New UA: Feats

[tmjr6]

WotC's latest UA is bringing us 16 new feats.

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/UA2020_Feats.pdf

[nickl_2000]

oh, oh, gimme, gimme :smallwink:

More options for in game!


Wow, there is a lot going on here and some that I am not a fan of at all. There are so many feats that are taking away what is special about a class or subclass and opening it to everyone. On the other hand, my paladin is drooling about the crusher and tandem tactician feats.



Also, I've got an arcane archer sitting in the back of my head that I would love to pick up Hunter's mark for. That is a crazy increase in damage for that PC for an hour a day. Although the Fey touched feat is strictly better. Hex, Misty Step, and Int boost.

[micahaphone]

I absolutely love the Chef feat. I'm looking forward to using it in the future.


It's a half feat with +1 wis or con, both useful
bard style extra healing on short rests
tiny bits of temp hp on bonus action demand - kind of wish it was more than proficiency, but I can see wanting to keep this low


Gonna make an Uncle Iroh character. Fresh jasmine tea every short rest, some rosewater tea cakes baked every morning

[MrStabby]

I think feats have generally been one thing that WotC has done well. Ok, these are not perfect yet but pretty good for UA.

I can see some of these being a really nice boost in the right hands whilst also being Interesting.

What I dont like is the blurring of classes, passing out specific class features so easily.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Now wizard's actually can steal all of the sorcerers toys.

Other than the metamagic feat I'm not super bothered by them. I really want tandem tactician on my paladin now.

[nickl_2000]

Now wizard's actually can steal all of the sorcerers toys.

Other than the metamagic feat I'm not super bothered by them. I really want tandem tactician on my paladin now.

Really, you are bothered by the metamagic feat but not by the invocation feat? Why is that?

[Elricaltovilla]

It's really too bad that WotC thinks you should have to choose between interesting, fun abilities and the necessary math to ensure your character can even function on level. Oh well, that's what house rules are for.

[diplomancer]

Now wizard's actually can steal all of the sorcerers toys.

Other than the metamagic feat I'm not super bothered by them. I really want tandem tactician on my paladin now.

As is, the class that benefits the most from the Metamagical feat is the sorcerer. You can't do much with 2 Sorcery Points, and only sorcerers get Flexible Casting. Sure, it's UA and rough, but this feat actually solves one of the main complaint people have about Sorcerers, the very limited metamagic options.

[micahaphone]

Now wizard's actually can steal all of the sorcerers toys.

Other than the metamagic feat I'm not super bothered by them. I really want tandem tactician on my paladin now.

I agree, but at least it's limited to just 2 sorcery points. No heightened, and if you take quickened you can only do it 1x a day. Twinned only on level 2 or lower spells. Still leaves careful, distant, extended, empowered, and subtle as doable 2x a day. This feat is still good for a sorcerer, like they realize that waiting for level 10 before you get another metamagic is ridiculous.


The Fey Touched/Shadow Touched feats are also great for sorcerers, expanding your spells known, and swappable on level up. Like a better Magic Initiate, as sorcs don't need more cantrips.

[Civis Mundi]

I love all of these so much. Great flavor, opens up a ton of options (like Fighting Style as a feat) I always felt were too restrictive, strong without crossing the line into overpowered.

My only critiques at first glance:

Metamagic Adept is now a must-have for any Sorcerer, if not any spellcaster. I think the Sorcerer could use a buff, but I don't think imposing a Feat tax is the way to do it. If it were up to me, I'd make it as a half-feat that added +1 to INT, WIS or CHA, gave 1 Metamagic option, and allowed you to use that option 1/long rest.
Tandem Tactician makes the Mastermind Rogue a little sad, since it steals their defining feature, but makes it better (albeit at a shorter range). I'd probably just make it a half-feat, drop the multiple targets clause, and keep it at 10' range.
Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher seem a little weak at first glance, though I'm coming around. Crusher seemed the worst at first, but I think it could actually have great potential for a tank build, pushing anyone who threatens their squishier allies away without sacrificing attacks. Piercer's actually a pretty decent to increase DPR while bumping STR from an odd score. Problem is, without homebrew weapons (ie., a basic 2-handed heavy 1d12 piercing weapon), it's best on a pike or a lance. The problem is, for some ridiculous reason, Polearm Master doesn't work with a pike, which is ridiculous. But it could really shine with a lance-wielding mounted build. Slasher seems the weakest to me right now, though I could see it finding limited use on a skirmisher with Mobile.
Gunner: This isn't a neccessity, but I do think it's silly that there's no way to make point-blank shots as an AOO even with feats like Crossbow Expert and Gunner. I'd remove the DEX bonus and add the ability to make AOOs with firearms at 5' range, but that's personal preference.
Practiced Expert: This is fine, really, but I loved the Skill Feats, and I'll always allow them at my table. I find this style a lot blander.

My favorites here are:

Chef: I have a penchant for making culinary characters, and this is a perfect fit. It's also nice to have more options for non-magical healing in the game.
Eldritch Adept: It's simple, but it can help to give Warlocks more invocations beyond their heavy feat taxes. It's also a super-flavorful option for lots of classes that want some of that Warlock feel without an actual dip. It's also nice to be able to get Agonizing Blast if you've already gotten eldrtich blast from somewhere else, but feats are even scarcer than class levels. So I think it's a balanced trade-off.
Fey Touched: This one's a lot more powerful than it looks, since hex is an enchantment spell. Not only can you use them both 1/long rest free, you can also cast them with your spell slots. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that hex and misty steps are both very worthwhile spells to know. (Ninja'd on this one, but my point stands)
Fighting Initiate: Another simple one, but it might be my favorite of the lot. I think it's dumb that classes like the Rogue or the Barbarian must dip to gain a Fighting Style. This goes for the Rogue especially, since two-weapon fighting can be a crucial part of many a rogue's image.
Poisoner: I've seen a lot of players wanting to make poison a bigger part of their character concept than the rules allow. This gets around that nicely, and adds some nice out-of-combat activities for what might be a bored martial character.
Shadow Touched: Could be a great feat for a Shadow Monk (extra darkness, plus utility from disguise self, without compromising the Monk's hunger to raise DEX or WIS with every ASI) or a Devil's Sight Warlock (where having an extra use of darkness means that much less stress on your limited spell slots)

[micahaphone]

I feel like taking the Tracker feat on a Fighter (w/ their extra ASIs) would make a great ranger - less spellcasting, but greater options for armor/weapons/fighting style, and the almighty action surge.

[Waazraath]

Decent. Nothing overpowered, few nice and flavorful (poisoner, piercing/slashing/crushing specializations), few boosts for the sorcerer, some class cross-overs possible, especially nice for games without multiclassing. I'm not super exited about any options, but can imagine considering taking some of these.

[ShinyRocks]

Chef is super fun, and very impactful at lower levels, I think. A variant human taking this at level 1 could contribute a lot. A d8 of healing is a lot, and even 2 temporary HP can make a difference if you've only got 7 or 8 to begin with.

Crusher is great. My current Forge Cleric would be mighty tempted if he didn't already have even numbered stats.

Not a fan of giving other classes Invocations and Metamagic, even if it's very limited. And I'm not sure I like them flavour-wise, either. 'You've made a pact with an ancient entity, but just a little bit'. 'The ancient power running through your veins lets you twist magic itself, but just a little bit'.

Poisoner seems ... terrible? At low levels, where the damage is going to make an impact and the DC is possibly a hurdle, 50 gold is a lot. At high levels, when money is like water, 2d8 and poisoned for one round on a DC of only 14 doesn't cut it. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Is this just how poison always works?

Gunner brings my dreams of my sword-and-pistol Fighter who existed for one session.

Fey Touched and Shadow Touched are flavourful and strong but not too strong. I can see myself taking them on some characters, especially Fey. Free Misty Step isn't nothing.

An Order Cleric with Tandem Tactician seems immensely fun. Just constantly yelling at your squad.

[xanxosttheslaad]

The feywild and shadowfell feats seem a bit strong to me, seeing as they give you a second level spell and a first level spell, which is (arguably) comparable to magic initiate, but then they’re also half feats. The damage type feats look really fun, and the shield training feat looks handy (perhaps with an AT rogue). Overall, I like the flavor and potential for customization these offer.

[heavyfuel]

Tandem Tactician is pretty great. Give advantage to two creatures with a Bonus Action that costs no resource.

Matamagic Apdet is just a big middle finger to the Sorcerer. If this feat is allowed, I can't see a reason to play a Sorcerer over a Wizard ever.

I'm also kinda bothered by all the "every time you gain a level you can swap" features

[Greywander]

Interesting, I already have homebrew feats that provide some similar options, such as fighting styles, invocations, and metamagic. Not sure if I like these feats more than my homebrew feats, but it's nice to have more options, and it's nice to have official options in cases when homebrew isn't allowed.

[micahaphone]

Matamagic Apdet is just a big middle finger to the Sorcerer. If this feat is allowed, I can't see a reason to play a Sorcerer over a Wizard ever.



You play sorcerer for the best dog summoning non-druid. Mordenkainen's Hound has nothing on the Hound of Ill Omen!



If anything, this feat is to remedy the fact that sorcs only get 2 metamagics until level 10. Giving a wizard a single quickened spell a day, or 2 a day of subtle, isn't the worst thing in the world.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Really, you are bothered by the metamagic feat but not by the invocation feat? Why is that?

Invocations are generally low impact and a lot of the more recognizable ones don't function without Eldritch Blast or Pacts.

In retrospect, I hadn't though of the higher level invocations that you generally don't see Warlocks getting because they've multiclassed out of Warlock, so I'll revise my take on it:

For an early game feat, I don't mind it, but for the later level invocations that actually have some major impact I can see some problems.

[Willie the Duck]

Strangely enough, I think Meta Magic Adept is going to be the biggest game-changer, if adopted. Previously, for certain DMs, if you wanted to do most enchanter- or illusionist type builds, you were almost required to be a sorcerer since they were the only ones who could cast such spells without it being obvious that you were casting a spell. Now a bard or warlock or wizard with this feat and two subtle spells per day can be passably good at that role.

[nickl_2000]

Invocations are generally low impact and a lot of the more recognizable ones don't function without Eldritch Blast or Pacts.

In retrospect, I hadn't though of the higher level invocations that you generally don't see Warlocks getting because they've multiclassed out of Warlock, so I'll revise my take on it:

For an early game feat, I don't mind it, but for the later level invocations that actually have some major impact I can see some problems.

The way I read it, the higher level feats aren't allowed unless you have Warlock levels.

