Opinions on Feat Switching

[Wasp]

Hi everyone

I was wondering: Sometimes a feat would be quite useful at lower levels but not that great anymore in the end game, which means sometimes feats get ignored because they are only viable at certain points. Therefore, an idea may be to allow to switch feats at level up.

I would say only switching between feats and not to/from ASIs (although...) and allow that at any level up - or maybe only when you have a normal ASI?

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Ugly idea? How could this be made interesting but not overpowered?

[Jerrykhor]

I was wondering: Sometimes a feat would be quite useful at lower levels but not that great anymore in the end game, which means sometimes feats get ignored because they are only viable at certain points.

The only feat i can think of is Heavy Armor Master. What other feats do you think qualify as such?

I probably wouldn't allow it, unless the player wants to redo a character concept.

[OldTrees1]

In general, characters losing / forgetting how to do something breaks verisimilitude for me. Similar to a character that is only viable after level N. So I am generally opposed to such.

If I felt there was a neat feat but it was only great for a specific level range. I might
1) Just take it because there is plenty of things that are only great during a specific level range.
2) Talk with the DM and see if a weaker but scaling option could be available. That way it is good at a longer level range rather than great at a shorter level range.

I too am curious about which feats you had in mind.

[Wasp]

The only feat i can think of is Heavy Armor Master. What other feats do you think qualify as such?
I was thinking exactly of Heavy Armor Master (for my Paladin 2/ Bard X)! :smallbiggrin:

[Mith]

I was thinking exactly of Heavy Armor Master (for my Paladin 2/ Bard X)! :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I like the idea that HAM gives you proficiency bonus DR (or something tied to proficiency bonus), which gives the scaling effect across levels. Deducting 6 off of every physical hit can add up over the course of a combat.

[CTurbo]

I usually allow quite a lot in my games, but I wouldn't allow feat switching without some REALLY good reason. So far it's never came up.

HAM gets some flack for not being as strong at higher levels, and it may be true to an extent, it's not as bad as some people make it out to be. Many middle tier enemies and up have multiple attacks so the damage reduction per round can be more like 6-9 per enemy. It is always useful to have at any level. I had a friend keep track of the damage it reduced over 6 or 7 levels and it was well into the hundreds of hp it had saved him.

Either way, I have homebrewed it once by removing the +1 Str and changing the flat damage reduction from a static -3 to the proficiency bonus. This made it significantly weaker at lower levels, and significantly stronger at higher levels. It seemed to work out well.




Defensive Duelist and Resilient are arguably stronger at higher levels as written considering they key off of the character's prof bonus. Defensive Duelist in particular is an extremely strong feat at high levels for character's that qualify.

[Skylivedk]

I would very much allow it, both for player fun and verisimilitude. I don't want players stuck with options that make them unhappy, and my personal story includes changing my entire skillset. Twice.

[MrStabby]

So I allow feat switching, but not like this. I allow it in circumstances where they are made redundant. For example, if you take magic initiate (wizard) then take a level of wizard, you can duplicate the features of the feat and then 'reclaim' the feat.

The idea is to support thematic choices - you want to be an arcane monk? Take monk, variant human and magic initiate and then swap out as you level up. I dont confine this to feats either though - you are duel classing fighter and ranger and are fighter 5 and ranger 4... take a level in ranger and your fighter 5 is duplicated- you can swap this level for something else.

The key thing is that you never forget how to do things. I never liked the old dual class rules where you suddenly forgot your whole career.

[Aett_Thorn]

I tend to allow for feat switching only in specific circumstances, and usually only if there is a real need for it (such as a character taking a feat that ends up being pretty useless in the campaign that we're in). For instance, I wouldn't let a character swap out of HAM because it feels weaker at higher levels, but I would if the party moved themselves into a desert (I tend to be fairly sandboxy) and now heavy armor is problematic and they no longer wish to wear it.

I would also allow it at the end of a character arc that justified it. For instance, a pyromaniac character that took Elemental Adept (Fire) has been learning that fire isn't the answer, and comes to the conclusion of their character arc for that, I would allow them to replace said feat for something else.

