PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next A Ton Of Feats



demonslayerelf
2018-12-22, 11:36 PM
Hellos. I've posted older versions of this up before, but I was tinkering around for a while with my huge list of feats, and added a lot of new ones. More than I could hope to test organically at my table.

So I'm putting it here again. (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BJqM2urmf)

Feedback is always appreciated.

Sir Brett Nortj
2018-12-23, 09:50 AM
Hellos. I've posted older versions of this up before, but I was tinkering around for a while with my huge list of feats, and added a lot of new ones. More than I could hope to test organically at my table.

So I'm putting it here again. (https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/BJqM2urmf)

Feedback is always appreciated.

Bloody fantastic stuff! You have excelled at this, I don't know which one I want first!

* You know, everyone on these boards is working so hard, and, succeeding more importantly. I wish I could gather more of my own ideas like some of you do...

Really fluffy! :smallcool:

Sariel Vailo
2018-12-23, 11:42 AM
I remember the last time this was up here ill look it over and ask some questions.

Blackbando
2018-12-23, 01:18 PM
Oh boy, I have nothing to do this Sunday, so I'm gonna spend like an entire hour or two just reviewing these, in alphabetical order!

It seems these aren't in conjunction with regular feats, but keep in mind, I'm still going to be comparing them to regular feat power level, because if you increase the power level of every feat in the game, then you also make encounters harder to balance. You're free to ignore me, of course, if you wish.

Actor
I don't really know how I feel about granting BI dice as a feat, as well as with these other pretty damn good features. Also, skills should be capitalized, and generally should also state their ability, like so;

You may mimic any sound or voice you have heard for at least 1 minute, but a successful Wisdom (Insight) check against your Charisma (Deception) check allows a listener to determine the sound was faked.
I also really hate when people use "proficiency modifier" instead of "proficiency bonus" but I can't recall if Wizards has done so themselves before so I can't really call it an error.
Adrenaline Rush
The Attack action thing sounds problematic, as it's not limited to once per turn, so you can just insanely nova someone (For example, a paladin with this feat could get off nine attacks in one turn with Polearm Master at 17th+ level, just destroying any sort of final boss).
The initiative part is fine, though it's sort of stepping on the toes of Alert.
The Dash/Disengage part is fine.
Format error; you don't italicize things that aren't spells or weapon properties. It's not Attack or Disengage, it's more so magic missile or wall of fire.
Alchemist
I'm assuming you mean the UA Artificer class? I don't know if that's a good idea to give, since those things can deal an awful lot of damage, or heal a bunch.
Ambidexterity
Format error; Light shouldn't be capitalized.
The first bullet is... Very, very good. A monk can take this and a single level of fighter to Flurry of Blows for free every single round, not to mention a ranger with hunter's mark.
Does the second bullet mean you can attack three times with your offhand, if you use your bonus action??? That's insane! Also, the monk point is brought up again; even if you can't do so, the monk could still flurry.
The last bullet doesn't make sense, at all. How much damage does this do? Off-hand bonus action attacks aren't a thing defined in the rules, so you'll have to explain what you mean. This also probably isn't a good idea in the first place, because it's just Polearm Master, but for all two-handed weapons.
Animal Affinity
Things that grant expertise if you're already proficient are pigeonholing and overall bad design. Usually, it's best to only give expertise if that's the primary function of the feature (like Prodigy feat), or if it's in a more specific case (like the dwarf Stonecunning).
The second bullet, I do actually like! Good on you there! Abilities should be capitalized (so Charisma and Wisdom, not charisma and wisdom), but otherwise it's good!
Third bullet is also fine.
Angry Warrior
I don't think you should be letting fighters and paladins get Rage. That's a super important defining feature of the Barbarian, and those classes can be much better at barbarian-ing with Rage than a barbarian can, due to having more or better attacks.
The second bullet is just being a better version of the half-orc racial feat (I think it's Orcish Fury, but I might be remembering the name wrong). Also, the fact on a critical hit it becomes a d12 is weird.
Overall, I don't think this feat is actually a good idea at all?
Arcadian Heritage
You really, really like to use proficiency bonuses with feats, don't you? Sometimes, it's much better to just give a flat thing, like, for the darkvision here, it should honestly just be 60 feet.
This is just better Magic Initiate, now; that feat gives 2 cantrips, and a 1st level spell once per long rest, and no other benefits. I think maybe you should just scrap the third bullet, or make the third bullet just a single cantrip.
Arcane Equipment
Round counting is not something that 5e does, and I advise against it.
Both of these effects are insanely good, with the offensive essentially being a superior version of Smiting (assuming you can attack a good amount, but since there's things like Tenser's Transformation and Bladesinger, characters who take this probably can), and the armor effect just being way, way too good.
I don't actually know if I can say how I'd fix this, because frankly, these are just better versions of magic weapon and a nonexistent magic armor spell, so, maybe just make the armor portion a spell, and then remove the feat?
Athlete
See what I said earlier about expertise, rest of the feat is fine.
Awakened Mind
Again with using proficiency modifier a lot. Just give them 30 feet of telepathy; you shouldn't be outclassing a subclass feature (Great Old One warlock's 1st level) with a feat.
The actual psionics portion is... It's something. I think you shouldn't have a scaling pool, because Martial Adept is similar, and it just gives you one die. Psionics are, typically, way better than maneuvers, so, it should fall in line there.
Blood Magic
I'm going to assume the hit dice are removed when you do this, but it doesn't actually say they are; they're just rolled. If they're removed, then this feat isn't terrible, but it's still extremely powerful. I don't recommend allowing a feat to regain spell slots higher than 3rd, really, though at maximum it shouldn't restore above 5th, as that's what 5e generally sees as the highest amount of slot you can easily regain (Arcane Recovery, diviner wizard's 6th level feature, Natural Recovery, Pact Magic, Font of Magic, to name a few examples).
Brawler