"If the invocation has a
prerequisite, you can choose that invocation only
if you’re a warlock and only if you meet the
prerequisite. "

Being level 11 is a prerequisite.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I really like Practiced Expert, because even more skills and expertises makes me happy.

I also really like Gunner; or at least the idea of it on a fighter. It's kind of disappointing that a feat is required to make, well, any ranged weapons competitive with a bow, but like, bang-bang-bang!

[ProsecutorGodot]

The way I read it, the higher level feats aren't allowed unless you have Warlock levels.

"If the invocation has a
prerequisite, you can choose that invocation only
if you’re a warlock and only if you meet the
prerequisite. "

Being level 11 is a prerequisite.

Good point, I rescind my revision. The invocations available to this feat are generally just conveniences, which I don't have a problem attaching a feat tax to.

[Civis Mundi]

I feel like taking the Tracker feat on a Fighter (w/ their extra ASIs) would make a great ranger - less spellcasting, but greater options for armor/weapons/fighting style, and the almighty action surge.

I love this idea. Yet another way to make a Ranger without having to touch the actual class.



Not a fan of giving other classes Invocations and Metamagic, even if it's very limited. And I'm not sure I like them flavour-wise, either. 'You've made a pact with an ancient entity, but just a little bit'. 'The ancient power running through your veins lets you twist magic itself, but just a little bit'.

Matamagic Apdet is just a big middle finger to the Sorcerer. If this feat is allowed, I can't see a reason to play a Sorcerer over a Wizard ever.

A good point on stepping on Sorcerer toes. I do think it'd be nice for certain non-Sorcerer character concepts to be able to do things like Subtle Spell (Enchanters, GOO-locks, et c.), but it just highlights how weak Sorcerers are. Take away Metamagic as their unique schtick, and they are just markedly worse than most other full casters. In my ideal version of 5e, this feat would be available (with the tweaks I mentioned in my last post), but Sorcerers would be getting some small buffs too (my houserules are 1 extra spell from 1-5 for each subclass, and Quicken Spell ignores the usual bonus action spell rules). I could totally see just slapping a Sorcerer pre-requisite on this one though.

As for invocations and narrative, I could see taking Eldritch Adept as functionally the same as taking a Warlock level, in terms of flavor. Technically, feats are an even scarcer resource than levels. You've made a pact, and received a small boon from your patron. Perhaps you have less power than the patron would grant a Warlock, or perhaps it just manifests in different ways.


Poisoner seems ... terrible? At low levels, where the damage is going to make an impact and the DC is possibly a hurdle, 50 gold is a lot. At high levels, when money is like water, 2d8 and poisoned for one round on a DC of only 14 doesn't cut it. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Is this just how poison always works?

The base poison isn't great, though I think it'd be pretty powerful at the earliest levels. I think its main utilities are the other bullet points. First and foremost, applying poison as a bonus action. I've encountered a lot of players who actively sought out poison and were always wanting to use it, but got disappointed by having to predict the exact best moment to apply that poison before an imminent battle. Even when they do get the drop on enemies, have time to apply poison, and attack, it's still only useful for a short time. Poisoner allows for concepts that use poisons as a staple of their build, though ideally with more than the default poison. Being able to ignore resistance is also a huge benefit for someone wanting to make a bonafide poisoner character.

[Makorel]

Artificer Initiate - I didn't realize people were chomping at the bit to crack open the Artificer's spell list. I guess that the main draw here is using an artisan's tool as a focus but I don't see the upside over using a normal focus.

Chef - Half Feat. Looks like you can't keep a good Gourmand down! It's a small amount of Temp HP every rest but Temp HP is always nice and though it takes an hour this is theoretically "at will"

Crusher - Half Feat. I don't see what's so good about moving someone only 5 feet once per turn although there is no save for it. Seems very niche. I'm wary of effects that key off of critical hits because critical hits will rarely come into play most of the time although the effect for this one is potent.

Eldritch Adept - Free Invocation. Now other characters can see through their own darkness I suppose. My main instinct is to put this on top of an already existing Warlock to get yet another Invocation as I find I can never fit all the ones I want onto a single character.

Fey Touched - Half Feat. Misty Step and a first level spell which is okay I suppose. One thing that they do for magic feats in this UA is make it so that if you know spell casting you can use slots for them so that's pretty nice for usability.

Fighting Initiate - I want this on basically every Martial character I play. Barbarians with extra damage from Dueling, Rangers with GWF, Fighters that aren't the Champ that can focus on Melee weapons AND Archery or +1 Defense for everyone. Yes please.

Gunner - There are guns in D&D?

Metamagic Adept - I had several emotions upon reading this one. The first is that Sorcerer has to take 3 levels to get as many metamagic options as this feat and hardly gets any more until way down the line which is absurd. The second was that anyone that's not a Sorcerer will probably be hamstrung by the lack of Sorcery points (you only get 2). I think the best use for this is to take it on a Sorcerer for more Metamagic options.

Piercer - Half Feat. You can reroll one damage dice when you hit once per turn. I think this might actually suck. You could do the same thing with GWF and do it with every attack. The critical hit effect is basically an extra damage dice but honestly that's not nearly enough for me to want to take a feat for a critical hit effect. I didn't like Crusher's critical hit ability either but at least it was potent for how infrequently crits will happen.

Poisoner - You ignore resistance to poison and if we consult the chart https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612317-Resistances-Immunities-and-Vulnerabilities-of-Monsters-in-MM-Volo-s-and-MToF we find this to actually be a completely worthless ability, which is a shame because you can also apply poison as a bonus action which would put basic poisons on par with Divine Favor if you ignore the damage types. Except this feat also seems to change how poisons work by having them work only until you hit with a weapon. In exchange you get a flat constitution saving throw for some extra damage that doesn't seem that good but I suppose you can do this for as many times as you have poison in your pockets. I don't think this one was thought all the way through.

Practiced Expert - Half Feat. Prodigy but better. I'm fine with it I guess just because Prodigy was pretty meh as far as feats go.

Shadow Touched - Half Feat. Darkness plus a first level spell. Not much to say here.

Shield Training - Half Feat. You gain proficiency with shields. Who has medium armor proficiency and not shield proficiency? You can don or doff a shield as a free action. You could probably do some shenanigans with this. You can use a Shield as a Focus. I feel like this feat makes some small changes to obscure rules that I don't fully grasp the implications of. Or it just kinda sucks.

Slasher - Half Feat. Reducing speed by 10 feet is good for battlefield control I suppose. The critical hit effect gives the target disadvantage on attack rolls until the start of your next turn. Still not liking critical hit riders but like Crusher this at least seems to be good bang for your buck.

Tandem Tactics - You can Help as a bonus action, from 10 feet away, and two people at once. I don't see why you couldn't help as an action too. Get a familiar to help you help and that's 4 times you can help per turn.

Tracker - Half Feat. Hunter's Mark and advantage on survival checks specifically to track creatures. I don't know why they make this so damn restrictive and yet anyone who takes this is probably gonna be better at tracking than a Ranger who didn't. Unlike the Artificer feat which doesn't really seem to give a lot, and the warlock and sorcerer feats which are best used to enhance an already existing warlock or sorcerer this seems much better on non-Rangers and is probably the only one I object to. Also what no Paladin feat?

Some interesting ideas. I would be willing to pay a feat to get another Fighting Style and some extra resources for warlocks and sorcerers. Poisoner could have been good if it struck immunity but I don't think that will ever happen. A lot of stuff I'm lukewarm to but that just means I don't think there's anything overpowered and we get more options out of it so yeah.

[nickl_2000]

Shield Training - Half Feat. You gain proficiency with shields. Who has medium armor proficiency and not shield proficiency? You can don or doff a shield as a free action. You could probably do some shenanigans with this. You can use a Shield as a Focus. I feel like this feat makes some small changes to obscure rules that I don't fully grasp the implications of. Or it just kinda sucks.


Who says you need medium armor for this? Giving this to an arcane caster allows them to even out the constitution and get +2 to their AC. That is nothing to scoff at. It also gives shields to rogue and a +1 to dex, that could be +3 AC in a single feat (bonus for an arcane trickster).

[Pex]

Interesting how they're using feats to mitigate multiclassing. There's still incentive to multiclass for those who want it, but sometimes it may be enough to just get the thing the feat provides. I can think of a few characters I've played who would have liked one of these feats instead of multiclassing or at least contemplate it but I decided I not to.

I don't like anyone can use metamagic. That should remain Sorcerer only.

I do like the feats that give spells specifically say you can cast them using your own spell slots. That's a major vagueness with Magic Initiate feat. Of course they ruled against player fun saying you can't cast the spell from Magic Initiate using your own slots unless it's your own class, which I think is a dumb distinction. Fortunately the DMs I've played with agree, and I have been able to cast the spell with my own slots. These feats favor the player fun version of Magic Initiate.

I don't like anyone can get Prodigy now.

[Eriol]

These vary a lot, but I'll comment on poisoner. Until mid-late game, 50gp for 2 or 3 doses of 2d8 poison (that can fail) is really really terrible. And even though it negates resistance, immunity is still on quite a few mobs too.

If this feat defeated (ha!) both resistance and halved immunity, then it'd be worth something for that aspect, but not now. Poison-type is still too terrible.

[Civis Mundi]

These vary a lot, but I'll comment on poisoner. Until mid-late game, 50gp for 2 or 3 doses of 2d8 poison (that can fail) is really really terrible. And even though it negates resistance, immunity is still on quite a few mobs too.

If this feat defeated (ha!) both resistance and halved immunity, then it'd be worth something for that aspect, but not now. Poison-type is still too terrible.

50 gp is a bit restrictive, though I suppose those steal-everything-that-isn't-nailed-down types will get some extra mileage.

I think turning immunity to resistance is probably a must. I might also make these changes:

Instead of the default poison, the damage scales with proficiency (maybe 1d8@1st, 2d8@5th, 3d8@11th, and 4d8@17th) and the DC should be tied to some ability modifier.
Rather than making poison in an hour with a high GP cost, you make the same number of poisons as part of a long rest, either at no explicit GP cost, or at a much smaller one (10 GP, maybe?). This also allows for a nice little side business, brewing and selling poisons. Locusta, here I come.
Maybe make it a half-feat, and tie the DC to the ability increased?

[Waazraath]

Strangely enough, I think Meta Magic Adept is going to be the biggest game-changer, if adopted. Previously, for certain DMs, if you wanted to do most enchanter- or illusionist type builds, you were almost required to be a sorcerer since they were the only ones who could cast such spells without it being obvious that you were casting a spell. Now a bard or warlock or wizard with this feat and two subtle spells per day can be passably good at that role.

