus stat for free and a bonus attack, and a reaction attack, and can be enhanced as 1 weapon that is crazy. It needs a nerf huge.

Sigreid

2018-01-30, 09:51 PM

Draining doesn't really make sense to me (never has, really). I like the idea of causing someone's flesh to melt off their bones or making things powder at your command. YMMV.

No worries. I just always liked the image of the negative material plane being essentially a massive, insatiable hunger.

Malifice

2018-01-30, 10:31 PM

Most of those look pretty solid.

If you change martial adept to 2 d8s I would say only one maneuver choice.

Skilled I would just make it 2 skills and an expertise.

PAM make the 1d4 bonus attack count as a different weapon and follow the TWF rules.
It us the fact it gets a bonus stat for free and a bonus attack, and a reaction attack, and can be enhanced as 1 weapon that is crazy. It needs a nerf huge.

We make it 2 die (2d6).

And we limit Sup die (and smites, and GWM/ SS) to 1/ turn (2/ turn for Sup dice if a BM of 10th level+).

AHF

2018-01-30, 10:42 PM

Super-Advantage isn't actually a thing. Those posts are referring to the Elven Accuracy feat that was added in Xanathar's Guide, which allows elves who take it to roll 3 dice instead of just 2 whenever they have advantage on non-Strength attack rolls. Because regular advantage is 2 dice, they are colloquially calling this 3-dice version super advantage.

Thanks! Will file that shorthand away.

LeonBH

2018-01-31, 12:12 AM

Thanks! Will file that shorthand away.

The specific feat you were referencing though was talking about Lucky, which grants a similar but limited ability. When you roll any d20, if you don't like the result, you can roll another d20 and choose which result you keep.

So if you roll at disadvantage, and you roll a 3 and a 10, you've rolled a 3. But using Luck, you can roll another d20 and, say, get a 13 on that. You've just rolled 3d20 and picked the best outcome.

Luck allows this thrice per long rest. Elven Accuracy is a different feat and it works any time you have advantage on a dex, int, wis, or cha attack.

Sindeloke

2018-01-31, 07:45 AM

I'm not fond of the golf-bag style (a weapon for every occasion) as it strains my suspension of disbelief.

Huh, really?

There are definitely reasons to dislike golf-bag design - all the same reasons, notably, as there are for disliking elemental rock-paper-scissors, because it's the exact same mechanical effect - but it's actually way more realistic than just carrying a greathammer everywhere and turning every problem into a nail. Unless he's specifically stuck in a city where there are restrictions on weapon carries, any real-world equivalent to a D&D fighter or barbarian has a spear on his back for ranged encounters, a one-hand sword on his hip as a sidearm in case the spear gets broken or his enemy gets inside it, and a dagger in his boot for slitting the throats of wounded enemies once they're on the ground. If he knows he's going up against enemies with strong armor, he's going to switch up and bring a greatsword or an axe or hammer if he's been trained in their use, because they're way more effective against armored foes. If he's a medieval knight he might swap out the spear for a flail since many of his enemies will have shields. He doesn't leave the house for battle without taking as many of these options as he's trained in and can fit on his person, because his life is on the line and trying to stab a dude in a chain shirt with a spear when he could have a halberd on his back instead is the equivalent of getting into a game of chicken on the highway and not buckling his seat belt first.

Anyway as far as feats go, I actually dislike Actor a lot. It has that 3.path thing going where it's trying to give you the ability to do something neat, but actually all it does is make it impossible to do something neat without the feat and actually restricts the gameworld heavily. Same thing with Linguist ciphers. The model for these should be Observant: the lip-reading in that is an auto-success, which does successfully put the idea of lip-reading into the game, but also leaves room for people without the feat to attempt lip-reading with an appropriate check. No feat should give you the ability to do something interesting with a check. You should be able to attempt anything with a check by default. If a feat is going to give you ventriloquism or whatever it should be a guaranteed success under any normal circumstance, or at worst let you cheat the action economy with it (like Shield Master's bonus action shove or the Martial Adept's attack riders).

PhoenixPhyre

2018-01-31, 07:57 AM

Theodoxus

2018-01-31, 08:43 AM

It also plays badly with magic items being rare--that makes a weapon-user (fighters, mostly) strongly dependent on getting a bunch of magic weapons. On the other hand, wizards or other mage-types don't care at all.

Right... except when you're fighting things in a dead magic zone (of whatever variety) or against magic immune creatures... common? No. Possible? sure. Did you plan for it? Some do, some don't... It's like playing a monk because you hate being unarmed and unarmored, even if your DM has never started a party as prisoners. It's like playing a halfling because the DM is a fan of fatal critical fumbles. It's like playing vhumans because every concept has that one feat that ties it all together.

This is 5E we're talking about, so magic items aren't really that important. And if you're really that concerned about it, play a Forge cleric. That's two weapons you can make magical. It's no different than the other examples I noted above.

Sindeloke

2018-02-01, 03:32 AM

My objection to golf-bag design is access. If you have to switch weapons every fight (or even multiple times per fight), it means that you have to have them accessible. Having a sword and a polearm is fine, but where's your crushing weapon? Your ranged slashing weapon? Etc. How can you move with all those weapons strapped to you? How many hands do you have?