Your brawler die is the lower of your proficiency die, and the proficiency die as though your strength modifier were your proficiency modifier, to a minimum of 1d4.
I don't actually know what the first bullet of this is trying to convey. What does this actually mean?
Regardless, from what I... think I understand? It seems like it's just sort of being better than monk at punching, which is a bad idea for a feat. Don't give core class features as feats, unless they're nerfed heavily.
I like the pinned idea, but the bludgeoning damage should just be Strength modifier; it's still quite powerful at that.
Also, format error; don't italicize conditions. Don't capitalize them, either.
The third bullet is just kind of buffing Tavern Brawler's thing, by making it any Attack action, but considering this isn't a half-feat (speaking of, why are you just removing half-feats from existence? they're a useful thing for char-building), I think that's fine.
Burning Wrath
See my prior comment on not giving Rage to other classes.
The actual fire thing... I don't entirely hate? The damage is low enough to where it's not exactly overpowered, but since it also applies to your own attacks, every barbarian will take it. Frankly, this feels more like a subclass feature than a feat.
Channel Anger
Again, see prior comment.
Do keep in mind that at 20th level, barbarians have infinite rages, so they just get advantage on every attack, every ability check, and add 20 extra damage to each attack.
The fear thing should probably just be Charisma DC, not Strength as a choice, because it's quite powerful. I'd also just make the frightened condition here last until the start of your next turn, due to how easy it is to proc (less than an action), and how good it is.
Charger
Tabaxi rogue monk with haste boots of speed longstrider and action surge. I don't think I need to say anything more.
I will, though; this is extremely overpowered and easy to break. Regular Charger is kind of bad, but this is going to the next extreme.
Clairvoyant
This is being better than one of the most powerful features of any subclass in the entire game. I don't even know what the 30 feet feature really means, mechanically?
If you need to keep this feat, I'd suggest making it just one portent die. But, frankly, I don't think this should be using Portent. MAYBE something like, 1-2/short rest, when a creature makes an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw, you can use your reaction to grant them a 1d4 bonus or penalty?
That's still quite strong, mind you, but it's a lot more in-line. Frankly, though, it'd probably be better to just use Lucky.
Cruelty
This is almost good! The hit points thing, I don't think that's a good idea, since you can farm hit points via critting, but if you remove that, then it's almost fine. I don't know how I feel about citing an optional rule (proficiency die), though.
Defensive Duelist
Again, no need to italicize here.
The Dodge thing is a bad idea. Really, really bad.
The attack thing... It's something. I don't know if I hate it or not, but, it's not terrible, I suppose? Just kind of weird.
Demonic Heritage
Resistance to two of the most common damage types in the game is already around feat-level in power, and maybe a bit more.
The darkvision thing, see what I said about Arcadian's, and give it 60 feet. Also, the magical darkness thing is way, way too good for a feat; that's a warlock feature, and one of their best ones.
Don't give at-will teleporting as a feat, please. Teleporting is insanely powerful.
Demonic Visage
This is just a subclass. It's really just a subclass in feat form. Maybe for Barbarian?
Dim Mak
This is now a required feat for all monks, because it improves their amount of Ki by an insane amount. I recommend removing this feat.
Divine Channel
This kinda just breaks magic missile, as you can make each bolt deal 1d4+1+level damage. It's also giving a defining class feature as a feat, and is a required feat for any cleric or paladin with good CD uses. Again, I advise not doing this.
Divine Favour
did you just make the same feat but better
please don't
Divine Inspiration
Magic Initiate but better, now. I highly advise against this.
Also, letting it work on other classes is also a bad idea, because you get things like wizards picking cure wounds for spell mastery, and now hit points are invalidated by at-will healing.
Eldritch Warrior
Just make your rite die stay a d4. This is still really, really powerful (pretty much any fighter or monk wants this now), but I guess it'd be fine if it was just a d4.
Elemental Adept
Elemental Adept was already fine, it really does not need to be buffed.
Flexible Magic
I advise against this. Maybe 2-3 sorcery points, and 1 metamagic. Even then, it still becomes the best feat for every sorcerer out there.
Fighting Spirit
Every monk will want to take this, and it's just giving them sort of smite. The smite part isn't too bad, I suppose, but it still is now a required monk feat.
Also, isn't this just worse Dim Mak?
Fire Keeper
Is this just Dark Souls?
This feat... A feat really shouldn't need to take up 1/4 of an entire page. It also just, heals an insane amount. This is more like a subclass feature than a feat.
Forged Pact
Giving one Invocation is fine. I don't recommend giving the spell slot thing, because Magic Initiate.
Great Weapon Master
I don't think the best feat in the entire game needs a buff.
Hardy
This is actually fine. I don't think the poison resistance is a good idea, but it's fine.
Hot Lead
Defining feature of a subclass given out. Again, bad idea.
Infernal Training
Martial Adept and an invocation? What? That barely even makes any sort of sense, much less the fact that it's basically two feats in one.
Infiltrator
This is okay. I don't think it needs to be a half-feat, though.
Iron Fist
Mostly fine, but, again, I recommend not making them just monks. Give them a 1d4 damage die, and you're golden.
Magic Initiate
Why buff Magic Initiate, one of the best feats in the game?
Martial Adept
See magic initiate
Medic
A really good feat is now extremely overpowered with this. Healer was already really good.
Natural Shifter
I have never seen a feat take up a full column before, and, I don't think this needed to. This is just, better than Wild Shape, and Magic Initiate, and a whole lot of other things.
Necromancer's Touch
This is just magic initiate
Quick Wit
Almost fine, just doesn't need the Intelligence saving throw part.
Ritual Caster
Tomelock except on any class. Not a good idea.
Sharpshooter
I don't think SS needs a buff. Also, why did you just make the first bullet the same as the normal first bullet, but with worse wording? What?
Skald
Defining feature yadda yadda you get it this is a bad idea
Skirmisher's Stealth
Every Rogue wants this, not a good idea
Specialized Magic
Extremely potent feat for any spellcaster, generally a bad idea.
Specialty Hunter
Almost fine, damage should be 1/turn and probably lower.
Tactician
Isn't Plot just a variant rule in the DMG? Side Initiative?
Thuggish Fighter
See skirmisher's stealth
Too Tough to Die
This is fine, actually.
Touch of Vitality
Almost every paladin wants this, and the increasing of maximum hit points is weird and janky.
Weapon Master
I don't think d20 greataxes and 2d8 greatswords are a good idea.

OVERALL
Almost all of these are overpowered in some way, and extremely un-5e. I don't know if I'd consider them balanced against one another (like how Divine Favour is literally just better Divine Channel), but I definitely know they're not balanced for normal 5e. A game that wants to use these requires the monsters to be buffed a bunch, like, 2-3 CR higher than normal, or maybe even 4 higher.
Also, feats shouldn't scale as many as these should. I think about 90% of these feats mention your proficiency bonus, which isn't recommended.

PotatoGolem
2018-12-24, 10:36 AM
Did Bando misread these or did I? You're suggesting that the (modified) feats add to the existing feat, I thought it completely replaced them. If they replace them, these somewhat fix GWM/SS by getting rid of the power attack function. In general, though, I agree that a lot of these are cool ideas but too strong.

Also, the terminology keeps jumping around with prof modifier/bonus/die, which makes it harder to keep up.

Blackbando
2018-12-24, 11:58 AM
Did Bando misread these or did I? You're suggesting that the (modified) feats add to the existing feat, I thought it completely replaced them.

My intention was to come off that they are replacing them, and to what I can tell, that is also the creator's intent. It still does increase the overall CR of the party by a lot to mess with the power level of feats in such a way.

JNAProductions
2018-12-24, 12:07 PM
Blackbando covered pretty much all of it, but I feel like I've covered these before and had similar concerns.

PotatoGolem
2018-12-24, 03:54 PM
I disagree with the idea that feats can't give class features. Even in core, there were feats for superiority dice and spells. Now, there's also feats for Expertise. What they all have in common, though, is that they don't scale. Magic Initiate doesn't make you a wizard, it gives you some level 1 features.

If you're going to keep the feats for rages and bard inspiration, which is fine, keep them as level 1. That way you don't step on any toes. It becomes like the feat for superiority dice- gives an out of class character limited access to that class' trick OR lets a character in that class get another use or two and some new ways to use it.

demonslayerelf
2018-12-24, 04:09 PM
It seems these aren't in conjunction with regular feats, but keep in mind, I'm still going to be comparing them to regular feat power level, because if you increase the power level of every feat in the game, then you also make encounters harder to balance. You're free to ignore me, of course, if you wish.
This was the intention(For the most part, there are several feats in the PHB that are totally cool), but you also need to realize that, as it stands, the RAW feats HARDLY have a regular power level. Quite clearly there is not one, which is especially apparent if you put Magic Initiate(2 cantrips and a 1st level spell once/day, which is hot garbage at almost every level unless you reeaaally want some cantrips) against GWM/SS(Guaranteed picks for any martial who knows what they're doing)... Or any of the Racial magic feats from Xanathar(Nondetection at-will? Don't mind if I do...), or Greater Dragonmark(It's not quite official yet, or something, but yay free 7th level spell at 8th level). So you really should keep that in mind. :P

That said, I'm actually going to say my overall before anything else. Specifically, respond to this...


Also, feats shouldn't scale as many as these should. I think about 90% of these feats mention your proficiency bonus, which isn't recommended.

This. This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard when discussing feats. No offense to you, but this really is. The idea that abilities should simultaneously be as useful at 4th level as they are at 19th level, the earliest and latest you can pick up a feat(Minus v.human), but not OP or UP at any point, but also not scale with your level. There are so many reasons why it's wrong, I could spend the whole day talking about it. Instead, I'm just going to point out why it has to happen using the RAW feats from the PHB.