This is a very good point. Hadn't thought about this, this is taking away a truely unique sorcerer niche. I think it's against their design philosophy, but wouldn't mind "prereq: sorcerer" on this one.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Shield Training is great as an alternative to War Caster if you didn't necessarily need the other stuff War Caster gives you and wanted to gain shield proficiency.

Tandem Tactician is absolutely amazing for any character that doesn't have any or many useful bonus actions to use during combat.

Eldritch Adept, Metamagic Adept, and Fighting Initiate are pretty good as in-class feats to give a character that normally gets that thing even more of it, but less so for Fighting Initiate.

Fighting Initiate is good on something like a Rogue to get TWF, or a Barbarian for GWF, if you weren't going to multiclass to pick it up.

Eldritch Adept at 1st level from variant human to pick Fiendish Vigor is really good, not just for squishy casters but also frontline clerics. That you can switch it later to Mask of Many Faces or Devil's Sight or similar means it's still useful in the higher levels.

Shadow Touched gives a 1st level illusion or necromancy spell, there are only five 1st level illusions and four 1st level necromany spells, for a grand total if 9 spells to choose from. Fey Touched lets you pick from 21 total spells. None of those illusion and necromancy spells are really even worth spending a feat to learn, so skip this one.

Fey Touched is amazing though, it gives you 21 spells to pick from, and includes spells like Bless, Sleep, Hex, and Command, with being able to select the spellcasting ability used for it.

[elyktsorb]

Poisoner - You ignore resistance to poison and if we consult the chart https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?612317-Resistances-Immunities-and-Vulnerabilities-of-Monsters-in-MM-Volo-s-and-MToF we find this to actually be a completely worthless ability, which is a shame because you can also apply poison as a bonus action which would put basic poisons on par with Divine Favor if you ignore the damage types. Except this feat also seems to change how poisons work by having them work only until you hit with a weapon. In exchange you get a flat constitution saving throw for some extra damage that doesn't seem that good but I suppose you can do this for as many times as you have poison in your pockets. I don't think this one was thought all the way through.


The Poisoner feat basically encapsulates everything wrong with Poison as a means of attacking.

Firstly, that it's a feat, if it becomes official, any usage of poison being good would require this feat. I feel like you should be able to use poison without a feat? Not to mention who's going to take this garbo feat, 2 ability points, a load of other better feats, or this one. (Especially since if it stays as written, it says 'Coat a weapon' which means you can't poison arrows or other ammo, I mean I'm sure everyone would ignore that if it was the case but still, garbo wording)

Secondly, the poison you can make, 2d8+poisoned condition (But it's a save or suck on a dc 14 con save) and this brings in a few weird problems like being able to create a poison for 50g that's four times as effective as a poison you can only buy for 100 gold (basic poison deals a d4 and costs 100 gold) so realistically you should be able to sell these for at least 100g per poison. The dumbest thing about it is that at early levels this is probably too good of a damage effect, and since this is a feat, lvl 1 humans can take it, so you'll have lvl 1 characters doing a somewhat reliable extra 2d8 per turn (a 1st lvl human rogue could effectively have more damage on a weapon attack than a 5th lvl rogue.) So for games that only go to like lvl 5 (and don't involve undead) this isn't too bad to take, but I think that's just bad design in general.

Thirdly, it should have just made it so poison's you use effect immunity to poison like it's resistance instead. (and maybe also ignore resistance completely) and add like your proficiency bonus to all poison damage.

There's probably more I could poke at this feat.

[Kane0]

The only ones that i like are crusher and slasher. Full analysis to follow.

[ATHATH]

Strangely enough, I think Meta Magic Adept is going to be the biggest game-changer, if adopted. Previously, for certain DMs, if you wanted to do most enchanter- or illusionist type builds, you were almost required to be a sorcerer since they were the only ones who could cast such spells without it being obvious that you were casting a spell. Now a bard or warlock or wizard with this feat and two subtle spells per day can be passably good at that role.
Honestly, yeah, that's gonna be a godsend for Enchanters and Bards, who don't get any class features to help them conceal their spellcasting in social situations (which makes a lot of social enchantment spells nigh-useless for non-Sorcerers, because hey, that guy's casting magic on me/my buddy!). I don't really get what all of the complains about stealing the Sorcerer's thunder are about; you'll still need to be a Sorcerer to break down spell slots into sorcery points, so you'll only be able to use the weaker metamagics, like, once or twice a day. This feat is just a way to finally make Bards good at magical socializing, which is something that they really should have been good at from the get-go.

[clash]

Shield training is fantastic for casters. War caster never did work correctly for any arcane Gish because of not removing the focus requirement. This gives them shield proficiency and takes care of the spell focus issue. Particularly good on characters you use dwarf to get the medium armour prof.

[P. G. Macer]

Artificer Initiate: Okay, I guess. Personally, I’d have just issued an errata for Magic Initiate and added artificer to the list, but I can see why WotC doesn’t want to reference a class not in the PHB in the PHB, as new players could get confused.

Cook: Seems nice, not much else I have to say.

Crusher: I could see some Monk Cheese with Flurry of Blows and a druid casting Spike Growth yo-yoing a target to take lots of damage.

Eldritch Adept: I have mixed feelings on this one. The fluff behind this one is iffy, as I think has been mentioned. It also makes 1-level warlock dips more feasible, and I’m not a fan of dipping.

Fey Touched: This seems pretty powerful. No non-racial feat before this UA gives a 2nd-level spell AFAIK, and Hex is an enchantment spell.

Fighting Initiate: I think I’m gonna break from the pack and say I don’t like this. I seem to recall a poster on this forum (years ago, back in my lurking days) pointing out that there being no fighting style feat in the PHB was a deliberate design choice, and that there could be a bunch of unforeseen implications.

Metamagic Adept: No. Just no, for the reason stated many times in this thread: It steps on sorcerers’ toes too much, even if the class that benefits the most from this feat is the sorcerer (which I’m undecided about). The sorcerer is already a contender for the weakest full caster in the game, and often shows up low on class satisfaction surveys.

Piercer: Seems fun, and around the right power level for a feat.

Poisoner: At first I was hyped that we had an equivalent of Elemental Adept for green dragon sorcerers, but then I saw Makorel’s post about how resistance to poison (as opposed to immunity) is next to unheard of. Maybe if most of the foes you’re facing are dwarves? As for the rest of the feat, the bonus action application is sweet, but the poison creation part needs a lot of revision IMO.

Practiced Expert: This feet pretty much makes Prodigy obsolete in the sense that +1 to a stat of your choice is almost always better than a language. Not a fan.

Shadow Touched: See Fey-Touched, except Darkness isn’t as useful as Misty Step IMO.

Shield Training: I don’t like this. Just about every spellcaster who can afford the feat will now carry a shield, and that rubs me the wrong way.

Slasher: Seems nice.

Tandem Tactician: Mastermind Rogues (and any other subclass that allows for a Bonus Action Help) are now crying in the corner

Tracker: I think this dilutes the Ranger too much. I know Vengeance Paladins also get Hunter’s Mark, but after all the efforts to HM-ify the Ranger in the Class Feature Variants UA, this seems a little insulting.

And those are my thoughts.

[Grey Watcher]

Interesting how they're using featw to mitigate multiclassing. There's still incentive to multiclass for those who want it, but sometimes it may be enough to just get the thing the feat provides. I can think of a few characters I've played who would have liked one of these feats instead of multiclassing or at least contemplate it but I decided I not to.

I don't like someone can use metamagic. That should remain Sorcerer only.

I do like the feats that give spells specifically say you can cast them using your own spell slots. That's a major vagueness with Magic Initiate feat. Of course they ruled against player fun saying you can't cast the spell from Magic Initiate using your own slots unless it's your own class, which I think is a dumb distinction. Fortunately the DMs I've played with agree, and I have been able to cast the spell with my own slots. These feats favor the player fun version of Magic Initiate.

I don't like anyone can get Prodigy now.

I think they're specifically trying to eliminate the need for dipping. Like, if you're only taking one level of Fighter because your build needs a Fighting Style, why not spin it off into a feat?

As for Practiced Expert/Prodigy, I like making Expertise accessible to everyone. If I'm playing Vaarsuvius, I'm gonna want a sky high Arcana check. Plus, given other recent writings, I think race-specific feats are very much out of fashion, so not surprised they're getting replaced.

[KorvinStarmast]

WotC's latest UA is bringing us 16 new feats.

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/UA2020_Feats.pdf
Chef looks like a new version of the Healer feat. I like it mostly.

Crusher won't trigger that often. Interesting idea, though.

I like the Eldritch Adept ONLY if it is a pact magic feature, not a spell caster feature.
Watch this exploit: first level vHuman bard takes this feat and adds Deception and Persuasion as Proficient skills before he even dips into skill ... don't care to see that feat spread to other casters. Personal bias. Let Warlocks be special casters, please.

Fey touched much stronger than Artificer Initiate. A second and a first level spell and a + to an ability score? Heck, it's stronger than Magic Initiate.
Rethink.

Fighting Initiate: love it, and it addresses one of many complaints I have with the Fighter Class. Recommendation: restrict it to Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins.

Gunner: like it, for those campaigns with firearms.

Metamagic Adept: No, just no. Don't do it. Leave Meta Magic for the sorcerers ...

Piercer: good as is, I think.

Poisoned: I like it, but maybe a bit strong? and become poisoned until the end of your next turn.

Practiced Expert: Prodigy for everyone, sort of. I like it. This might become the go to vHuman feat ...

Shadow Touched: uh, a bit strong, like fey touched ... rethink.

shield training: I'd like to restrict this from being available to wizards or sorcerers ... grrr.
Almost a good idea, but no, scrap it.

Slasher: good as is, but add the following text:
Your character name becomes an anagram of either Freddy Kruger or Jason. :smallbiggrin:

Tandem Tactician: I like it. Teamwork for the win!

Tracker: within balance constraints. I think Rogue Scouts will like this a lot.

[LtPowers]

My problem with Shield Training is that it provides a benefit useful to anyone who can use a shield -- don/doff for free -- but everything else is redundant for any non-spellcasting class that already has shield proficiency. So a fighter (for example) has no way to get that don/doff benefit without taking a feat that does her little other good.


Powers &8^]

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

RE: The people comparing Shadow Touched to Fey Touched

The 1st level spell choices for Fey Touched is from 21 spells, the 1st level spell choices from Shadow Touched is from 9 spells. There's no way Shadow Touched is anywhere near as useful as Fey Touched, unless they print some really good and fairly exclusive 1st level illusion and/or necromancy spells. Fey Touched gets you Hex, or Command or Hideous Laughter with a spellcasting ability selector, whereas Shadow Touched gets you a whole lot of meh.