But for just "this feels weaker now" reasons? Nope.

[Zhorn]

I've allowed players to spend downtime training to change over a feat; but on the condition they needed a story reason for their character to do so.

Take the aforementioned Magic Initiate feat, a player multiclassing into wizard would be a valid reason to reclaim the feat, but replacing it with something else they need to offer up something that explains why they were suddenly really good at talking 3 new languages and making cyphers.

Taking a few weeks downtime to train is just a good control to stop players from swapping the feats out every level, as the clock isn't always going to sit and wait for that one player to optimise their character, but still allows enough freedom to fix any major build mistakes between main quest arcs.
I use the DMG's Training To Gain Levels (p131) as my benchmark for how much downtime they'll need (the gold tends to be a minimal concern, a formality mostly).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Hi everyone

I was wondering: Sometimes a feat would be quite useful at lower levels but not that great anymore in the end game, which means sometimes feats get ignored because they are only viable at certain points. Therefore, an idea may be to allow to switch feats at level up.

I would say only switching between feats and not to/from ASIs (although...) and allow that at any level up - or maybe only when you have a normal ASI?

What do you think? Good idea? Bad idea? Ugly idea? How could this be made interesting but not overpowered?

Feat switching on level up works well enough. I think any class option should be changeable upon level up.

This includes taking levels of a class.

The reasoning behind allowing for one thing to change can apply to pretty much every choice in the game.

There aren't a lot of build variety in 5e, might as well let players experiment and change things up on a level by level basis.

[Democratus]

Feat switching on level up works well enough. I think any class option should be changeable upon level up.

This includes taking levels of a class.

The reasoning behind allowing for one thing to change can apply to pretty much every choice in the game.

There aren't a lot of build variety in 5e, might as well let players experiment and change things up on a level by level basis.

Interesting idea.

Does this mean you would allow switching out class levels from earlier on in a character's career?

For example, you were a fighter at 1st level, but when you reach 4th level decide you want your 1st level to have been Wizard instead?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Interesting idea.

Does this mean you would allow switching out class levels from earlier on in a character's career?

For example, you were a fighter at 1st level, but when you reach 4th level decide you want your 1st level to have been Wizard instead?

You would need to go from the highest level of the class and go backwards.


So, if you become a 6th level character who is a Wiz 3/ Fighter 2, and want to retrain a Wizard level into a Fighter, you would be a Wiz 2/Fighter 3 and then add on your next level of whatever it may be.

So, if you wanted to retrain out of a class, it would take as many levels as you have in the class.

[Democratus]

You would need to go from the highest level of the class and go backwards.


So, if you become a 6th level character who is a Wiz 3/ Fighter 2, and want to retrain a Wizard level into a Fighter, you would be a Wiz 2/Fighter 3 and then add on your next level of whatever it may be.

So, if you wanted to retrain out of a class, it would take as many levels as you have in the class.

Neat! Thanks for explaining.

[Pex]

I view heavy armor master beyond the math. Having it essentially means you are not dropped for minimum one round more than you otherwise would be. That one round could make all the difference. Either you defeat the bad guy yourself in that round or you cause the bad guy to have to attack you that round and not a party member who gets to do something that defeats the bad guy or do something else important in that fight.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Neat! Thanks for explaining.


No problem!


I view heavy armor master beyond the math. Having it essentially means you are not dropped for minimum one round more than you otherwise would be. That one round could make all the difference. Either you defeat the bad guy yourself in that round or you cause the bad guy to have to attack you that round and not a party member who gets to do something that defeats the bad guy or do something else important in that fight.

Heavy Armor Master is great at low levels but at higher levels it's pretty forgettable.

[Teaguethebean]

Ask your dm to drop the fact the attacks can't be magic and then it will be viable all campaign.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Ask your dm to drop the fact the attacks can't be magic and then it will be viable all campaign.

Even without the clause, the feat is still meh at higher levels.

Have the DR be equal to proficiency bonus, then we will be talking a feat that is worth it at higher levels.

One of the reasons I stopped playing high levels is because there's no decent scaling outside of spellcasting.