The most powerful feats are usually cited as SS and GWM, alternatively with PAM, Sentinel, and Crossbow Expert. How many of these scale? None. Obviously. Good job. They're great at low levels and great at high levels. Now, what's the weakest feat usually cited as? Grappler ... Elemental Adept... Charger... Sometimes Dungeon Delver, etc. Do any of these scale? Also no.
Where am I going with this? Let's look at a handful of feats most people agree are pretty balanced(Not all of them, but plenty of good examples)
Ritual Caster. Tough. Resilient. Actor. Keen Mind. Sometimes skilled(Though that's usually on the weaker side), sometimes Warcaster(Though that's usually on the stronger side). What's nice about these? They have one of two things; Scaling(RC and Tough both scale with level), or a conceptual bonus(Advantage, Proficiencies, Mimicry, Memory, etc.) that doesn't change any of your numbers at all, but sometimes depends on numbers which, themselves, scale with level(In other words; In a roundabout way, these feats scale off your proficiency bonus, as they either depend on or grant proficiency).
Odd exceptions exist in Alert and Observant, which grant a flat bonus, but most agree are pretty balanced(Probably because 5 is just a good number to use :P), as well as Weapon Master, which grants proficiency, but most would agree is close to useless.

So all said and done, it is a good thing to have feats scale. Not scaling them usually ends up pretty bad or very good, though this is dependent on the exact effects, not JUST on the scaling issue. That needs to be understood, otherwise everything is either a "Never-take", because there's still a god-tier to take, or an "Always-take", because it is one of those god-tiers... Or it becomes a mechanical sacrifice for narrative coolness. That last bit is what I'm doing my damndest to fix here.

Whew. Now onto the individual stuff.(I got rid of the nitpicky stuff because, honestly, why even bother with nitpicky stuff?)



Actor
I don't really know how I feel about granting BI dice as a feat, as well as with these other pretty damn good features.
Eh, it's 1-3 on a short rest. A very tiny bonus, really, when a one level dip into Bard can give you five(With the right stats).


Adrenaline Rush
The Attack action thing sounds problematic, as it's not limited to once per turn, so you can just insanely nova someone (For example, a paladin with this feat could get off nine attacks in one turn with Polearm Master at 17th+ level, just destroying any sort of final boss).
The initiative part is fine, though it's sort of stepping on the toes of Alert.
The Dash/Disengage part is fine.
The wording is very specifically "you may spend one point to..."
It is not 'one or more points' it is one. You get one. Though Fighters can do two with Action Surge, since it's specifically attached to the Attack action.


Alchemist
I'm assuming you mean the UA Artificer class? I don't know if that's a good idea to give, since those things can deal an awful lot of damage, or heal a bunch.
This confused me until I went back and looked at the brew, and there's a typo on it :P It should be half your total level.


Ambidexterity
Format error; Light shouldn't be capitalized.
The first bullet is... Very, very good. A monk can take this and a single level of fighter to Flurry of Blows for free every single round, not to mention a ranger with hunter's mark.
Does the second bullet mean you can attack three times with your offhand, if you use your bonus action??? That's insane! Also, the monk point is brought up again; even if you can't do so, the monk could still flurry.
The last bullet doesn't make sense, at all. How much damage does this do? Off-hand bonus action attacks aren't a thing defined in the rules, so you'll have to explain what you mean. This also probably isn't a good idea in the first place, because it's just Polearm Master, but for all two-handed weapons.
You have trouble reading specific wordings :P

"You may make a SINGLE offhand bonus action attack on any turn..."

"When you would NORMALLY take an offhand bonus action attack, you instead make two."

And I thought "Offhand bonus action attack" was pretty obvious wording to mean "The attack you make with your bonus action with a weapon in your offhand". You know, two-weapon fighting, and all that jazz. It's not my fault WotC didn't give it a name.

(And note on PAM; It's not that great anymore, since there's that new double scimitar with bonus-action attacks built into it.)


Animal Affinity
Things that grant expertise if you're already proficient are pigeonholing and overall bad design. Usually, it's best to only give expertise if that's the primary function of the feature (like Prodigy feat), or if it's in a more specific case (like the dwarf Stonecunning).
Ah yes, this makes total sense. I can imagine the DMs now. "So you are a Beastmaster Ranger, you're good with animals, and you've taken this feat that hinges around animals so you can be better with them. You can't get expertise, as this is bad design limited only to Rogues, Bards, and Humanish things(Prodigy's requirement), but you know what you CAN have? A sticker!"


Angry Warrior
I don't think you should be letting fighters and paladins get Rage. That's a super important defining feature of the Barbarian, and those classes can be much better at barbarian-ing with Rage than a barbarian can, due to having more or better attacks.
The second bullet is just being a better version of the half-orc racial feat (I think it's Orcish Fury, but I might be remembering the name wrong). Also, the fact on a critical hit it becomes a d12 is weird.
Overall, I don't think this feat is actually a good idea at all?
Shame you think that, since this is one that a player is using now. A half-orc pally. They still get knocked the f### out in most fights. :P
(And yeah, Orcish Fury. The half-feat, which also lets them attack after almost dying.)


Arcadian Heritage
You really, really like to use proficiency bonuses with feats, don't you? Sometimes, it's much better to just give a flat thing, like, for the darkvision here, it should honestly just be 60 feet.
This is just better Magic Initiate, now; that feat gives 2 cantrips, and a 1st level spell once per long rest, and no other benefits. I think maybe you should just scrap the third bullet, or make the third bullet just a single cantrip.

Problem; Magic Initiate is garbage at pretty much every level,("Oh boy, I hope my once/day burning hands will be better than my 3 attacks+Action surge against the dragon!") Svirfneblim Magic lets you do a 3rd level spell at-will, in addition to three OTHER spells, and Drow magic gives an at-will 1st, a 2nd level spell, AND Dispel Magic, AND teaches you to cast those spells with actual spell slots.

That said, I can agree to the darkvision.


Arcane Equipment
Round counting is not something that 5e does, and I advise against it.
Both of these effects are insanely good, with the offensive essentially being a superior version of Smiting (assuming you can attack a good amount, but since there's things like Tenser's Transformation and Bladesinger, characters who take this probably can), and the armor effect just being way, way too good.
I don't actually know if I can say how I'd fix this, because frankly, these are just better versions of magic weapon and a nonexistent magic armor spell, so, maybe just make the armor portion a spell, and then remove the feat?

1- 5e rounds all the time, it's just usually rounding down. Advising against it is like advising against rolling d6's.
2- ...Ehh. There's a weirdness to this one. You're probably right on it being powerful(Though I always go back on that, since it's not NEARLY as good as true smiting(2d8 vs. +2 damage, 3d8 vs. +4, 4d8 vs. +6, etc.), but is lower cost. It's weird.)


Awakened Mind
Again with using proficiency modifier a lot. Just give them 30 feet of telepathy; you shouldn't be outclassing a subclass feature (Great Old One warlock's 1st level) with a feat.
The actual psionics portion is... It's something. I think you shouldn't have a scaling pool, because Martial Adept is similar, and it just gives you one die. Psionics are, typically, way better than maneuvers, so, it should fall in line there.

Martial adept is also one of the worst feats in the game. Remember that.
And as to not outclassing a subclass feature... I mean, that happens all the time(Dragon Hide vs. Draconic Resilience(Sorcerer), for a quick and easy example), it's really not a good argument.
And as to the Psionics... It's the equivalent of(Based on the Wu Jen's conversion stuff) between 1st and between 2nd and 3rd level casting, with a very limited pool relative to level. This is one of the ones I've gotten to try out, and genuinely, the biggest problem was the occasional Paladin Smite + Brute Force stacking(Took a lot of points, but it paid off GOOD sometimes). But it wasn't great, still.


Blood Magic
I'm going to assume the hit dice are removed when you do this, but it doesn't actually say they are; they're just rolled. If they're removed, then this feat isn't terrible, but it's still extremely powerful. I don't recommend allowing a feat to regain spell slots higher than 3rd, really, though at maximum it shouldn't restore above 5th, as that's what 5e generally sees as the highest amount of slot you can easily regain (Arcane Recovery, diviner wizard's 6th level feature, Natural Recovery, Pact Magic, Font of Magic, to name a few examples).

The wording was slightly finicky on this one, but it's 5th or less. It's specifically LESS than your proficiency modifier, not less than or equal to. I can try to make it a bit more obvious, but... Eh.
And I fixed it to be "Expend and roll", not just "Roll". Mess up on my part.