[Cybren]

I think people are making the metamagic feat into too big a deal. It's fine? As mentioned two uses of subtle spell is probably the 'best' use-case for non-sorcerers. Remember you not only have only two points, but you don't have flexible casting so you aren't getting any more from spending spell slots.

[Sparky McDibben]

I love all of these, although I can see that there are some which are really good and some which aren't nearly as useful. Although that might just be me; WotC might be writing this to include ways of thinking about the game that don't jive with mine.

Either way, this is awesome. Tandem Tactician and Chef are my two favorites.

[CheddarChampion]

There's some power creep, some underpowered things, some mostly balanced things that are weird, some mostly balanced things that undermine certain parts of multiclassing, and a thing or two that actually seems fine.

9/10 IGN. It has something for everyone. :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

RE: The people comparing Shadow Touched to Fey Touched

The 1st level spell choices for Fey Touched is from 21 spells, the 1st level spell choices from Shadow Touched is from 9 spells. There's no way Shadow Touched is anywhere near as useful as Fey Touched, unless they print some really good and fairly exclusive 1st level illusion and/or necromancy spells. Fey Touched gets you Hex, or Command or Hideous Laughter with a spellcasting ability selector, whereas Shadow Touched gets you a whole lot of meh.
Nice catch, however they both spit all over Magic Initiate's single first level spell and give a stat point increase.

I have a thought: this power creepy UA tells me that Mike Mearls is back at work at WoTC. :smallyuk: (I think he's been real bad about that ever since the game got published ...)

[Hael]

Many of these are good, but there are some pretty mediocre ones.

I disagree with a lot of people here. Meta magic adept is pretty terrible for a wizard. 2 subtle magic missiles a day or a quickened magic missile .. big fat blah.

I like the chef and poisoner.. poison is strong but limited by resistance, and this is a big deal towards making it viable.

The ones I don’t like are most of the combat feats (crusher, shield, slasher). They seem very weak compared to say PAM, GWM. warcaster, SS.

The potentially big deal is the warlock invocation. Getting devil sight is a huge class defining buff. A party with Permanent advantage in darkness is completely game Breakingly OP. This won’t make it past UA.

[jaappleton]

Poisoner certainly fixes my issue with the Mercy Monk. It also, at the cost of a bonus action, lets you use a Poison-oriented Smite. Which.... stacks with Smite. Also a solid option for non-hand crossbow archers, who often wouldn't have a bonus action ability to use. Yes, its Poison, but you bypass Resistance now.

However, there's nothing in the game yet (to my knowledge) which fixes a larger issue... If you can bypass Resistance, there should be some ability somewhere, somehow, to treat Immunity as Resistance. But I digress, that's another topic.

Eldritch Adept is certainly interesting. Gaining Devil's Sight is an interesting options. The d6 casters might consider it for at-will Mage Armor, or at-will Detect Magic.

Fighting Initiate was already a very popular Homebrew option. Now to have a Bards that want to steal Swift Quiver can have Archery style along with it! Bladelocks can also have a fighting style as well.

Tandem Tactician is a very good feat that I think many will underrate. Typically, a sword and board user would often look at a feat like Shield Master as a way to utilize their bonus action. However, that's pretty much exclusive to STR builds. For Dex? This is a solid replacement. While Shield Master can knock a target prone, that renders ranged allies at Disadvantage. The Help Action has no such caveat.

Piercer in particular is quite interesting. Why? Because most Rogue weapons that they can Sneak Attack with deal Piercing. My reading of this is that you could reroll a sneak attack die. Half Orc Assassins would now get an additional 2 total die to roll. If you're a Rogue looking for something to increase Dex, you could certainly do worse.

Metamagic... Not quite as good as it is at first read. I mean, with the Class Variant UA from November, you could swap Metamagic on a long rest already, so having two more at your disposal on a Sorc isn't necessarily as good as you first think it is. For everyone else, you can get one Quickened per long rest. One or two casting (depending on spell level) of Twinned isn't bad, but it prevents spells 3rd level and above. So Shield of Faith is alright, but no Haste, of course. Subtle, of course, is an intriguing option for sure, depending on how often your table enforces the component thing.

Crusher on a Monk is veeeerrrry interesting indeed. Doesn't require it be with a weapon. Just an attack that deals Bludgeoning.

[Sam113097]

Looks like a lot of good stuff for Martials. The damage-type-specific feats seem like a lot of fun, and Tandem Tactitian seems really useful for builds that don’t do a lot with bonus actions.

The ability to pick up and change Fighting Styles seems fantastic for barbarians and might be helpful for Pact of the Blade Warlocks, Bladesingers, etc.

[MaxWilson]

Piercer in particular is quite interesting. Why? Because most Rogue weapons that they can Sneak Attack with deal Piercing. My reading of this is that you could reroll a sneak attack die. Half Orc Assassins would now get an additional 2 total die to roll. If you're a Rogue looking for something to increase Dex, you could certainly do worse.

This is just Savage Attacker, as a half feat. Savage Attacker is terrible and Piercer is still pretty bad, but at least it's only a half-feat. Still though, if I were a Dex 19 Sharpshooter, I'd take Practiced Expert (+1 Dex, +1 Skill, and Expertise in either Stealth or Athletics) over Piercer, every time.

Practiced Expert obsoletes Prodigy, which isn't a big deal I guess. It should also address the complaints of those who feel that wizards should have access to Arcana Expertise.

I don't love this UA, especially not how eager it is to give away classes's cool stuff to other classes, but that's partly because I've played point buy chargen systems like GURPS and have seen how boring things can get what you can cherry-pick the best abilities from every background. To me, the fact that classes come in discrete packages, with some things that you don't really want, actually makes character generation more interesting. But if you've only ever played with class-based systems I can see how you might be itching to try out something more freeform, and in that case this UA might scratch an itch.

This UA is moderately power-creepy but less so than, say, Xanathar's was.

[CheddarChampion]

IMO Metamagic Adept is best used for a character that already has two or three levels of sorcerer.
With those levels, you have:
1. Good spell point capacity (2->4 or 3->5)
2. The use of turning low level spells into spell points
3. Twice the metamagic options known (if at level 3)

As with all 3 level dips on full casters, this has the least drawbacks at high levels. But as a high level combo, it has to compete with other high level things. Because of this I'd say it is more or less balanced.

In addition to subtle spell being good for getting away with mind control, it also makes a spell impossible to counter or identify.
I'm not sure this is RAW, but it seems pretty agreed upon that you can't counterspell or recognize a spell you don't know is being cast.
This is very much situational, but if you have a counterspell-happy DM (or are engaging in PVP) then using this at the right time can make a big difference.
Most 'wizard players' I know would be happy to have this. You know, the 'have a spell, a plan, and a contingency for everything' type.

[Satori01]

Is WotC throwing a retirement celebration for the Mastermind subclass for the rogue class?

Tandem Tactician ENSURES, nobody will ever select the subclass again.

Also the Winner of the WotC policy of racial inclusiveness is:
The Variant Human.

Metamagic Adept...Now Bards can cast Hypnotic Pattern JUST as well as Sorcerers via the Careful Spell Metamagic.

Extend spell for the win! 16 hour Mage Armor + 2 minute Shadow Blade. 20 minute Spirit Guardians. 2 hour Pass Without Trace.

The feat is probably too good, and will save caster classes other then the Sorcerer, many a spell slot.

Should we include the Sorcerer class as part of the farewell celebration for the Mastermind subclass? 🤦

Fey Touched....horrible name...might as well call it "Hag Molested".🤦

Eldritch Adept so that Lore Bard that selects the Eldritch Blast Cantrip as part of their Additional Magic Secrets ability is selecting this feat later for Agonizing Blast/Repelling Blast.

Bye, Bye Magic Initiate...see you at the WotC retirement party.
Hello, taking this feat for Fiendish Vigor, or Devil's Sight, or Mask of Many Faces, or Armor of Shadows (especially with an Abjurer).

Dear WotC....at will is better then once per day.🤦

Chef...because the XGE rules were not enough.
Samwise Gamgee had the Chef and Healer feats....no wonder Frodo Lives!

[DeadMech]

I have zero respect for the idea that metamagic access should be a protected sorcerer only niche so overall I like this UA.

[pantastic]

The new "Tracker" seems like a waste:



Tracker:
You have spent time hunting creatures and honed your skills, gaining the following benefits:
• Increase your Wisdom score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• You learn the hunter’s mark spell. You can cast it once without expending a spell slot, and you must finish a long rest before you can cast it in this way again. You can also cast the spell using any spell slots you have. Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for this spell.
• You have advantage on Wisdom (Survival) checks to track creatures.

When you could get Wisdom, Hunter's Mark, and Misty Step:



Fey Touched
Your exposure to the Feywild or one of its denizens has left a magical mark on you. You gain the following benefits:
• Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• You learn the misty step spell and one 1st-level spell of your choice. The 1st-level spell must be from the divination or enchantment school of magic. You can cast each of these spells without expending a spell slot. Once you cast either of these spells in this way, you can’t cast that spell in this way again until you finish a long rest. You can also cast these spells using spell slots you have of the appropriate level. The spells’ spellcasting ability is the ability increased by this feat.

Spoiler Alert: Hunter's Mark is a divination spell.

Thing only thing you miss out on with Fey Touched is advantage on Survival checks to track creatures.

[Luccan]

As far as Metamagic Adept, this is probably the least egregious way for other casters (particularly wizards) to gain Metamagic so far. It probably has the smallest opportunity cost over all, but it also has way more limitations than Scribe and Lore wizard, both in uses per day and known metamagic. But one issue that sticks out to me that hasn't been discussed as much is that a variant Human can take it at level 1, whereas your Half-Elf Sorcerer doesn't get Metamagic until level 3. I'd throw a prereq of some sort on it that at least prevents taking it until 4th. While the Vuman sorcs might balk at that, it will at least prevent the Vuman wizards from being better at Metamagic for three levels than every other sorcerer.

[jaappleton]

When Fey Touched grants access to Hunter's Mark, why is the Tracker feat here?

Beaten to the punch!

[SociopathFriend]

I can't help but think of Crusher as hitting someone with a club so hard they have little stars above their head or, alternatively, you've sunk them slightly into the ground like hammering a nail.

Eldritch Adept means there's gonna be a lot of people branching out into seeing in magical Darkness methinks.