Like I said, any real-world warrior has a polearm on his back, a sidearm at his hip, and a dagger on his belt or in his boot. If that shmuck Achilles can do it, Amelia Dawnflower the Champion of Pelor shouldn't have any trouble. Carry a naginata, a morningstar, and a dagger, and you've got all three damage types covered for any melee engagement without even grabbing anything off your mule. (Are you screwed at range? Yes, but that's true in the current game anyway.) Even in a group of mixed immunity enemies you're pretty unlikely to have to switch mid-fight, because you can just divide up your foes amongst your party and D&D doesn't really understand or care about reach, but if you have to you can just drop your polearm and leave it on the ground until the fight is over, exactly like the Greeks and Romans did once the fighting got close.

Magic weapons are a minor obstacle, really - as Theoxodus points out, 5e doesn't actually care that much and if for some reason it suddenly matters, why do you even drag that wizard around with you if he won't blow a spell slot on magic weapon? The big problem is feats and fighting styles. A wizard who focuses all available resources on cold damage who switches from ray of frost to chill touch loses rerolls on 1s and 2s. A paladin who focuses all available resources on polearms who switches from halberd to dagger loses rerolls on 1s and 2s, 13 entire damage per die, and one entire attack. That's such an absurd percentage of her damage that she might as well spend her turns grappling to improve the mages' chances of hitting the immune creature instead. Martials get locked into specific weapons much more strongly by sheer class design than they ever could by enemy defenses.

Which, look at that segue, is a great reason to fix Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master. In AD&D one of the two great virtues of fighters was that they could use literally any weapon, so no matter what random treasure you stumbled across, it was valuable to you as a Punchy Man. We could not be further from that right now and it vexes me, a fighter should be a master of all weapons rather than being forced to hyperspecialize. If you must bury weapon damage in feats, create one feat that offers Power Attack and crit bonus attacks to any weapon, and create one feat that offers utility based on the weapon you have (free trip with axes, reach OAs with polearms, attack bonus with curved swords while mounted, whatever). So you don't have to freak out about wasting massive chunks of your class resource just because your sword breaks. (This also lets the DM introduce things like disarming and rust monsters that make combat more interesting and varied without feeling ridiculously punitive on the poor This Specific Weapon-dependent martials.)

mephnick

2018-02-01, 09:15 AM

Arkhios

2018-02-01, 09:28 AM

People completely ignore encumbrance but then get picky about this. Like, you've already decided you don't care about carry capacity because math is hard but god forbid the fighter have 4 weapons.

(general statement, not aimed at you)

Yeah, it's funny how hypocritical people can be. It's all fun and games until others see things differently than you do. Then, it gets all serious business.

N810

2018-02-01, 10:01 AM

Seems Legit :smallwink:
https://gomakemeasandwich.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/manatarms.jpg

Arkhios

2018-02-01, 10:09 AM

Seems Legit :smallwink:
https://gomakemeasandwich.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/manatarms.jpg

Goddammit, Wayne Reynolds! :smallbiggrin:

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-01, 10:44 AM

Goddammit, Wayne Reynolds! :smallbiggrin:

Sitting down must be painful. And don't mention getting through doorways...:smallsmile:

N810

2018-02-01, 10:46 AM

lol, my Barbarian was carrying roughly that much stuff at one point,
and he actually had quite a bit of encumbrance to spare.
(the belt of giant strength helped a little)

Willie the Duck

2018-02-01, 11:01 AM

It all depends on where you put your verisimilitude. In real life Sindeloke's example of naginata, morningstar, and dagger is rather hard to pull off (morningstars being not great for carrying at your belt or on your back).

But you know what else is really inconvenient? The composite longbow, along with long, bastard sword or two-handed sword, plus maybe shield, that we all had our fighters carrying throughout the AD&D era.

Adventuring parties do not much look like the people in real medieval times who went around with weapons-- armies had draft beasts and carts and retainers and whatnots to help them haul their stuff. The two (realism and D&D) aren't going to work the same way. So get the golf bag--gives your martials reason to consider a Strength build instead of Dex.

Sitting down must be painful. And don't mention getting through doorways...

Imagine all the 3e guys in their spiked armor. :smalltongue:

Coffee_Dragon

2018-02-01, 11:17 AM

Yeah, it's funny how hypocritical people can be. It's all fun and games until others see things differently than you do. Then, it gets all serious business.

So it is serious business what people feel does or doesn't break verisimilitude? If you think it's not worth tracking torches and rations but you do care about assortments of weapons, you're a hypocrite?

Arkhios

2018-02-01, 01:05 PM

So it is serious business what people feel does or doesn't break verisimilitude? If you think it's not worth tracking torches and rations but you do care about assortments of weapons, you're a hypocrite?

Encumbrance is encumbrance. I merely criticized that on one hand people feel that tracking weight of <something> is meaningless, but still tracking the amount of <something else> is somehow more important. I find it ridiculous that you choose to track the amount of equipment but not the weight of them. Either way, it breaks verisimilitude. If you're not interested in the weight of your equipment at all, why is it so important to argue whether one can carry 4 or 10 weapons?

PhoenixPhyre

2018-02-01, 01:24 PM

Encumbrance is encumbrance. I merely criticized that on one hand people feel that tracking weight of <something> is meaningless, but still tracking the amount of <something else> is somehow more important. I find it ridiculous that you choose to track the amount of equipment but not the weight of them. Either way, it breaks verisimilitude. If you're not interested in the weight of your equipment at all, why is it so important to argue whether one can carry 4 or 10 weapons?

As the original person there, it's not weight I'm worried about. It's hands to hold things/places to stow them without looking like that picture but still have them accessible. Hyperspace pockets (hammerspace) isn't something I find conducive to verisimilitude.

Polearms are big, morningstars don't sheathe easily, etc. If you're carrying a polearm, that takes up at least one hand pretty constantly. Having that, plus a pack, plus... quickly breaks my suspension of disbelief.