Brawler

I don't actually know what the first bullet of this is trying to convey. What does this actually mean?
Regardless, from what I... think I understand? It seems like it's just sort of being better than monk at punching, which is a bad idea for a feat. Don't give core class features as feats, unless they're nerfed heavily.
I like the pinned idea, but the bludgeoning damage should just be Strength modifier; it's still quite powerful at that.
The third bullet is just kind of buffing Tavern Brawler's thing, by making it any Attack action, but considering this isn't a half-feat (speaking of, why are you just removing half-feats from existence? they're a useful thing for char-building), I think that's fine.

This one is probably my most finicky wording, and I think I made it better. But no, monks are still the kings, unless you have(Literally) the strength of the giants, and you're 17th level. If you're both a monk and Brawler, you'll still always use your Martial Arts die, unless you obtain 22 strength... Which is really, really dumb for a monk :P

And also... Not a fan of half-feats. Much rather have abilities than just a number increase. It's more fun that way.


Burning Wrath
See my prior comment on not giving Rage to other classes.
The actual fire thing... I don't entirely hate? The damage is low enough to where it's not exactly overpowered, but since it also applies to your own attacks, every barbarian will take it. Frankly, this feels more like a subclass feature than a feat.

I've kinda felt like removing that bit, myself. I'll probably do that.
And as to the subclass thing... You can't say that about any RAW feats? Lucky, anyone? Just Portent wearing makeup? It's really not a bad thing, either. It's all just features.


Channel Anger
Again, see prior comment.
Do keep in mind that at 20th level, barbarians have infinite rages, so they just get advantage on every attack, every ability check, and add 20 extra damage to each attack.
The fear thing should probably just be Charisma DC, not Strength as a choice, because it's quite powerful. I'd also just make the frightened condition here last until the start of your next turn, due to how easy it is to proc (less than an action), and how good it is.
Damn good point, on this one.
Murdered.


Charger
Tabaxi rogue monk with haste boots of speed longstrider and action surge. I don't think I need to say anything more.
I will, though; this is extremely overpowered and easy to break. Regular Charger is kind of bad, but this is going to the next extreme.

It's specifically tied to the amount you move with A dash, not on your whole turn, and as an Action, not via Cunning Action or Haste. So, with the help of the most specialized build in history, a 3rd level spell, a 1st level spell, and a convenient wall with enough nearby free space to run 280 feet and miraculously nothing stops you, you can do... 28 plus 14d6 damage, or an average of 77 damage... Okay, so maybe it's a little bit high :P I'll poke at it. You need to really work to get to that point, though, so it's reeeeaaally not a huge concern. Still, Ima poke at it.



Clairvoyant
This is being better than one of the most powerful features of any subclass in the entire game. I don't even know what the 30 feet feature really means, mechanically?
If you need to keep this feat, I'd suggest making it just one portent die. But, frankly, I don't think this should be using Portent. MAYBE something like, 1-2/short rest, when a creature makes an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw, you can use your reaction to grant them a 1d4 bonus or penalty?
That's still quite strong, mind you, but it's a lot more in-line. Frankly, though, it'd probably be better to just use Lucky.
It's actually worse or even with that feature, depending on level, and as you pointed out; Lucky.
That said, the senses share is basically just the Familiar thing, without the blindness, and going the other way(You share with X, rather than Familiar share with You.) It really doesn't do much, mostly just a flavour thing.


Cruelty
This is almost good! The hit points thing, I don't think that's a good idea, since you can farm hit points via critting, but if you remove that, then it's almost fine. I don't know how I feel about citing an optional rule (proficiency die), though.
One- Patronizing Arse. :P
Two- Ah yes, all you have to do is go crit your opponents over and over again. Perfect farm, truly.
Three- This is the billionth time I've done it. If you had a problem with it, you should've said it ten feats ago :P


Defensive Duelist
Again, no need to italicize here.
The Dodge thing is a bad idea. Really, really bad.
The attack thing... It's something. I don't know if I hate it or not, but, it's not terrible, I suppose? Just kind of weird.
It's a fencer-y thing. You could either go on the offensive, or go on the defensive, or a cautious offense, or a testing defense. Attack once, parry twice? Parry once, attack twice? Full attack or full parry? Sure. #Options.
And the dodge thing... How? A bonus action to give one, two, or three attacks disadvantage. There are abilities to use a bonus action to give an attack advantage, which usually fall flat at higher levels when people make more than 2 attacks. This is just the reversal of that and the making it not fall flat. This is one that I've been able to test out(On the side of the enemies, albeit), and it worked pretty fine. The dodge usually ran out, and they still took some good damage, but if they're being defensive and it's ONE person attacking, it's a pretty good way to avoid some damage(It's still Attack vs. AC, though, so they still got hit quite a bit despite the dodge).


Demonic Heritage
Resistance to two of the most common damage types in the game is already around feat-level in power, and maybe a bit more.
The darkvision thing, see what I said about Arcadian's, and give it 60 feet. Also, the magical darkness thing is way, way too good for a feat; that's a warlock feature, and one of their best ones.
Don't give at-will teleporting as a feat, please. Teleporting is insanely powerful.
Objection; Infernal Constitution. 2 resistances, advantage against poison, and a half-feat.
Objection; How often is magical darkness conjured? Really, tell me, I want to know. How many times a game is magical darkness conjured? If a player is doing it, they're an *******, because they're blocking their allies more than helping themselves. If a creature is doing it, the creature is stupid, because only Devils can see through it, anyways. So how is this powerful? Are devils omnipresent? Are all creatures stupid? Are your players *******s? In any case, there are issues, and it's not this feat :P

Also, the teleporting is limited by both sight and movement. It's not as good as flying, burrowing, or even climbing, it's really just a way to get around making climb checks or attacks of opportunity.


Demonic Visage
This is just a subclass. It's really just a subclass in feat form. Maybe for Barbarian?
Actually, it's Frank Miller's batman from one scene of the Dark Knight Returns part 1. A relatively minor fear ability that lasts for one hour/day. If you wanted to buff it to hell and make it a subclass, go for it :P


Dim Mak
This is now a required feat for all monks, because it improves their amount of Ki by an insane amount. I recommend removing this feat.
Ah yes, the "Let's have some long-rest ki" feat. Half as much as you'd see on a short rest. Very insane, truly.


Divine Channel
This kinda just breaks magic missile, as you can make each bolt deal 1d4+1+level damage. It's also giving a defining class feature as a feat, and is a required feat for any cleric or paladin with good CD uses. Again, I advise not doing this.
Ah yes, you get one use of a feature... For which you have no options, except deal this damage(Which I fixed to be deal damage to one creature effected by the attack/spell, so it didn't murder everything. Good note on that). It is a whole, defining class feature, obviously :P


Divine Favour
did you just make the same feat but better
please don't

Do you know how to read, sir? Different effects entirely, just the same resource on a different timer with a different amount.


Divine Inspiration
Magic Initiate but better, now. I highly advise against this.
Also, letting it work on other classes is also a bad idea, because you get things like wizards picking cure wounds for spell mastery, and now hit points are invalidated by at-will healing.
Good note(On the second part, Magic Initiate is garbage). Ima fix that up.


Eldritch Warrior
Just make your rite die stay a d4. This is still really, really powerful (pretty much any fighter or monk wants this now), but I guess it'd be fine if it was just a d4.
Tha's also a good note. It's not as powerful as you're making it out to be, still, but still a good note. I'm making it a d6, though, since at least that way it's equal to Hex.


Elemental Adept
Elemental Adept was already fine, it really does not need to be buffed.
I didn't know you were a comic.


Flexible Magic
I advise against this. Maybe 2-3 sorcery points, and 1 metamagic. Even then, it still becomes the best feat for every sorcerer out there.
That's far too few. That's low enough that you might as well say "Once per long rest, you may choose one metamagic to effect a spell with". Despite the differences in cost, and other uses for sorcery points. Part of using SP is that sorcerers would be able to get a bit more functionality out of it(And ultimately, it's still only 2-4 metamagics/day, depending on what's used, at 20th level).
Also; WARCASTER will always be the best feat for sorcerers, flat out.