Metamagic finally got handed to other classes it seems. On the one hand I fully agree with that as it was rather dumb imo to center Sorcerers around it but on the other hand boy the Sorcerer just loses its special toys left and right.

Practiced Expert gives everyone access to Expertise- which I heartily agree with.

Shield Training sounds interesting and gives casters an option for wielding the things by sacrificing a feat.

Tandem Tactician seems interesting in that you can really easily lend a hand to an ally if you don't have a compelling use of your bonus action but otherwise seems a bit weak. If you've two allies on one enemy then they've probably got Advantage anyways and it doesn't stack.

[heavyfuel]

Also the Winner of the WotC policy of racial inclusiveness is:
The Variant Human.

Tbf, VHumans have been winning at this game for quite some time now.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

RE: Eldritch Adept

Only a Warlock can pick Agonizing Blast or any other EB invocation because it has a prerequisite, and only a Warlock can use the feat to pick an invocation that has a prerequisite. However, it does make a 1-level Warlock dip way better, or it allows a v.human to take Agonizing Blast at 1st level instead of waiting until 2nd level.

Taking it for Armor of Shadows is probably the worst way to use it, considering you could spend a feat on Lightly Armored instead and also get +1 Dex or Str.

It's absurdly good for Fiendish Vigor, especially if it's taken at 1st level on a v.human, as you're starting every fight with +8 hp and you can refresh it in a pinch during combat.

There actually aren't all that many invocations that don't have any prerequisites, so other than a bit of added utility, it's not all that great on a non-Warlock by the mid to late levels. It's especially good for a Warlock to use this to learn an invocation they know they'll replace, as you can repick it every time you gain a level in addition to repicking one you learned from your class levels each time you level up. So take this early and at 5th level you can have three invocations that require 5th+ level, for example.

[prolific_frog]

While I originally thought Tandem Tactician basically just invalidated Mastermind, I think it actually buffs it?

You can Help two creatures, not by using it exclusively within ten feet, but when using it to extend your current range by ten feet. Which means Mastermind has a bonus action 2-target Help within 40 feet. Am I correct in this?

[Yakk]

I agree, but at least it's limited to just 2 sorcery points. No heightened, and if you take quickened you can only do it 1x a day. Twinned only on level 2 or lower spells. Still leaves careful, distant, extended, empowered, and subtle as doable 2x a day. This feat is still good for a sorcerer, like they realize that waiting for level 10 before you get another metamagic is ridiculous.
It is really solid on a Sorcerer 2 dip. You have flexible casting (to get more metamagic points) and a metamagic without hitting sorcerer 3.

[heavyfuel]

While I originally thought Tandem Tactician basically just invalidated Mastermind, I think it actually buffs it?

You can Help two creatures, not by using it exclusively within ten feet, but when using it to extend your current range by ten feet. Which means Mastermind has a bonus action 2-target Help within 40 feet. Am I correct in this?

I think you're right. It does nerf the class in that now anyone can do your thing. You can do it better, but anyone can do it.

Kinda similar to the metamagic feat.

[prolific_frog]

I think you're right. It does nerf the class in that now anyone can do your thing. You can do it better, but anyone can do it.

Kinda similar to the metamagic feat.

Agreed in both instances, but I can see point of the arguments for letting other classes have the options.

Tandem Tactician just feels so specifically worded to allow the effects to stack.

[jmartkdr]

These vary a lot, but I'll comment on poisoner. Until mid-late game, 50gp for 2 or 3 doses of 2d8 poison (that can fail) is really really terrible. And even though it negates resistance, immunity is still on quite a few mobs too.

If this feat defeated (ha!) both resistance and halved immunity, then it'd be worth something for that aspect, but not now. Poison-type is still too terrible.

It may be over complicated, but, I'd prefer a "you can make special poisons that work on specific creature types" option - so your poison that works on undead ignores their immunity, but doesn't do squat to fiends. That's the other vial. It adds a level of preparation to the mechanic, which feels on-theme.

Also, both the damage and the save DC should change with proficiency bonus.

[Hael]

Fighting style and meta magic probably needs to be a half feat bc I think they’re otherwise very weak.

Archery is by far the best non UA style and gives +2 to attack rolls. Now compare that to SS.

Meta magic is ok early, but is pretty irrelevant after the first six or seven lvls outside of niche circumstances. Barely passable for a sorcerer.

Piercer, slasher and the bludgeon one need to be reworked and put more in line with the better combat feats. Rerolling alla GWF is mathematically a very marginal DPR increase. Ditto for the crit to next turn advantage.

Again the busted one is the invocation. If someone dips three lvls of warlock, they potentially get a double attack feat, eldritch smite, or lifedrinker +cha to weapon damage. And of course devil sight without the dip... broken broken!

[Kane0]

Alright, full thoughts time!

Note: I'm especially critical of feats because of how rare and heavily contested ASIs. If you're adding a new feat to the game, it damn well better be worth the analysis paralysis.

Artificer Initiate: I'm certain this only exists because of how Magic Initiate is worded.

Chef: Gourmand 2.0, losing the expertise and neat poisoned detecting ribbon in favor of better healing and THP. It's passable but to me unnecessary since we have Healer and Inspiring Leader

Crusher: Martials can now get viable, reliable battlefield control even if it's only minor. Plus its a half feat and features a crit ribbon, I like it.

Eldritch Adept: Trade an ASI for a Warlock Invocation. Invocations are usually basically feats of their own flavor anyways, so to me this really feels redundant unless you're going for the 'can change each level' part, which IMO means your table should be talking about how you want to handle PC rebuilds.

Fey Touched: This is a major step up from Magic Initiate, being a half feat and adding to spell list on top of the 2nd level spell instead of two cantrips.

Fighting Initiate: One fighting style is rarely worth an entire ASI. I would have worked this into a half feat and probably even merged with Weapon Master. Yeah, remember Weapon Master?

Gunner: Like Artificer Initiate, I'm certain this only exists because of how Crossbow Mastery is worded.

Metamagic Adept: Major can of worms, as discussed above. Every caster will want it (especially Sorcerers, ironically), it's power creep and robs the Sorc of the scarce justification is has for existing in its current form. If the Sorcerer wasn't the way it is this could be tolerable with one MM known and maybe some scaling SP, but as-is this is a hard pass.

Piercer: This is a straight damage feat, we have plenty of those and this even works with the existing ones. No thanks, even if it's balanced its just more incentive for martials to focus on damage feats at the expense of anything that broadens their abilities.

Poisoner: Another can of worms. Firstly Poison resistance isn't nearly as much of a problem as immunity is, secondly this is virtually a tax for anyone looking to seriously use Poison and thirdly it doesn't scale, meaning it's costly but extremely strong at low levels and dirt cheap but barely effective at high levels. This is actually a niche that hasn't been tapped yet so I would approve of a better version of this feat, hopefully one that is useful to poison users without making it mandatory.

Practiced Expert: This is prodigy under a different name. We don't need duplicate feats.

Shadow Touched: Just like Fey Touched, and i'm seeing a pattern here. Look, all of these casting feats can be bundled into a reworking of the Magic Initiate feat. For example:
- Not a half feat
- Pick one 1st and one 2nd level spell of the same school, or two cantrips and a 1st level spell
- These spells are added to your list/known under whatever casting stat you choose (Int/Wis/Cha) and can be cast once per long rest without using a spell slot.
Bam, done. Saves us reading and deciding between all of these feats that grant or add to casting and are only slightly different to each other. It's even future proof! I'll be expecting my cheque in the mail.

Shield Training: Doesn't need to be its own feat. Most of this can be worked into the existing moderately armored and/or weapon master feats, and the last bullet can be an alternative for one in the War Caster feat if you like. You do realize that you can go back and add to previously published feats like you did for Alternate Class Features, right? If you wanted to get really crazy, you could actually outright update things in the PHB that suck! We're in the internet age, baby!

Slasher: Another one I actually like, as it adds a facet of BFC to martials. Again it's not much, but I want to encourage the right thought process here.

Tandem Tactician: Poor Mastermind Rogue. Not that it was amazing to begin with, but this is sort of salt in the wound, eh? This is actually a fine feat, but I do feel bad about liking it compared to my stance on Metamagic Adept.

Tracker: Okay, I don't feel bad anymore. This is Metamagic Adept: Ranger edition. One bullet point of this half feat seriously challenges Favored Enemy, which admittedly isn't difficult to do but yet again this is fixing around the problem. Offering yet another way to ignore the PHB Ranger does not fix anything, it highlights the problem, clutters content and just adds fuel to the fire when people criticise the ranger.


So overall, I'm not singing any praises. Crusher and Slasher are tiny steps in the right direction, Poisoner and Tandem Tactician I would like to see iterated, the rest I don't care for.

[Pex]

Eldritch Adept so that Lore Bard that selects the Eldritch Blast Cantrip as part of their Additional Magic Secrets ability is selecting this feat later for Agonizing Blast/Repelling Blast.



Can't. They have a prerequisite of having Eldritch Blast. If the invocation has a prequisite the feat specifies you need to be a warlock.

[Nagog]

This is WONDERFUL.

Fighting styles as a feat: I've wanted this for literal AGES. Particularly when some fighting styles pair well with classes that don't get fighting styles innately (Rogues, Barbarians, Monks, and Martial Clerics are all guilty)

Metamagic as a feat: Fairly limited use due to only having 2 sorcery points, but allowing Sorcerers to double their Metamagic Known and boost their Sorcery Point pool at the same time is solid GOLD.

Invocations as a feat: I wasn't sure if it could/should be done, but now that it is, I'm so happy to explore the possibilities! Also opens up straight Warlocks to picking up more Invocations!

[Satori01]

Can't. They have a prerequisite of having Eldritch Blast. If the invocation has a prequisite the feat specifies you need to be a warlock.

Well that mitigates that concern...😅....sort of...how many 1 level Hexblade dip builds are there in the World?😇

Vhuman is all you need for the Feat at 1st level, and you can retrain the Invocation upon level up.

So bard with a 1 level warlock dip is much more attractive now.

Who needs two levels of Warlock! 🦹🏼

[Hael]

Can't. They have a prerequisite of having Eldritch Blast. If the invocation has a prequisite the feat specifies you need to be a warlock.

Although it would be a no brainer to take the one lvl hexblade dip, pick up AB and choose not to take the 2nd warlock lvl (they’ll get their ASI back).

Again this feat massively overpowers multiclass builds. A lvl 15 Hexadin with lifedrinker and improved divine smite passively outdprs a warrior.

[Cygnia]

Nothing so far is catching my eye for my Grasslands Drood.