[Demonslayer666]

I would allow a feat swap at the next leveling up after discussing what the player was finding lackluster.

To me, this is like swapping out a known spell. So yes, you can forget something you learned.

[Democratus]

So yes, you can forget something you learned.

I do that all the time!

I'm clearly ready to level. :smallcool:

[HPisBS]

The only feat i can think of is Heavy Armor Master. What other feats do you think qualify...?


So I allow feat switching, but not like this. I allow it in circumstances where they are made redundant....

Resilient on a Monk is the most obvious.

But in that case, I might require it to be switched for a similar half-feat, or else just refund the lost half-ASI.

[MrStabby]

Resilient on a Monk is the most obvious.

But in that case, I might require it to be switched for a similar half-feat, or else just refund the lost half-ASI.

Yeah resilient is one. The battlemaster feat is another, ritual casting, magic initiate, armour proficiencies.

I will usually allow soft swapping as well for RP reasons. If you want to play a dirty fighter that is mobile and represent that by a fighter rogue multiclass but want to take the rogue levels later I would allow mobile to be refunded with cunning action.

[Ovarwa]

Hi,

Here's another case of swapping that I think should be encouraged:

A character takes an ASI at levels 4 and 8 to boost his primary stat to 20 asap. At level 12, all those half-feats involving that stat are no longer worthwhile.... unless he can swap the ASI for one of those half-feats. This has a good feel; the character is still boosting his intelligence or strength or whatever, but is at a point where his gains are more specialized rather than the entire score.

Anyway,

Ken

[Mikal]

No. Choices need to have consequences and matter. You want something that gives you a large boost early game but not as useful later? Well, that was your choice.

Besides there really aren’t feats that are useless later on.

[jmartkdr]

I can't imagine denying a player who asked for this unless they're already a problem player. We might need to work out a story reason, but that's always possible.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'm in favor of it whenever you level. Powers should reflect things that you intend to do, and you should be allowed compensation if your DM doesn't fit your niche power in.

Spellcasters already get this, so why can't anyone else?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

No. Choices need to have consequences and matter. You want something that gives you a large boost early game but not as useful later? Well, that was your choice.

Besides there really aren’t feats that are useless later on.

I wonder if you tell spellcasters this same thing with spell selection. Oh, wait, it's spellcasting so that gets to be powerful AND flexible.

There are plenty of feats that are bad or useless later in the game, especially depending on class choices that can make feats redundant.

Charger (anyone w/extra attack or cunning action), Heavy Armor Mastery, Dungeon Delver (on rogues), and Dual Wielder are all feats off the top of my head that lose their luster. Fast.

[Mikal]

I wonder if you tell spellcasters this same thing with spell selection. Oh, wait, it's spellcasting so that gets to be powerful AND flexible.

Apples and oranges comparison. Spellcasting is not an ASI or feat. And yes I do tell spellcasters that their ASI/feat choices are irrevocable thanks.


There are plenty of feats that are bad or useless later in the game, especially depending on class choices that can make feats redundant.

So? You made those choices. Live with them.


Charger (anyone w/extra attack or cunning action), Heavy Armor Mastery, Dungeon Delver (on rogues), and Dual Wielder are all feats off the top of my head that lose their luster. Fast.

Then don’t choose them if you don’t want them.

Charger is good on actions where you want to make one really good hit since it counters the -5 from great weapon master or if you need to close the distance for whatever reason while still hitting.

Heavy armor mastery is still situationally useful at higher levels- lots of creatures do non magic B/P/S and it’s a half feat so if you rolled and got an odd strength score (say 17 as a variant human) or got one with point buy it shores it up.

Dungeon delver like you said isn’t good on rogue. So... if you play a rogue you don’t choose it. Just like a rogue wouldn’t take heavy weapon master.

Dual wielding as a whole is busted. The feat isn’t the problem with it. If your concept is dual wielding in general unless you’re wanting an extra attack as a rogue or something you’re doing it for style or character, not optimization purposes, and probably couldn’t care less about it.

So yeah. As I ORIGINALLY SAID, if you choose to take a feat that’s more effective at low levels but isn’t as effective as high levels, that’s nice. That’s what you chose. Live with it.