Fighting Spirit
Every monk will want to take this, and it's just giving them sort of smite. The smite part isn't too bad, I suppose, but it still is now a required monk feat.
Also, isn't this just worse Dim Mak?
Dim Mak is limited by long rest, and only works through touch. FS is limited by short rest(And ultimately gives more ki points), and works through weapons. Maybe it's a liiiittle weaker, but I don't think so? More resources, more accessibility, less effect. And I agree, most monks would probably want this. The idea isn't to make feats that people DON'T want to take.


Fire Keeper
Is this just Dark Souls?
This feat... A feat really shouldn't need to take up 1/4 of an entire page. It also just, heals an insane amount. This is more like a subclass feature than a feat.
Eh, a player wanted to do it, so I let her do it. Thought it'd be fun, and it is.


Forged Pact
Giving one Invocation is fine. I don't recommend giving the spell slot thing, because Magic Initiate.
MI is still garbage, and better spells are given out at lower levels from RAW things.


Great Weapon Master
I don't think the best feat in the entire game needs a buff.
If you think it's a buff, you didn't read it, or you don't know how numbers work. The damage was drastically reduced(Going from +10 to +1d4 at low levels, +1d12 at higher levels), while the rest was made slightly better on the action economy. The to-hit penalty does very little a lot of the time(Especially with Advantage so easy to get), so there was really very little reason to keep it around with the lowered damage.


Hot Lead
Defining feature of a subclass given out. Again, bad idea.
Ah yes, one minor class option is the defining feature. Genius. A bit of grit and a bit of fire damage.


Infernal Training
Martial Adept and an invocation? What? That barely even makes any sort of sense, much less the fact that it's basically two feats in one.
This was made for a player of mine, who was a Monster Hunter(From the UA) that got corrupted by an Imp, and eventually got taught the ways of devilish combat by a Pit Fiend.
That... That was a fun game. But we made this for him. I barely noticed it while I was DMing.


Iron Fist
Mostly fine, but, again, I recommend not making them just monks. Give them a 1d4 damage die, and you're golden.
1d4 is gods-awful; pick up a dagger or a piece of glass resembling one, and voila, the feat does nothing. Genius.


Magic Initiate
Why buff Magic Initiate, one of the best feats in the game?
Man, you really are a comedian. 1st level spell is fine(Not great, but not terrible)... At 1st-4th level. Then fireballs get thrown, and your feat, the ASI which will be with you forever... Is nothing. And if you're doing it for the cantrips, it's just sad.


Martial Adept
See magic initiate
See magic initiate


Medic
A really good feat is now extremely overpowered with this. Healer was already really good.
Ah yes, the "Once/short rest/person spend charges to an item to cast Cure Wounds" feat. It was just sooooo great. Wow.


Natural Shifter
I have never seen a feat take up a full column before, and, I don't think this needed to. This is just, better than Wild Shape, and Magic Initiate, and a whole lot of other things.
It's some shapeshifting every long rest. Even at 20th level, you're getting A Wildshape+Spell option, or two wildshapes and a worse spell option on one of them. And your best option is an Elephant, which will be immediately murdered by the first person who DIDN'T waste their action and half of this "Oh-so-powerful feat" turning into an elephant.


Necromancer's Touch
Only it's themed and doesn't suck. Yep.


Ritual Caster
Tomelock except on any class. Not a good idea.
Have you read the actual feat? Literally the only thing that changed was opening up this spell list... Which ultimately does basically nothing, since Wizards had most of them to begin with.


Sharpshooter
I don't think SS needs a buff.
It's the exact opposite of a buff. Actually read it, it's very much a nerf.


Skald
Defining feature yadda yadda you get it this is a bad idea
Tested in it's entirety across a 12 level span. Completely fine.


Skirmisher's Stealth
Every Rogue wants this, not a good idea
See Skald.


Specialized Magic
Extremely potent feat for any spellcaster, generally a bad idea.
At most it's +1d12 damage on some spells. Very little potency, all things considered. Also tested, worked fine.


Tactician
Isn't Plot just a variant rule in the DMG? Side Initiative?
Kinda? Not quite the same, and this is to be used WITHOUT that variant.


Thuggish Fighter
See skirmisher's stealth
See Skald, but change this from a 12 level span to a 16 level span.


Touch of Vitality
Almost every paladin wants this, and the increasing of maximum hit points is weird and janky.
Objection: Aid.


Weapon Master
I don't think d20 greataxes and 2d8 greatswords are a good idea.
They would both be 2d8(Damage die steps are weird, but I guess it's also not a thing 5e does, so whatever I'll specify), and average damage increases by 2. It's Duelist, but for other weapons, and it already wasn't a good fighting style.

Rerem115
2018-12-24, 04:50 PM
I'm going to agree with Bando on most of these. The problem with giving out scaling class features as feats is that you can essentially multiclass without losing progression in your primary class. Using both the feats that grant Rage as an example, a level 5 Fighter/Barb multiclass doesn't actually have to multiclass to get Rage, so he can take advantage of both [Rage and Extra Attack]. Or, they can stack with your current class to get some nutty synergy; if you took both the feats that grant Ki as a monk, you'd gain 1.75 Ki per level, for a total of 35 at level 20. 35.

Again, I'm also going to have to agree with the call that a lot of your feats are just overloaded. 5e feat design philosophy is K.I.S.S.; if you have to spend more than a sentence or three to describe what it does, it's probably too complicated. Stuff like Demonic Visage or Fire Keeper is the stuff of actual classes, waaaay to much for just a feat.

Honestly, that's probably the best way to think about feats. Most of them don't need buffs; while important, they're pretty low opportunity cost, since every character has the chance to grab anywhere from 5-8 over the course of a campaign. They can be strong, but you definitely shouldn't be relying on them anywhere near as much as your actual class features.

Blackbando
2018-12-24, 06:30 PM
...as it stands, the RAW feats HARDLY have a regular power level...

There's a difference between "Some feats are better than others" and "These rival class features."



So all said and done, it is a good thing to have feats scale. Not scaling them usually ends up pretty bad or very good, though this is dependent on the exact effects, not JUST on the scaling issue. That needs to be understood, otherwise everything is either a "Never-take", because there's still a god-tier to take, or an "Always-take", because it is one of those god-tiers... Or it becomes a mechanical sacrifice for narrative coolness. That last bit is what I'm doing my damndest to fix here.
Actually, this is a wording error on my part; I meant to say they shouldn't scale as much as these do. It's okay to have feats scale, but many of these feats scale in ways that rival entire class features.


Whew. Now onto the individual stuff.(I got rid of the nitpicky stuff because, honestly, why even bother with nitpicky stuff?)
I nitpick things mainly because it helps improve the overall look of something; something like "You have advantage on deception checks" looks a lot less official than "You have advantage on Charisma (Deception) checks." and I take quality in homebrew very, very, very seriously.




Eh, it's 1-3 on a short rest. A very tiny bonus, really, when a one level dip into Bard can give you five(With the right stats).
Yes, but there's a huge difference between having to sacrifice one of your levels, which puts you behind on progression (extra attack is at 6th now, every other fullcaster gets spells 1 level before you, etc.) compared to a feat (might put you behind by a +1 to a score, but even then with rolling you might not even have any sort of issue there). It also is practically a required feat for any bard.



The wording is very specifically "you may spend one point to..."
It is not 'one or more points' it is one. You get one. Though Fighters can do two with Action Surge, since it's specifically attached to the Attack action.
That's actually fair enough. I'd still argue it could be interpreted as I did, so I'd recommend throwing a "once per turn" thing there. Or, don't, if you're fine with fighters Surging with it, I suppose, but it still is worth noting that some folks might interpret it wrong.

maybe not if they read this discussion though, i suppose



This confused me until I went back and looked at the brew, and there's a typo on it :P It should be half your total level.
That's a bit better.