[ezekielraiden]

I appreciate Metamagic Adept but would have made it less of a "of course any spellcaster will take this if they get a free feat" by:
1. Require that the character already have metamagic, unless waived by DM. This way, if the DM wants to make metamagic more widely available, they can. Or if they don't, it's still possible to get--you just need to sink three levels of Sorcerer first. A small boon to multiclass Sorcerers, but otherwise not widely applicable.
2. Only give one metamagic option, not two. Less flexibility, to be sure, but it forces a real hard choice (at the very least between Quicken and Twin), and mitigates the "coffeelock" abuse potential.
3. Set the number of provided sorcery points to your Proficiency bonus, rather than a fixed value. That way, the feat remains a good buy even at high levels.


Nothing so far is catching my eye for my Grasslands Drood.
I'm honestly surprised that a Land Druid would find no use in Metamagic Adept nor Eldritch Adept. Metamagic is the more potent of the two, to be sure, but a well-chosen Invocation is totally worth a feat. Sadly, the eldritch blast-boosting invocations have it as a prereq, and thus you must dip at least Warlock 1 to benefit from them. But I foresee a lot of Bard, Sorcerer, and Paladin multiclass characters being absolutely thrilled with Eldritch Adept. A three-level Warlock dip can now get you three invocations, two 2nd level short-rest spell slots, Hexblade and your choice of pact (or your choice of pact and patron if you just want the spellcasting benefits),

Also, worthy of note: Eldritch Adept now means that it is possible to get something better than darkvision for the price of a single feat. That is all the feat does, but still.

[sambojin]

I don't mind them grabbing a bit of different classes and throwing them into a feat. It's kind of like how Pathfinder 2 does it. You can branch out ability-wise without dipping into another class if you want, even if it does come with an ASI tax in 5e. Might be a bit too good for vhumans, but they already were a bit too good.

From a Moon Druid's perspective, some of these are great. Tandem Tactician is amazing so you've definitely got something to do with your bonus action, Eldritch Adept is very versatile (mage armour instead of monk dipping, but all the at-will invocations are handy), nabbing Hex or Hunter's Mark is nice little damage boost from Fey Touched or Tracker, Metamagic Adept has plenty of good options that you can change as you level up, and Chef is just free HP. Even Artificer Initiate isn't bad to round out your cantrips and grab Expeditious Retreat (and bowyers/fletchers tools for custom animal bows or thieves tools for rogue stuff).

That's seven totally viable options to try out, for a class that isn't too ASI dependent. Looks good to me. That's more than a moon druid has gotten from a UA in ages.


(for the Grassland Druid above, Chef for more healing or Tandem Tactician still should work fine. Turning into a flyer against melee opponents to keep a concentration spell up for free *and* having twin 10' help actions at bonus speed really does a lot to keep little wildshape viable later on. You could just do that in a melee heavy party, without even casting a spell, and still be doing heaps. It's a massive bonus at lvl8 for all druids)

[WadeWay33]

Hey, what if this is a variant for multiclassing? (Despite multiclassing being a variant rule, I could see them doing it)

[Hael]

Am I reading crusher right? If I crit with a bludgeoning weapon, all attacks (by everyone not just myself) have advantage until the end of my next turn. If so that’s crazy. A champion will give quasi permanent party wide advantage.

I first read it as advantage on the next turn but this is far stronger.

[Sparky McDibben]

Am I reading crusher right? If I crit with a bludgeoning weapon, all attacks (by everyone not just myself) have advantage until the end of my next turn. If so that’s crazy. A champion will give quasi permanent party wide advantage.

I first read it as advantage on the next turn but this is far stronger.

Half-elf champion fighter with elven accuracy....hehehe....

This is going to be awesome.

[Luccan]

Half-elf champion fighter with elven accuracy....hehehe....

This is going to be awesome.

Doesn't Crusher require a bludgeoning weapon? What were you planning to use that keys off Dex?

Edit: looks like your option is sling...

[sambojin]

Everyone can use a sling :)

It's good, but in the same way that restrain-on-hit is good. Except druids just have to hit, not crit, for the advantage to everyone thing.

[Dork_Forge]

Welcome to the new UA, where we take the toes of various classes and subclasses and smash them with a hammer!

-Artificer Initiate: I appreciate the idea behind this, but no thank you. Guidance and Cure Wounds on a Wizard? Yeah, no.

-Chef seems fun, bonus action temp hp treats seems very unnecessary, just make it temp hp=to your prof at the end of a rest you cook a meal in.

-Crusher: sounds fun, seems like their answer to really niche/minor things is to just cram them into half feats, not sure if I'm a fan of that

-Eldritch Adept: I like the idea of grabbing fun invocations with this, but steps on the Warlocks toes and makes single level dips even more appealing and viable. One level of Hexblade with a side of Agonizing blast? We don't need that.

-Fey Touched: So a 2nd level spell (one of the better ones),a 1st level spell, both once per day and added to your list... and a half ASI? What about that seems balanced to you WotC?

-Fighting Initiate: I both like the idea of this and don't, it thoroughly steps on the toes of the Figher as a whole and the Champion at later levels

-Gunner: No problems here, very curious what's coming that we're getting more firearm support

-Metamagic adept: No. The Sorcerer doesn't need their only thing taken and spread even if it is limited in scope/use.

-Piercer: This just seems like a very minor DPR boost to Rogues tbh

-Poisoner: Add in a clause to treat immunity as resistance and I'm there

-Practiced Expert: Not sure I like making Expertise easier to get

-Shadow Touched: So now you can get Devil's Sight and a casting of Darkenss out of feats, cool. 2nd level spells should be out of bounds for feats in general, this is just powercreep

-Shield Training: Why would they ever think this is a good idea? Proficiency with a shield, reduced don/doff time, you can use it as a focus oh AND IT'S A HALF FEAT. Needless powercreep that will see a million Wizards wearing shields.

-Slasher: eh

-Tandem Tactician: Why are we just taking a steaming dump on the Mastermind here? Who asked for this as a feat?

-Tracker: So be a Variant Human with the Outlander background and be pretty much as good as a Ranger at their schtick? This didn't need to exist.

Overall there's some promise in this UA but it mostly just looks like stripping down classes and subclasses for parts so they can shove them into feats. This might help mitigate multiclassing, it also erodes class identity and by and large is just going to lead to a lot of power creep.

[heavyfuel]

Am I reading crusher right? If I crit with a bludgeoning weapon, all attacks (by everyone not just myself) have advantage until the end of my next turn. If so that’s crazy. A champion will give quasi permanent party wide advantage.

I first read it as advantage on the next turn but this is far stronger.

You're right. Might actually make the Champion become not the definitely worst subclass in the game.

Although, quasi permanent is an exageration. Before level 11 it's 19% chance, and between 11 and 14 it's 27%, and from 15 to 19 it's 38%.

[Sparky McDibben]

Doesn't Crusher require a bludgeoning weapon? What were you planning to use that keys off Dex?

Edit: looks like your option is sling...

Ha! All I need is a druid with magic stone and I'm set! :)

[MaxWilson]

Half-elf champion fighter with elven accuracy....hehehe....

This is going to be awesome.

Even funnier if your bludgeoning weapon is a sling. Not only can you repeatedly give yourself advantage (with high probability at least), but you can somehow knock your enemies towards you by hitting them with your sling bullets. Maybe they are sling boomerangs?

Anyway, Crusher likely should be restricted to melee weapons, but in its UA form it works with ranged weapons too.

[Mikal]

An interesting (though expensive) concept would be to use artificer initiate, shadow touched and get touched to get 3 extra spells as a sorcerer.

Yes the artificer spell list is intelligence based but there are good non intelligence necessitated spells in the list.

You use the artificer list to level itself up, and you swap the fey touched and shadow touched with ANY other sorcerer spells using your sorcerer level up ability.

The artificer feat specifically says you can level up the spell using the artificer list as you go up. Fry and shadow don’t have that, so you can freely choose any sorcerer spell to swap out for the specific schools in each feat.

In addition you get several free spells a day, your fey and shadow touched spells, plus misty step and (meh) darkness, and those aren’t limited to 1st level only. Whereas the artificer feats wording is more limiting in that it says you can cast the 1st level spell for free.

Probably best for a variant human, likely with rolled stats higher than average PB. If you have to use PB though it’s still an interesting concept with shadow and fey alone as a variant human since you’ll still get +2 charisma at level 1 and level 4...

I’d probably go divine sorcerer for the class so I can maximize where I can cherry pick those free spell swaps from.

This also as a side benefit can (based on the wording) give you two free casting of spells from level 7-9 as long as you use the free spells to swap out for a spell of that level

[Civis Mundi]

Doesn't Crusher require a bludgeoning weapon? What were you planning to use that keys off Dex?

Edit: looks like your option is sling...

There is also the cheesiest option: dipping Hexblade for CHA to attack and damage with a war hammer, since Elven Accuracy also works for CHA attacks. Man, I really do hate Hexblade.

[sambojin]

Do you know what else is an enchantment spell for Fey Touched? Bless.

No-one's mentioned it, but that's really really good. Even a blaster caster can now be a perfectly viable buffer alongside their damage output. One for free, plus one free Misty Step, and both properly known too.

From a Moon Druid's perspective, this makes it easily the best choice. Maybe with Tandem Tactician at 12th. All the advantage/ restrain, all the time.


But yeah. Having your choice of Hex, Hunter's Mark, or Bless (or even Command or Tasha's Hideous Laughter) alongside a very good level 2 spell, off your choice of casting stat, makes that feat amazing for anyone.

[LudicSavant]

My first impressions:

Fey Touched looks like it could be quite strong. You basically get a 2nd and 1st level spell slot, *and* the ability to use those spells with slots from your actual class... so you can totally get things like Hunter's Mark or Hex on an Eldritch Knight or Paladin, for example. And for only half a feat.

Some stuff from the Enchantment/Divination list you can grab with it: Hunter's Mark, Hex, Bless, Command, Dissonant Whispers, Compelled Duel.

By contrast, Shadow Touched seems quite inferior. As does Tracker, since you can get Hunter's Mark from Fey Touched.

Crusher seems like it could be pretty annoying from a gameplay perspective, in practice. It looks like it can make combat outcomes very swingy indeed (especially since it grants the whole party advantage until the end of the enemy's *next* turn). Not really looking forward to everyone having this one and just spamming basic attacks hoping for a crit until the whole party gets advantage which they then use to... spam more basic attacks. Note my issue here isn't really with whether it's balanced or not, just that it seems like it shifts the game more towards 'lolsorandumb' results, which I feel will make combat feel less satisfying and a bit less like my players are the authors of their own successes (and failures). Not to mention, I doubt anyone wants to see even more Hexblades drawn by the crit-reliant mechanics...