And that’s also like 4 feats out of many. So my point of “no feats are useless at higher levels” still stands. Some are weaker. They aren’t useless.

[CBAnaesthesia]

So I allow feat switching, but not like this. I allow it in circumstances where they are made redundant. For example, if you take magic initiate (wizard) then take a level of wizard, you can duplicate the features of the feat and then 'reclaim' the feat.

The idea is to support thematic choices - you want to be an arcane monk? Take monk, variant human and magic initiate and then swap out as you level up. I dont confine this to feats either though - you are duel classing fighter and ranger and are fighter 5 and ranger 4... take a level in ranger and your fighter 5 is duplicated- you can swap this level for something else.

The key thing is that you never forget how to do things. I never liked the old dual class rules where you suddenly forgot your whole career.

This is what my DM did too - I had a fighter with Ritual Caster (Wizard) and when I took a wizard level he let me retrain because I only had 1st-level rituals in my spellbook anyway so it was totally redundant. I also hadn't been planning to take any wizard levels during the campaign but changed my mind due to character & story reasons.
However, he restricted it to a feat that boosted my Int (so Observant, Keen Mind, or Resilient (Int)) to reflect that my Ritual Caster feat was related to being a better caster so my new feat should be also, which I thought was pretty reasonable.

[Man_Over_Game]

Apples and oranges comparison. Spellcasting is not an ASI or feat. And yes I do tell spellcasters that their ASI/feat choices are irrevocable thanks.

To be fair, there are a lot fewer feats for casters than there are for everyone else. Casters, more than anyone, have really easy, low-risk choices when making ASI/Feat choices. Which is ironic, since they are already very adaptive anyway, and a caster gets multiple spells per level, while everyone else gets 1 feat for every 4. To top it off, there are a hell of a lot more spells than feats, meaning a caster is less likely to be shoehorned into getting an investment that they doesn't quite fit what they want.

All of this considered, it'd make a lot more sense to allow feats to change, and force spells to be rigid. By this point, the defense is basically "because the rules told me to".

[Skylivedk]

I view heavy armor master beyond the math. Having it essentially means you are not dropped for minimum one round more than you otherwise would be. That one round could make all the difference. Either you defeat the bad guy yourself in that round or you cause the bad guy to have to attack you that round and not a party member who gets to do something that defeats the bad guy or do something else important in that fight.
What? How does it guarantee one more round?


No. Choices need to have consequences and matter. You want something that gives you a large boost early game but not as useful later? Well, that was your choice.

Besides there really aren’t feats that are useless later on.

I don't understand you.

1) to me, your stance comes across as gotcha DMing / DM vs players to me. I'm not trying to poison the well or build a strawman, just sharing my impression of your post.

2) IRL, we lose and gain abilities all the time. I used to be great at fighting hand to hand and an introvert. Now, my negotiation, leadership and presentation skills are an essential part of my income and business. On the other hand, I'm pretty useless in a Brazilian jiu-jitsu fight and mediocre at climbing. In total, I've also learned 6 languages to fluency throughout my life (I'm in my early thirties) and I've already forgotten 3 of them (which reminds me that languages are weird in 5e)

3) for new players, you have feats that are
A) generally bad (savage attacker, dualwielder)
B) bad later on
C) bad for their character

4) feat switching encourages players to try some more wonky and varied builds, hence I'm all for it.

5) why not make sure players keep having characters they enjoy rather than feel a tinge of sadness every time they see that silly early level choice they now regret?

Anyway YMMV: if you and your groups prefer static great choices, enjoy and have fun :)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

To be fair, there are a lot fewer feats for casters than there are for everyone else. Casters, more than anyone, have really easy, low-risk choices when making ASI/Feat choices. Which is ironic, since they are already very adaptive anyway, and a caster gets multiple spells per level, while everyone else gets 1 feat for every 4. To top it off, there are a hell of a lot more spells than feats, meaning a caster is less likely to be shoehorned into getting an investment that they doesn't quite fit what they want.