You have trouble reading specific wordings :P
I have trouble reading wording that isn't defined in the game.


"You may make a SINGLE offhand bonus action attack on any turn..."

"When you would NORMALLY take an offhand bonus action attack, you instead make two."
These don't imply that they're mutually exclusive. There's also the monk point, which you didn't address; Flurry of Blows doesn't have to be with your hands, so, they can quite easily be kicks, so you can have six attacks per turn as a monk come 5th level.


(And note on PAM; It's not that great anymore, since there's that new double scimitar with bonus-action attacks built into it.)
An overpowered item in a UA source does tend to outclass balanced fully-official content, yes.



Ah yes, this makes total sense. I can imagine the DMs now. "So you are a Beastmaster Ranger, you're good with animals, and you've taken this feat that hinges around animals so you can be better with them. You can't get expertise, as this is bad design limited only to Rogues, Bards, and Humanish things(Prodigy's requirement), but you know what you CAN have? A sticker!"
The rest of this feat isn't even that powerful, so you could give it expertise. The problem is the fact that requiring proficiency already is bad design.

there's also little need to give sarcasm, we're civilized folks who don't need to act like *******s to one another



Shame you think that, since this is one that a player is using now. A half-orc pally. They still get knocked the f### out in most fights. :P
(And yeah, Orcish Fury. The half-feat, which also lets them attack after almost dying.)
If your games are above regular power level, then that's perfectly okay. I'm not forcing you to run your games in a certain way. I only give advice in the sense of games with regular, expected power levels, because that is how the majority plays.

I will admit, I actually did not recall Orcish Fury had that secondary bullet. However, this still gives a lot of uses on the feat.


Problem; Magic Initiate is garbage at pretty much every level,("Oh boy, I hope my once/day burning hands will be better than my 3 attacks+Action surge against the dragon!") Svirfneblim Magic lets you do a 3rd level spell at-will, in addition to three OTHER spells, and Drow magic gives an at-will 1st, a 2nd level spell, AND Dispel Magic, AND teaches you to cast those spells with actual spell slots.
That's not the purpose of Magic Initiate. Magic Initiate's cantrips are generally decent for damage on some builds (the Blade cantrips come to mind), but often times the spells you pick are intended to be for utility; find familiar, shield, shield of faith, those sorts of things.


1- 5e rounds all the time, it's just usually rounding down. Advising against it is like advising against rolling d6's.
...That is not round counting. Round counting is where you count rounds, like, "This spell lasts for 1d4 rounds", or "A number of rounds equal to your spellcasting modifier".


2- ...Ehh. There's a weirdness to this one. You're probably right on it being powerful(Though I always go back on that, since it's not NEARLY as good as true smiting(2d8 vs. +2 damage, 3d8 vs. +4, 4d8 vs. +6, etc.), but is lower cost. It's weird.)
In a single hit, it's definitely worse, but there's the fact that you can hit multiple times that make it potent. +6 10 times is generally better than 5d8 once.


Martial adept is also one of the worst feats in the game. Remember that.
No, it's really not. It's actually quite a good feat for most martials, and is practically required on every battlemaster (and spell-less ranger, though that's UA and not really a good argument for it).

And as to not outclassing a subclass feature... I mean, that happens all the time(Dragon Hide vs. Draconic Resilience(Sorcerer), for a quick and easy example), it's really not a good argument.
What? Dragon Hide is a mostly terrible feat (13+dex on a race that focuses strength and charisma, for a feat, and an unarmed strike ribbon), while Draconic Resilience is a great feature (13+dex on a class that encourages good dexterity for AC, as well as +1 hp per level, which is amazing on a d6 caster).

And as to the Psionics... It's the equivalent of(Based on the Wu Jen's conversion stuff) between 1st and between 2nd and 3rd level casting, with a very limited pool relative to level. This is one of the ones I've gotten to try out, and genuinely, the biggest problem was the occasional Paladin Smite + Brute Force stacking(Took a lot of points, but it paid off GOOD sometimes). But it wasn't great, still.
I mean, there's also the fact that the Mystic, in general, is just overpowered. Mystic's main power is in its early game, and this essentially gives that to other classes, though to a lesser extent. It's hard for me to say if I think giving psionics as a feat at all is balanced, but I definitely don't think the scaling limit and pool is a good idea.



This one is probably my most finicky wording, and I think I made it better.
To some degree, yes.


But no, monks are still the kings, unless you have(Literally) the strength of the giants, and you're 17th level. If you're both a monk and Brawler, you'll still always use your Martial Arts die, unless you obtain 22 strength... Which is really, really dumb for a monk :P
The main issue I have is the fact you essentially just give the first level monk feature to any class, while also scaling at roughly around the same amount as them. I do have to acknowledge that the unarmed strikes never count as magical, so in that case it is a bit worse, but it's quite easy for a DM to give magical unarmed strikes magic items, or for the brawler to get alter self.


And also... Not a fan of half-feats. Much rather have abilities than just a number increase. It's more fun that way.
I don't disagree with you, though they can be nice for making lower power feats still be worthwhile.


I've kinda felt like removing that bit, myself. I'll probably do that.
And as to the subclass thing... You can't say that about any RAW feats? Lucky, anyone? Just Portent wearing makeup? It's really not a bad thing, either. It's all just features.
Lucky and Portent are very different, though it's a common consensus that Lucky is overpowered. It's like healing spirit, or Yuan-Ti Pureblood; just because Wizards releases something overpowered doesn't mean that the community should do the same.

Just because you're probably going to bring it up (assuming you choose to respond to everything individually again, and frankly, I'd respect if you choose to not; if you believe that it'll end up in an angry screaming match from either or both sides, I'm alright with just stopping this debate), I do mention Lucky later on; I do personally believe that Lucky is an overpowered feat, but from what it sounds like with all these insanely powerful feats, there shouldn't really be much problem in your specific games with allowing Lucky.


It's specifically tied to the amount you move with A dash, not on your whole turn, and as an Action, not via Cunning Action or Haste.
That's fairly arbitrary, and even then, Tabaxi with longstrider, Mobile, and Haste can still Dash for 200 feet, even removing the other things, and removing monk levels from the equation.


It's actually worse or even with that feature, depending on level, and as you pointed out; Lucky.
Not really. Knowing the result of your roll, and just rerolling, are two entirely different things; if you know you have a natural 1 in your pocket, you can save it for the saving throw of the BBEG. But, for Lucky, you might try to stop a roll of 19 with it, and then the BBEG just rolls similarly as high, or even higher.



One- Patronizing Arse. :P
I'm not being patronizing. I am legitimately saying that it's almost good, and that's a good thing. It was not my intention to come off as belittling or patronizing, and I apologize if my tone sounded like that.


Two- Ah yes, all you have to do is go crit your opponents over and over again. Perfect farm, truly.
The paralyzed condition, easily inflicted by hold person or hold monster, makes every single attack within 5 feet be a critical hit.


Three- This is the billionth time I've done it. If you had a problem with it, you should've said it ten feats ago :P
Probably should've, yeah.



And the dodge thing... How?
The bonus action is actually not that valuable for the majority of martial characters, unless they are monks, barbarians (for one turn per combat, being when they rage), rogues, and those who two-weapon fight. Monks, with an extremely valuable bonus action, get to spend 1 ki point to do this.
Also, while it's true that monks get the full Dodge action, it depends on how many opponents a character is fighting, and how many attacks they will have; for the most part, a good amount of monsters tend towards one strong attack before 5th level, and then slowly get more. Plus, it'd also be assuming that every single attack is aimed at you, which is unlikely unless you're the only tank of the party.


Objection; Infernal Constitution. 2 resistances, advantage against poison, and a half-feat.
Yes, but the feat doesn't also give a core warlock feature.