For Poisoner, is anything stopping you from just... oiling up several arrows while stealthed, then opening the combat with a bunch of poisoned hits? This too seems annoying, increasing the ambush advantage further than it needs to (as well as just having parties stop to do it). When the intent seems to be that they just want people to use it 1/turn with their in-combat bonus action, but that's totally not what they're gonna do. Also, ignoring Poison Resistance is barely gonna matter since most things have Poison *immunity* rather than Resistance. Seems like they may not have thought this one through all the way.

Practiced Expert basically makes Prodigy obsolete.

Eldritch Adept = Single Class Armor of Shadows Abjurer. Other notable options include Devil's Sight, Fiendish Vigor, Misty Visions, Mask of Many Faces, and Eldritch Sight.

Metamagic Adept only gives you 2 Sorcery points and without Font of Magic you can't convert resources into them.

[MeeposFire]

Well except I guess that prodigy stacks with the new feat so you can get these benefits twice. Needed not likely but if you really want to maximize the number of skills with double prof that would be the way to go.

[Grey Watcher]

Fighting Initiate: love it, and it addresses one of many complaints I have with the Fighter Class. Recommendation: restrict it to Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, Rogues, Rangers, Paladins.

There's a Baldesinger Wizard, a War Cleric, and a Swords Bard here who would like a word with you.

In all seriousness, class restrictions seems to defeat the purpose of Multiclass Lite feats in general.

[Sigreid]

Chef is super fun, and very impactful at lower levels, I think. A variant human taking this at level 1 could contribute a lot. A d8 of healing is a lot, and even 2 temporary HP can make a difference if you've only got 7 or 8 to begin with.

Crusher is great. My current Forge Cleric would be mighty tempted if he didn't already have even numbered stats.

Not a fan of giving other classes Invocations and Metamagic, even if it's very limited. And I'm not sure I like them flavour-wise, either. 'You've made a pact with an ancient entity, but just a little bit'. 'The ancient power running through your veins lets you twist magic itself, but just a little bit'.

Poisoner seems ... terrible? At low levels, where the damage is going to make an impact and the DC is possibly a hurdle, 50 gold is a lot. At high levels, when money is like water, 2d8 and poisoned for one round on a DC of only 14 doesn't cut it. I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Is this just how poison always works?

Gunner brings my dreams of my sword-and-pistol Fighter who existed for one session.

Fey Touched and Shadow Touched are flavourful and strong but not too strong. I can see myself taking them on some characters, especially Fey. Free Misty Step isn't nothing.

An Order Cleric with Tandem Tactician seems immensely fun. Just constantly yelling at your squad.

The way it's worded, I read Poisoner as applying to poison spells as well.

[sambojin]

Might also apply to wildshapes with built in poison damage, and Spore Druid stuff too. At least they've got the money to burn on it. Don't see why it wouldn't (you're still making a damage roll. In theory, it applies to all damage rolls, it just doesn't do anything unless you're causing poison damage).

If it dropped immunity down to resistance as well, it would be a fun feat with some builds.

[sambojin]

Just for a full list of Fey Touched lvl1 spell options, we have:

Animal Friendship
Bane -
Beast Bond
Bless *
Charm Person
Command *
Compelled Duel *
Comprehend Languages
Detect Good & Evil
Detect Magic -
Detect Poison and Disease
Dissonant Whispers *
Heroism *
Hex *
Hunters Mark *
Identify
Sleep -
Speak with Animals -
Tasha's Hideous Laughter *

With a little * beside the really good ones. And a - beside the kinda good ones. I mean, at worst, it's a free lvl1 spell prep slot, that also comes with Misty Step, and gives you half an ASI to your chosen casting stat. It's an insanely good feat. There's not many character types that either it or Eldritch Adept can't help along into being.

A choice of one of 8 good spells, or 4 OK'ish spells, or some pretty situational ones is amazing. I mean, if that was your lvl1 spell list for your class, you'd be happy enough with it. It's a really diverse selection. But you only get one :(

[Zonugal]

So, these are the invocation that are currently accessible via Eldritch Adept:

-- Armor of Shadows
-- Beast Speech
-- Beguiling Influence
-- Devil's Sight
-- Eldritch Sight
-- Eyes of the Rune Keeper
-- Fiendish Vigor
-- Gaze of Two Minds
-- Mask of Many Faces
-- Misty Visions

[sambojin]

May as well finish it off with the Shadow Touched list:

Color Spray
Disguise Self
False Life
Illusory Script
Inflict Wounds
Ray of Sickness
Silent Image

(I may have missed some non-PHB spells there)

[Seclora]

Hey, Figured I'd drop a list of all the Warlock Invocations that have no prerequisites in here, to provide a Help Action to all relevant Theorycrafting.

Armor of Shadows
Beast Speech
Beguiling Influence
Devil's Sight
Eldritch Sight
Eyes of the Runekeeper
Fiendish Vigor
Gaze of Two Minds
Mask of Many Faces
Misty Visions
Thief of Five Fates(requires Warlock Spell Slot)


Personally, I am already playing a character with Chef's Utensils, and am absolutely taking that feat on my Tiefling Draconic Sorcerer. The Bonus Action temp HP seems like a nice way to top off your tank after a heal or shore up your Wizard before he climbs the stairs. I can think of no reason for it to not also give you Expertise in Chef's Utensils, a thing that is unlikely to ever come up anyways.

Metamagic Adept is, meh. The limited range of spell points does a lot to balance it down, but it's a disappointment to share the Sorcerer's only real class ability. If only they got some bonus spell slots or something that actually balanced their limited spells known.

Poisoner is good in the right game, but suffers from Poison Immunity Prevalence. In a game with mostly humanoid enemies and decent funding, it'd be well worth it. Otherwise, you'd be better off doing anything else.

[Misterwhisper]

So now people who were dipping warlock 2 can do it with warlock 1 or none at all.

Clothie casters can half feat a shield and cast with it in hand.

Abjurers become monsters due to invocation feat.

Since everyone can just dip 1 of hexblade now and still get an invocation any charisma caster will want it and honestly any class that just wants good armor/shields and some bonuses.

What I see here is that they are taking dip classes and just giving people a reason to never play them at all.


P.S. I noticed that nothing in the feats gave wizard abilities away, but multiple are broken on a wizard...

[Joe the Rat]

Two thoughts:

1. Crusher trades open hand distance for better control. Move your opponent 5 feet to an unoccupied space in *any* direction. Side to side, forward (slings, bugbears, and lunging strikes)... hell, you could haymaker them five feet up. Not that it will do much.

2. So where's my wildshape feat?

[Luccan]

So now people who were dipping warlock 2 can do it with warlock 1 or none at all.

Clothie casters can half feat a shield and cast with it in hand.

Abjurers become monsters due to invocation feat.

Since everyone can just dip 1 of hexblade now and still get an invocation any charisma caster will want it and honestly any class that just wants good armor/shields and some bonuses.

What I see here is that they are taking dip classes and just giving people a reason to never play them at all.


P.S. I noticed that nothing in the feats gave wizard abilities away, but multiple are broken on a wizard...

I mean, the big wizard class feature already exists as a feat (ritual caster [wizard]) and Tomelock technically does it better. The only other base class ability they get before Tier 4 is Arcane Recovery and giving that away would arguably make Land Druid kinda pointless in the face of other options, while not significantly raising the bar for most of the classes that could take it (everyone but Sorcerer was doing fine without it). It would be really nice for Sorcerers though

[Ckp4242]

Chef feat + college of swords bard = hibachi chef.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

May as well finish it off with the Shadow Touched list:

Color Spray
Disguise Self
False Life
Illusory Script
Inflict Wounds
Ray of Sickness
Silent Image

(I may have missed some non-PHB spells there)

Cause Fear, Xanathar's
Distort Value, Acquisitions Inc.

[Lavaeolus]

-Tracker: So be a Variant Human with the Outlander background and be pretty much as good as a Ranger at their schtick? This didn't need to exist.

I find this one a little interesting, not because I really think it's a good idea, but because it makes me wonder about the whole Class Feature Variants (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/UA-ClassFeatures.pdf) thing. A lot of these are sort of, in my eye, multiclass-lite style feats, letting you gain a core bit of another class's identity albeit usually in a limited way.

Where Tracker is weird is that normal Ranger doesn't ever get Hunter's Mark for free, nor can it cast it without spell slots. I guess a Ranger-lite feat would be, say, some sort of take on Favored Enemy or Natural Explorer? I suppose the advantage on tracking creatures covers that, but not being limited to favored enemies might make it better than what the Ranger actually gets.

Instead, Tracker is pretty clearly a lightweight version of Favored Foe, with Wisdom (Survival) advantage added but concentrationless casting gone. So, what, does that point to Favored Foe still being in the plans? How about Feature Variants as whole, then? The feat makes a bit more sense if it's meant to stand against a Ranger that doesn't currently exist, but that's an awkward thing to comment on when for all we know the Ranger will stay as-is.

[animewatcha]

Still going through it, but figured I'd ask anyway.

Are there any weapons in 5e that deal more than one damage type at once? Like B AND P instead of B or P.

Also, do the mods allow us to discuss possibly "diversity" angle in regards to these feats since WOTC is wanting to go for more 'Diversity"?

[Citadel97501]

Hey all, my opinions seem to be pretty standard here although I happen to like Crusher as a bonus to the Champion sub-class, frankly I am just tired of seeing all the swords where are my hammer-bros (Maul's are on par or better in a lot of cases). Now in regards to Shield Training I really love the idea of this feat and it immediately made me think of the anime, "Rising of the Shield Hero" which is always a plus.

Shield Training + Shield Expert: Wizard with a splash of Artificer: Alchemist?

[w15p]

Still going through it, but figured I'd ask anyway.

Are there any weapons in 5e that deal more than one damage type at once? Like B AND P instead of B or P.

Also, do the mods allow us to discuss possibly "diversity" angle in regards to these feats since WOTC is wanting to go for more 'Diversity"?

can you give an example of a weapon that would do multiple types of damage at the same time?

[Ignimortis]

can you give an example of a weapon that would do multiple types of damage at the same time?

Any polearm with the Polearm Master Feat can do either piercing or slashing, and bludgeoning. Frankly, halberds and any sword-like weapon should be able to do piercing or slashing at user's choice too, though they can't.

[Kane0]

can you give an example of a weapon that would do multiple types of damage at the same time?

