Remaking Warcaster [sort of]

[Bjarkmundur]

I have a tweaked feat as a part of my homebrew feat collection, aimed at being useful primarily for melee casters. The feat is perfectly balanced against the rest of my feats, but I feel like it's usefulness is a bit too general for its intended use:


Warcaster
You have advantage on concentration saving throws.
You do not have disadvantage on ranged attack rolls when you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature.

I'm looking for a small change I can make to it to discourage backline casters to take this feat. Is there anyway to give a character a concentration boost without it being generally useful for all spellcasters?

I initially thought of "When you cast a spell that requires your concentration you can instead cast it with a duration of 1d4 rounds. This spell still counts as using your concentration for casting other concentration spells." but didn't fall in love with it. The idea is that it would only be useful if you KNOW you'll be taking hits, instead of generally useful if you MIGHT take a hit. What do you guys think?

I emphasize, balance is not an issue, so no need to address that. My players get BOTH an ASI and a homebrewed feat, so it's designed to be less impactful than the official feats and half feats. Think of it as a quarter-feat, if you still feel like the powerlevel needs to be addressed. I don't use official feats in my games (optional rules are optional ;) )

[Grod_The_Giant]

There are plenty of concentration combat spells that I'd be happy to cast for only a few rounds-- say, Web. The only thing I can think of would be to have the save bonus be based on your Str or Dex score (altogether backline casters will prob still have decent Dex).

[Zhorn]

You do not have disadvantage on ranged attack rolls when you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature.
Is this right, or was it meant to be ranged spell attack rolls?

[Bjarkmundur]

There are plenty of concentration combat spells that I'd be happy to cast for only a few rounds-- say, Web. The only thing I can think of would be to have the save bonus be based on your Str or Dex score (altogether backline casters will prob still have decent Dex).

Ok, good I'm on the right track. I'll think about allowing a player to use a different physical stat for his concentration check. It seems to discourage high-mental stat casters from taking this feat, since they'll likely not gain much from it.


Is this right, or was it meant to be ranged spell attack rolls?

As intended, yes.
The first design goal was to encourage Paladins to use things like Bless and Shield of Faith. But it felt to bare to me, and thought I could use it as a chance to give other melee spellcasters a bone as well. I didn't see the need to specify, and used the general term instead. Do you feel like doing so works against the intended use of this feat?

Do you think it would be better to say that "Any spell with a range of more than 5 feet can now be cast with a range of touch". That would help spellcasters cast in melee, while discouraging going for targets far away. Is that what I want, or do I not mind that a player is spell-slinging while engaged in melee combat? If I'd use the touch-clause, would a spell still require a ranged attack rolls? Is there any other penalty for casting saving throw spells when close to an enemy?

Although, I do like it when options are used as means of explaining rules, like with features that allow using the Search action or Use Object as a bonus action. Without these features there would probably be a lot of players and DMs that didn't even realize these were legit actions to take in combat.

Oh god what have I gotten myself into :/

I try to be as general as I can in my houserules, to discourage a 'RAW' mindset and encourage RAI way of thinking. I had an issue with barbarian rage bonus only applying to weapons when it makes total sense it should apply to unarmed attacks as well. But then thought about how Paladin's Sacred Weapon is also a weapon-specific feature, but it would make no sense to apply that effect to a boot.

Althought that would be funny.
Jeremiah, the Dragonborn Paladin of Bahamut, and his SACRED BOOT OF JUSTICE!

I have one feat that is basically a RAW nightmare, but I think when you read it you have no problem with how it supposed to be implemented.
I warn you, it might hurt reading this xD

Pacifist
If you make no attack on your turn, you can take the dodge action as a bonus action.

Hahaha, I just love how much of a nightmare this feat is. It doesn't specify ANYTHING, yet is perfectly understandable. I wrote it and my friend immediately started tearing it apart and trying to find some way to make it work as a 'RAW'-style feat. He wrote up an entire paragraph-length version of the feat. I have a principle of keeping my housrules short, so I just said no and left it as is. It still cracks me up reading this xD

Does casting Hold Person so your Rogue can crit a creature disqualify you from gaining this bonus action?
Can I use the bonus action at the start of my turn to dodge, and then make an attack, since at the time of me taking the bonus action I hadn't attacked on my turn?
If I use my reaction to attack, do I lose the dodge bonus?


What a nightmare xD

It's a genius way of simply saying "The DM uses the rules as guidelines to run his game. The rules are no more than suggested mechanics, and that's that. Welcome to 5e."

[Zhorn]

As intended, yes, this feat is to encourage melee spellcasting. I'd don't like discouraging Paladins from casting Bless and Shield of Faith, and would rather encourage it. I didn't see the need to specify, and use a general term instead. Do you feel like doing so works against the intended use of this feat? I try to be as general as I can in my houserules, to discourage a 'RAW' mindset and encourage RAI way of thinking.
As long as it works for your home game.
Having that line in a general format of "ranged attacks" instead of "ranged spell attacks" just gives it an overlap with Crossbow Expert, but even with the specification, Crossbow Expert would still have a one way overlap, so it's much of a muchness.



I had an issue with barbarian rage bonus only applying to weapons when it makes total sense it should apply to unarmed attacks as well. But then thought about how Paladin's Sacred Weapon used the same wording, but it would make no sense to apply that effect to a boot.
Ah yes, I'm familiar with this. a few players of mine were asking similar questions and I had to dig through a few threads for the proper answer. in my DM folder, I have a small section clarifying the language used in the rules to help keep it clear for my players.

Weapon = objects listed as weapons AND natural weapons
Weapon attack = attacks with weapons AND unarmed strikes (despite not being weapons)
Melee weapon attack = [melee] [weapon attack]


Wording is important on those abilities

Rage specifies "melee weapon attack using Strength", so as long as unarmed strikes are using Strength, the Rage bonus damage applies.

Sacred weapon though is phrased as "you can imbue one weapon that you are holding with positive energy", so that rules out unarmed strikes. Improvised weapons are also ruled out as that only count as weapons during the moment attacks made with them. No sacred boot by RAW (but by house rule, no one can stop you :smalltongue: )

[Bjarkmundur]

no sacred boot by raw (but by house rule, no one can stop you :smalltongue: )

the belt of vengeance
the lace of lacerations!!
The brick of beating!!!
The bread of bludgeoning!!!!