Objection; How often is magical darkness conjured? Really, tell me, I want to know.
The darkness spell is an extremely useful one, and any character with this and a ranged weapon can conjure it on themselves, granting them advantage on all attacks, and their foes disadvantage on all attacks, without any penalty to their friends. It's true, they might be in a small 20-by-20 foot white room with absolutely nothing in it, but that's highly unrealistic.
Monsters and casters also can use darkness even if they can't see through it, because it's excellent for preventing themselves from being seen.


Also, the teleporting is limited by both sight and movement. It's not as good as flying, burrowing, or even climbing, it's really just a way to get around making climb checks or attacks of opportunity.
Yes, and normally avoiding attacks of opportunity requires either the Attack action (Mobile feat), an action (Disengage on non-rogues), or a bonus action (rogues, and also sometimes monks).



Actually, it's Frank Miller's batman from one scene of the Dark Knight Returns part 1. A relatively minor fear ability that lasts for one hour/day. If you wanted to buff it to hell and make it a subclass, go for it :P
The frightened condition is extremely powerful (disadvantage on attack rolls while you can see the target of your fear, and you cannot willingly move closer to the target), and this can do so quite easily. The sanctuary effect is also very potent.
Perhaps I should've explained myself, instead of just being a prick and saying it's a subclass in feat form; I apologize for that. By what I meant, is that the feat is extremely powerful, and has a very distinct flavor - a flavor that is a lot more subclass-like in how distinct it is. Additionally, it adds three new mechanics, all relating around frightening, which subclasses tend to do.


Ah yes, the "Let's have some long-rest ki" feat. Half as much as you'd see on a short rest. Very insane, truly.
Monks need one feat (Mobile) typically, and while they are a fairly MAD class, having a lot more Ki is exceptionally useful for them.

There is really no need to dismiss my claims like this. I admit that I was harsh at times in my review, and, for the third time now I believe, I apologize for that, but there's no need to be sarcastic and rude back. An eye for an eye makes a world blind.


Ah yes, you get one use of a feature... For which you have no options, except deal this damage(Which I fixed to be deal damage to one creature effected by the attack/spell, so it didn't murder everything. Good note on that). It is a whole, defining class feature, obviously :P
Paladins also get one use of Channel Divinity, as their only real 3rd level feature.

Divine Health does not count as a feature. It is a ribbon, and only comes up in the rarest of opportunities.


Do you know how to read, sir? Different effects entirely, just the same resource on a different timer with a different amount.
I admit I came off as an ******* here. Do keep in mind, however, that a cleric can take this feat and have significantly more uses of Channel Divinity than they're intended, or a paladin can do so to have extremely more than intended.


Tha's also a good note. It's not as powerful as you're making it out to be, still, but still a good note. I'm making it a d6, though, since at least that way it's equal to Hex.
Hex but without concentration, keep that in mind. Additionally, you don't need to mark a target, so you don't need to constantly use your bonus action when you kill a creature to swap targets.


I didn't know you were a comic.
Elemental Adept is a feat that makes some of the worse damage types in the game (fire, cold) much more usable, as there are few creatures that are immune to the types, but many that are resistant. It also buffs lightning into near god-tier, as there are a lot that are resistant, but only about, I believe, four, that are immune in the Monster Manual. Top that on with the fact it gives a bit of a damage boost to these spells (mostly for fire, admittedly, due to it tending towards lower damage dice, although it's not bad on acid, what with how acid likes d4s), and it makes a solid feat.


That's far too few. That's low enough that you might as well say "Once per long rest, you may choose one metamagic to effect a spell with". Despite the differences in cost, and other uses for sorcery points. Part of using SP is that sorcerers would be able to get a bit more functionality out of it(And ultimately, it's still only 2-4 metamagics/day, depending on what's used, at 20th level).
Yes, metamagic is quite powerful.

Also; WARCASTER will always be the best feat for sorcerers, flat out.
Not really; it's a good feat, for sure, but it's not such a high bar as this one to make it feel as if they're losing out if they ever pump their Constitution or Charisma.


Dim Mak is limited by long rest, and only works through touch. FS is limited by short rest(And ultimately gives more ki points), and works through weapons.
I'll admit, I didn't actually notice Dim Mak was long rest when I first read through this. The reason being, simply put, Ki is a short-rest resource, and it can easily be assumed if something gives a resource, that resource is actually the resource.

And I agree, most monks would probably want this. The idea isn't to make feats that people DON'T want to take.
Large difference in "This feat is pretty good" and "This feat is so powerful that every single monk needs it". An extra 5 or so Ki points per short rest is extremely good, for every monk, regardless of their subclass. The "Feat Tax" is something that's often criticized with things like GWM, because no feat should feel so required that a character must take it, or be suboptimal, regardless of their build.


Eh, a player wanted to do it, so I let her do it. Thought it'd be fun, and it is.
That's fair, although in that specific case, wouldn't it make more sense for this feat to be private, rather than posted online on a forum, where wild forum-goers can criticize it harshly?


MI is still garbage, and better spells are given out at lower levels from RAW things.
There is a difference between a racial feat and a universal feat, you know; racial feats require you to be that specific race, and as such, they limit some possibilities and combinations. Some races are also just, generally weaker, and as such, can have better racial feats to help compensate. It's not brilliant design, but it's what Wizards does, sometimes.
Then you have Dragonborn, with bad feats and bad racial features.


If you think it's a buff, you didn't read it, or you don't know how numbers work. The damage was drastically reduced(Going from +10 to +1d4 at low levels, +1d12 at higher levels), while the rest was made slightly better on the action economy. The to-hit penalty does very little a lot of the time(Especially with Advantage so easy to get), so there was really very little reason to keep it around with the lowered damage.
The to-hit penalty does a lot, unless your players have such high to-hit bonuses, and your enemies have such low ACs, that they hit every single turn, even with half or over-half of their to-hit gone. Or if your players are just lucky, I suppose.
Funny thing, Wizards of the Coast actually did this themselves, with the Brute fighter, and absolutely everyone hated it; it's clear this isn't just my own thoughts on the matter when you take that into account.


Ah yes, one minor class option is the defining feature. Genius. A bit of grit and a bit of fire damage.
It's the entire subclass, save for being able to use guns. The guns aren't even that great, either, so.


This was made for a player of mine, who was a Monster Hunter(From the UA) that got corrupted by an Imp, and eventually got taught the ways of devilish combat by a Pit Fiend.
That... That was a fun game. But we made this for him. I barely noticed it while I was DMing.
Again, if you specifically make it for a player, I don't really understand why you put it in the public, especially for criticism, even if it doesn't have a lot of thematic sense besides that specific build.


1d4 is gods-awful; pick up a dagger or a piece of glass resembling one, and voila, the feat does nothing. Genius.
Except now you can't ever be unarmed, and you can two-weapon fight with your feet and head, so you can still use a shield.


Man, you really are a comedian. 1st level spell is fine(Not great, but not terrible)... At 1st-4th level. Then fireballs get thrown, and your feat, the ASI which will be with you forever... Is nothing. And if you're doing it for the cantrips, it's just sad.
I already commented on this.


See magic initiate
See prior comment.


Ah yes, the "Once/short rest/person spend charges to an item to cast Cure Wounds" feat. It was just sooooo great. Wow.
Yes, actually. It's essentially a bunch of free first level slots, though it eventually even scales up to be as good as a 4th-ish. It is more powerful than you give it credit for.


It's some shapeshifting every long rest. Even at 20th level, you're getting A Wildshape+Spell option, or two wildshapes and a worse spell option on one of them. And your best option is an Elephant, which will be immediately murdered by the first person who DIDN'T waste their action and half of this "Oh-so-powerful feat" turning into an elephant.
Actually, my main concern is the fact you're letting any class get a better version of guardian of nature, especially on fighter, which has four attacks.


Have you read the actual feat? Literally the only thing that changed was opening up this spell list... Which ultimately does basically nothing, since Wizards had most of them to begin with.
Wizards have half of them, about. That's still not all of them, and it's the entire reason why people even pick Tomelock; the extra cantrips aren't terrible, but generally, the ritual feature is why people go it. Nobody has a reason to ever go tomelock, now.