All of this considered, it'd make a lot more sense to allow feats to change, and force spells to be rigid. By this point, the defense is basically "because the rules told me to".

While the apples to oranges argument is bunk, I don't particularly care to get into a deep/lengthy conversation with someone that seems to have a DM v Player attitude so I'm going to focus on something you said instead that got my attention.

There are not less feats for casters, if anything there are more.

Now, casters have less reason to take a feat over an ASI but they get more out of every feat across the board than non-casters.

If a barbarian takes GWM or PAM, they still do the same thing they did before... Damage. They don't become a better character, just better at a specific role that they already excelled at.

If a Cleric grabs those feats, they get much better at an area of the game they didn't already excel in, at-will melee damage.

If a martial grabs Magic Initiate, they have a very specific set of cantrips and spells they can take without having to invest in an ability score that typically doesn't help them. Casters can typically pick up a much broader range of spells (specifically Wis and Cha based casters).

Crossbow Master is an amazing feat for a caster, not only can it allow them to pull off some ok at-will weapon damage, but the ranged attacks ignoring disadvantage works for ANY ranged attack, totally worth a feat if you see yourself surrounded a lot.

There are some Spellcaster only feats, at least, there are some feats that without mental investment you aren't taking them. Elemental Adept and Spellsniper are two such feats. Without spells or investment with mental stats, you're locked out. The closest thing to this on the martial side is armor feats as you need the strength to carry the weight (not just heavy armor, medium armor weight can weigh you down). The dexterity requirement of defensive duelist (or is it dual wielder) isn't a lock out as Dex is very important for most casters. Even martial adept doesn't have some sort of lock out.

A lot of the half feats are just gravy for anyone. Observant is going to be better on a wisdom or intelligence based caster than a martial (somewhat redundant on a Rogue with expertise) as their ability score will be higher. Mobile is just stupid good for getting away from an enemy on anyone (especially with attack cantrips).


While casters have more of a reason to get 20 in their main stat, I think they have more feat options for building characters than martials do... Though I think martials have more options for making their one role better.

[Skylivedk]

While the apples to oranges argument is bunk, I don't particularly care to get into a deep/lengthy conversation with someone that seems to have a DM v Player attitude so I'm going to focus on something you said instead that got my attention.

There are not less feats for casters, if anything there are more.

Now, casters have less reason to take a feat over an ASI but they get more out of every feat across the board than non-casters.

If a barbarian takes GWM or PAM, they still do the same thing they did before... Damage. They don't become a better character, just better at a specific role that they already excelled at.

If a Cleric grabs those feats, they get much better at an area of the game they didn't already excel in, at-will melee damage.

If a martial grabs Magic Initiate, they have a very specific set of cantrips and spells they can take without having to invest in an ability score that typically doesn't help them. Casters can typically pick up a much broader range of spells (specifically Wis and Cha based casters).

Crossbow Master is an amazing feat for a caster, not only can it allow them to pull off some ok at-will weapon damage, but the ranged attacks ignoring disadvantage works for ANY ranged attack, totally worth a feat if you see yourself surrounded a lot.

There are some Spellcaster only feats, at least, there are some feats that without mental investment you aren't taking them. Elemental Adept and Spellsniper are two such feats. Without spells or investment with mental stats, you're locked out. The closest thing to this on the martial side is armor feats as you need the strength to carry the weight (not just heavy armor, medium armor weight can weigh you down). The dexterity requirement of defensive duelist (or is it dual wielder) isn't a lock out as Dex is very important for most casters. Even martial adept doesn't have some sort of lock out.

A lot of the half feats are just gravy for anyone. Observant is going to be better on a wisdom or intelligence based caster than a martial (somewhat redundant on a Rogue with expertise) as their ability score will be higher. Mobile is just stupid good for getting away from an enemy on anyone (especially with attack cantrips).


While casters have more of a reason to get 20 in their main stat, I think they have more feat options for building characters than martials do... Though I think martials have more options for making their one role better.

I agree that a lot of the more flavorful feats (keen mind, observant, actor) fit casters better due to the supported stats being caster main stats.

I disagree that casters get more out of feats for the following reasons:

A)
Your examples of combat feats on casters in general don't make sense

A1)
GWM doesn't make full casters (Sorcadins and Hexblades exempt) better at dealing damage. It actually makes them worse since taking GWM means they're not taking something useful and as is, the normal full caster won't have the stats nor the attacks, and often not the durability as well, to use the feat.

A bunch of them don't even have access to heavy weapons.

A2)
Crossbow Expert doesn't add good at-will damage. We're comparing with cantrips after all. Most casters will hit significantly worse and from level 5 the average 11 damage of firebolt is already on par with two shots from a hand crossbow ((3,5+2)*2). Saving throw cantrips are usually a way better way of dealing with being surrounded. That, better positioning and/or mobility or visual impairment spells.

A3)
Can be seen as slightly better. Suffers also from being outpaced by cantrips quickly.

B)
Casters are not adding a new element or role by adding damage.

B1)
All casters were already capable of dealing good damage. Ref: Nuclear Wizard, Sorlocks, Summoners, etc.

B2)
As shown above the feats don't actually add damage in most cases.

C)
Martials can fill new roles with feats.

C1)
Ritual caster and Healer are great examples. Healer can turn the Thief into one of the cheapest and most reliable sources of healing in a group. Ritual Caster provides tons of utility not baked into most of the martial classes and can completely change a campaign.

D)
Martials gain more from feats.

Where most casters would probably miss having warcaster/resilient con, it's nothing compared to how hit a fighter is on both primary role and utility if feats are gone. No PAM/GWM, XBE/SS, Shield Master/Prodigy combos hurt a lot. For secondary functions the lack of Healer, Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate (but also lucky, observant etc) don't just hurt, but almost completely closes those avenues of contributing to a party.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I agree that a lot of the more flavorful feats (keen mind, observant, actor) fit casters better due to the supported stats being caster main stats.

I disagree that casters get more out of feats for the following reasons:

A)
Your examples of combat feats on casters in general don't make sense

A1)
GWM doesn't make full casters (Sorcadins and Hexblades exempt) better at dealing damage. It actually makes them worse since taking GWM means they're not taking something useful and as is, the normal full caster won't have the stats nor the attacks, and often not the durability as well, to use the feat.

A bunch of them don't even have access to heavy weapons.

A2)
Crossbow Expert doesn't add good at-will damage. We're comparing with cantrips after all. Most casters will hit significantly worse and from level 5 the average 11 damage of firebolt is already on par with two shots from a hand crossbow ((3,5+2)*2). Saving throw cantrips are usually a way better way of dealing with being surrounded. That, better positioning and/or mobility or visual impairment spells.

A3)
Can be seen as slightly better. Suffers also from being outpaced by cantrips quickly.

B)
Casters are not adding a new element or role by adding damage.

B1)
All casters were already capable of dealing good damage. Ref: Nuclear Wizard, Sorlocks, Summoners, etc.

B2)
As shown above the feats don't actually add damage in most cases.

C)
Martials can fill new roles with feats.

C1)
Ritual caster and Healer are great examples. Healer can turn the Thief into one of the cheapest and most reliable sources of healing in a group. Ritual Caster provides tons of utility not baked into most of the martial classes and can completely change a campaign.

D)
Martials gain more from feats.

Where most casters would probably miss having warcaster/resilient con, it's nothing compared to how hit a fighter is on both primary role and utility if feats are gone. No PAM/GWM, XBE/SS, Shield Master/Prodigy combos hurt a lot. For secondary functions the lack of Healer, Ritual Caster and Magic Initiate (but also lucky, observant etc) don't just hurt, but almost completely closes those avenues of contributing to a party.

Base level spells are already amazingly versatile, adding at-will weapon damage onto casters (via the different feats) brings in a new avenue for the caster to be useful.

Casters are already good at most and there things, or can be, the combat feats expand that in ways their base class doesn't (wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock).

Actually Feylocks and Fiendlocks with PAM +Sentinel are a fun build.

A hexblade has less reason to take combat feats. They fall into the category of partial-martial and don't really count as a caster like a (most) cleric or wizards.