It's the exact opposite of a buff. Actually read it, it's very much a nerf.
I'll give you this; it is actually a bit of a nerf, reading over it now. At this point, I was getting fatigued from all of the questionable design in the feats, so I misread it a bit. I apologize.


Tested in it's entirety across a 12 level span. Completely fine.
In your apparently extremely-high-power games, I'm sure it's quite fine.


See Skald.
See my response to Skald.


At most it's +1d12 damage on some spells. Very little potency, all things considered. Also tested, worked fine.
You're only thinking about damage; there are spells which don't deal damage but have scaling effects.


Kinda? Not quite the same, and this is to be used WITHOUT that variant.
It just feels odd to me how it exists; if you're including this feat, why not just use Side Initiative?


Objection: Aid.
Aid isn't quite as many hit points, though yes, it does go against the janky thing. You didn't address my other point, though.


They would both be 2d8(Damage die steps are weird, but I guess it's also not a thing 5e does, so whatever I'll specify), and average damage increases by 2. It's Duelist, but for other weapons, and it already wasn't a good fighting style.
What? Duelist is a good fighting style. +2 damage on each hit is exactly in-line with what a fighting style does.


Considering feedback is always appreciated according to your first post, this really didn't come off as appreciating it. It could be that I was just coming off as too harsh in my criticism, and, I do apologize if that's the case (and in some cases, it definitely was), but there's also no reason to be an ******* back, and to dismiss every single claim as if I'm some kind of child that's never played D&D before.

sandmote
2018-12-25, 05:16 AM
Is there somewhere we can see your games?

I ask because I'm having trouble grasping how you've reached some of your conclusions on how weak or strong certain abilities are. At first I figured you had simply skipped reading any spell that didn't do direct damage, but you also consider the base version of Elemental Adept too weak?

Notably, Magic Initiate is well known as a useful feat. There's plenty of cantrips that grant utility, and 1st level spells that either don't scale or don't need scaling. Notably, a lot of such uses are either for doing things out of combat, or for being useful in a wider variety of situations.
When your Paladin learns Fire Bolt, they can now hit targets past a javelin's long range.
When your fighter learns Guidance, they can increase their ally's rolls, as they aren't using their concentration for anything else.
When your Rogue learns Message, they can communicate with the party without being overheard. In a dungeon. While Scouting.
When your Paladin learns Absorb Elements, they can half the damage of a dragon's breath attack.
When your Fighter learns Healing Word, they can bring the cleric above 0 hitpoints and still attack.
When your Rogue learns Find Familiar, they can have it use the help action to give them advantage.

None to these effects are overpowered, but simply the ability to choose a wide variety of options results in a strong feat.

To respond to the written feats, I mostly agree with Blackbando, although I actually like giving either proficiency or expertise if they already had proficiency.

If you want to give the effects of Channel Divinity as a feat, let the player pick a single channel divinity option, and let them use only that option once a long rest. You know, instead of a feat that gives more options for channel divinity than a single class cleric in addition to an equal number of uses.

Blackbando
2018-12-25, 02:10 PM
To respond to the written feats, I mostly agree with Blackbando, although I actually like giving either proficiency or expertise if they already had proficiency.

You're definitely not in the minority there, there are a lot of folks who quite like that style of design. To me, though, I dislike it because it essentially pigeonholes a player down a path, and, while others are fine with that, I think that Leuku said it best in his guide to balancing homebrew classes;


To me, it’s a kind of punishment to players who chose the “wrong” skill proficiency at character creation. Double proficiency in one skill is better than proficiency in two skills, because the former ultimately ensures that you will almost always pass your check, especially if it’s a skill you will use frequently (Perception, Insight, Stealth, Athletics).
What to do instead?
Either
a) grant proficiency in a skill and if they are already proficient grant proficiency in another skill from the class skill list.
Or
b) regardless of whether you are proficient in a skill, grant double proficiency on that skill when used in a specific way.
People can go against that, for sure, though, but I am always going to debate against it until either I'm dead, or someone's sufficiently convinced me otherwise.

sandmote
2018-12-25, 05:35 PM
You're definitely not in the minority there, there are a lot of folks who quite like that style of design. To me, though, I dislike it because it essentially pigeonholes a player down a path, and, while others are fine with that, I think that Leuku said it best in his guide to balancing homebrew classes;


People can go against that, for sure, though, but I am always going to debate against it until either I'm dead, or someone's sufficiently convinced me otherwise.
For the feats, I usually treat it as a "floating" proficiency. So if you have one source of expertise and one source of proficiency, they stack, irrelevant of the order you actually got them.

That way, the player who wants to lean into their character's existing characterization isn't punished for already having proficiency, and the player who changes their character's ways can get to where they would be (after a little extra work).

In the quote, my problem with alternative a) is that it doesn't increase the availability of expertise. Which gets rid of what I usually want when I take such feats. And by problem with option b) is that you're now punishing the player for already having proficiency in that skill. Which isn't a bad problem, but one I expect will come up more often.

Blackbando
2018-12-25, 06:42 PM
For the feats, I usually treat it as a "floating" proficiency. So if you have one source of expertise and one source of proficiency, they stack, irrelevant of the order you actually got them.
Not a bad way to do it, really, though I'm not entirely sure how one would word such a thing.


In the quote, my problem with alternative a) is that it doesn't increase the availability of expertise. Which gets rid of what I usually want when I take such feats. And by problem with option b) is that you're now punishing the player for already having proficiency in that skill. Which isn't a bad problem, but one I expect will come up more often.
A) is fair, but most of the time expertise is one of the main points of a feat - Prodigy is a good example of this, as it grants 1 language, 1 skill, 1 tool, and expertise in 1 skill. A tool and a language are both ribbons, making the meat of the feat the 1 skill and 1 expertise. So, while it can be done, the rest of the feat shouldn't be too powerful, as compensation (unless it's expertise in a skill that isn't too potent, like Religion or Nature in most cases).
B) That really depends on what the specific case is; a dwarf that's proficiency in History isn't punished for having Stonecunning, because the circumstances in which that racial trait come up in aren't common (unless your campaign is explicitly focusing on stone architecture and its history, I suppose), but there are still hundreds of cases where the skill will come up when unrelated to that. If the case is something like "Perception checks based on sight", then for sure, I agree with you, as that's the majority of times where Perception is used.

sandmote
2018-12-25, 09:10 PM
Not a bad way to do it, really, though I'm not entirely sure how one would word such a thing.
I haven't actually tried formally writing it out.

"You gain proficiency in Athletics (Strength). If you already have proficiency or later gain proficiency in Athletics from another source you instead gain expertise."

"You gain proficiency in Athletics (Strength), but can still gain proficiency in this skill from another source. When you have proficiency in Athletics from this feat and another source, you can add double your proficiency bonus to Athletics rolls instead."

Not sure which one is clearer.


A) is fair, but most of the time expertise is one of the main points of a feat - Prodigy is a good example of this, as it grants 1 language, 1 skill, 1 tool, and expertise in 1 skill. A tool and a language are both ribbons, making the meat of the feat the 1 skill and 1 expertise. So, while it can be done, the rest of the feat shouldn't be too powerful, as compensation (unless it's expertise in a skill that isn't too potent, like Religion or Nature in most cases).
Yes, which is why my change makes sure you will be able to get expertise; you will be able to get the main point of the feat. In this case you're still punishing the player for choosing the "wrong" skill proficiency at character creation (borrowing the language from the quote). However, if the player spends a resource to get proficiency in that skill again, the punishment ends.


B) That really depends on what the specific case is; a dwarf that's proficiency in History isn't punished for having Stonecunning, because the circumstances in which that racial trait come up in aren't common (unless your campaign is explicitly focusing on stone architecture and its history, I suppose), but there are still hundreds of cases where the skill will come up when unrelated to that. If the case is something like "Perception checks based on sight", then for sure, I agree with you, as that's the majority of times where Perception is used.
I missed the qualifier "in a specific way."

The more limited versions of this would likely be reasonable. Not entirely sure how they would feel compared to expertise. I think most of the ones in published material apply in really specific cases.