Most polearms. The commonality between them is that the head features a smashy bit, a stabby bit a cutty bit and often a hook.

[SociopathFriend]

Chef feat + college of swords bard = hibachi chef.

I'm more than a little infuriated that I played through the entire Chult campaign as a Lizardfolk chef and after completing said campaign in over a solid year of playing- NOW there is a feat specifically dedicated to cooking... when the character is finished and not likely to be played again.

That said- I hope the Metamagic option goes through. I always found it more than a little silly that it was decided all of those had to go straight to Sorcerers only instead of all magic classes equally.


And yes, I can admit that steps on the Sorcerer's toes. The way to fix it is to do what they should've done in the first place and put more emphasis on the Bloodlines.

[Darc_Vader]

can you give an example of a weapon that would do multiple types of damage at the same time?

I could see some sort of spiked club doing Bludgeoning and Piercing at the same time.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

can you give an example of a weapon that would do multiple types of damage at the same time?

Spiked mace, morning star I can probably think on more options if you ask for it.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

It looks like 5e deliberately left out multiple-damage-type weapons, and for good reason. A creature is resistant or immune to piercing damage, and is hit by an attack does both piercing and slashing damage. Is that monster resistant or immune to that damage because it's piercing, or is the damage not resisted because it's slashing? Even attacks that deal multiple damage types (Divine Smite) specify a single type of damage for each portion. Even claw and bite attacks do only piercing damage. No damage is ever multiple damage types simultaneously in 5e.

[animewatcha]

If wikidot is anything to go by, it would seem that each weapon is only one damage type. I can see future exotic weapons ( since double scimitar is a starter ) as being more than one damage type.

[Ignimortis]

Anyway, there's a feat that lets you get Expertise...except it's not actually Expertise and it isn't called such in the text, and doesn't specify that it doesn't stack unlike the feat Prodigy did way back. As such, it still doubles your proficiency bonus - but it would, RAW, stack with Expertise (unless I'm missing something), making people capable of +23 skill checks. +28, if they somehow get 30 in a stat, which is less plausible.

[w15p]

Any polearm with the Polearm Master Feat can do either piercing or slashing, and bludgeoning. Frankly, halberds and any sword-like weapon should be able to do piercing or slashing at user's choice too, though they can't.

Most polearms. The commonality between them is that the head features a smashy bit, a stabby bit a cutty bit and often a hook.

right, but not at the same time


I could see some sort of spiked club doing Bludgeoning and Piercing at the same time.

Spiked mace, morning star I can probably think on more options if you ask for it.

agreed "IRL" (if they are a thing and I have seen different perspectives on that) - but not a thing in 5e


It looks like 5e deliberately left out multiple-damage-type weapons, and for good reason. A creature is resistant or immune to piercing damage, and is hit by an attack does both piercing and slashing damage. Is that monster resistant or immune to that damage because it's piercing, or is the damage not resisted because it's slashing? Even attacks that deal multiple damage types (Divine Smite) specify a single type of damage for each portion. Even claw and bite attacks do only piercing damage. No damage is ever multiple damage types simultaneously in 5e.

and this is actually a very cogent explanation for why not (in 5e)- thank you.

[Hytheter]

I love these! Can't wait for them to be gutted or ignored in all future releases!

Chef looks fun and flavourful.

Crusher should be fun. It's a half feat so it's not necessarily setting your ASI progression back. New Booming Blade combo material. Crit effect is hard to work with but will be fun when it counts.

Eldritch Adept opens up some options. Devil's Sight for shadow monks without a MAD dip... oh wait, spellcasting feature prerequisite. Dang. Misty Visions for an illusionist seems neato. Mask of many faces speaks for itself. Beast Speech is flavourful. Obviously it's great for invocation hungry warlocks too. At-will spells seems better than magic initiate, but the latter is more versatile at least with the two cantrips you get.

Fighting initiate is cool to see, though I'm not sure how worthwhile is actually is unless you've already maxed your main ability. Archery is probably worth it for some (rogues really want that sneak attack to land), GWF not so much. Weapon Master should have done this from the beginning IMO.

Metamagic Adept is great for Sorcerers. Taking it as a vhuman is a pretty meaningful bump to your sorcery points at low levels and having more metamagic is obviously great. 2 SP isn't much for anyone else, so I don't really think it steals the sorc's thunder.

Practiced Expert makes prodigy look like a total waste of space, but I won't complain. It lacks the flavour and utility of the old skill feats but it gets the job done, and you don't have to raise the ability associated with the skill which potentially makes it easier to find room for.

Shield Training is neat. Casters still need a free hand for somatic-only spells though. 9_9

Tracker as pointed out is worse than fey touched. Even the bonus to tracking is partially made redundant by Hunter's Mark itself.



Watch this exploit: first level vHuman bard takes this feat and adds Deception and Persuasion as Proficient skills

How is that an exploit? It's strictly worse than Skilled.



Taking it for Armor of Shadows is probably the worst way to use it, considering you could spend a feat on Lightly Armored instead and also get +1 Dex or Str.

Or Magic Initiate. Mage Armour lasts 8 hours, so you might as well go for the single cast and get two cantrips out of the deal.

[CornfedCommando]

If the idea for which WotC is striving is to use feats as a substitute to multiclassing, then they should address the elephant in the room; Hexblade. Honestly, you can’t have a discussion about multiclassing without someone suggesting a 1 level dip into Hexblade. For a variety of reasons. Making Charisma-based characters SAD is an oft cited reason. So unless they’re gonna nerf the Hexblade (unlikely), why not just give in?

Give us a feat like this:

Charismatic Striker
Your confidence and flair embolden your attacks. When making a weapon attack using a weapon with which you are proficient, and that lacks the two-handed property, you may use your Charisma modifier, instead of Strength or Dexterity, for the attack and damage rolls.

Or something similar. Limit it to melee attacks. Limit it to finesse weapons. Make it usable once per turn. But do something so that not every character creation discussion goes down the Hexblade rabbit hole. 😄

[Hael]

You're right. Might actually make the Champion become not the definitely worst subclass in the game.

Although, quasi permanent is an exageration. Before level 11 it's 19% chance, and between 11 and 14 it's 27%, and from 15 to 19 it's 38%.

So take your elven champion and give him EA, and beg your dm to allow you to take a Bec de Corbin or a polehammer type weapon (they should be in the game anyway) and then take PAM. Before 11 he has a .27 chance to crit but with triple advantage that's a .61 chance.
With haste and triple advantage, thats now a .7% chance.

After 11, its a .34 chance to hit normally but with haste thats now a .8% chance.

If you action surge before 11, its .4 normally and .8 with advantage.

So your party's job is to give you advantage for one turn, and then it's extremely hard for it to drop (creating a sort of chain reaction).

[Ignimortis]

Or something similar. Limit it to melee attacks. Limit it to finesse weapons. Make it usable once per turn. But do something so that not every character creation discussion goes down the Hexblade rabbit hole. 😄

Making more things SAD would actually be nice (then again, I am all for raising the general PC power levels in 5e, unlike many people I've heard from here).

I remember 3.5 having a feat (Steadfast Determination, I think) which made all Will saves CON-based, as well as a trait that shifted most good WIS skills to INT, thus eliminating Wisdom as something completely required for martial characters. Wasn't the most optimal choice, but it was there and I liked getting it on my Warblade with a WIS of 8 - and then having Spot/Listen based off INT, as well as Will saves off CON.

[KOLE]

Crusher should trigger prone on a crit or 10 feet movement, just like a succesful shove.

Slasher should turn movement to 0 and prevent reactions.

Piercer should keep it’s base and add prof to damage for a little boost.

I don’t disagree that Sorcerer needs a buff, but other full casters getting a taste of Metamagic is okay with me, it’s inherently balanced since the best metas are off the table. I’d let Sorcs get more mileage from the feat by allowing them full access to two new metamagics and just adding the two sorc points to their pool. It’s strong, and might be an auto take at level 4, but giving up on that full ASI hurts so I’m okay with it.

[Hytheter]

So unless they’re gonna nerf the Hexblade (unlikely), why not just give in?

You know what? Yeah. Might as well.

[P. G. Macer]

I don’t disagree that Sorcerer needs a buff, but other full casters getting a taste of Metamagic is okay with me, it’s inherently balanced since the best metas are off the table. I’d let Sorcs get more mileage from the feat by allowing them full access to two new metamagics and just adding the two sorc points to their pool. It’s strong, and might be an auto take at level 4, but giving up on that full ASI hurts so I’m okay with it.

I humbly beg to differ with your assessment regarding sorcerers. Subtle Spell costs only one sorcery point and is deceptively powerful, since otherwise you cannot cast at all in social situations without being painfully obvious. Subtle Spell also makes spells lacking a material component un-counterable. So I do think that the best metamagics are “off the table”, because I’m not sure if I’d say Subtle Spell is the most powerful one, it’s high up there and often underrated.

[KOLE]

I humbly beg to differ with your assessment regarding sorcerers. Subtle Spell costs only one sorcery point and is deceptively powerful, since otherwise you cannot cast at all in social situations without being painfully obvious. Subtle Spell also makes spells lacking a material component un-counterable. So I do think that the best metamagics are “off the table”, because I’m not sure if I’d say Subtle Spell is the most powerful one, it’s high up there and often underrated.

Respectfully, 1. I have a hard time seeing Subtle being such a gamebreaker outside of the white room analyses I’ve seen on this forum, but I’m open to being convinced, 2. This is competing with a lot of feats for Full casters. Is two subtle spells a day better than con save prof? Ignoring resistance with elemental adept? Even just getting armor prof? 3. I really like the idea of Bards getting subtle, and a feat tax to get it feels appropriate. Clerics and Druids being able to twin low level spells once or even being able to stretch powerful spells with Extend in niche circumtances also feels appropriate.

As I said, I’m a big Sorcerer fan and in general agree they need some fine tuning/buffing to be more competitive, but lettig others get a little taste of what makes them fun for a steep cost feels okay with me.

Back to the topic at hand: the shield feat should be gutted or require armor prof. I’m getting an image of my head of whole bunch of Wizards, Sorcerers, and non-Hexblade Warlocks running around with mage armor and shields and I don’t like it. Also, shields as a spell focus is a Cleric thing. It’s a tiny little feature for them, but it’s iconic. I don’t like it being taken from them.

EDIT: Looking at it again, it offers so little to anyone who actually uses shields and so much to casters. Who can say no to a half feat for a free +2 AC who didn’t already have it? And in what circumstances is free don/doff useful? I’m honestly trying to think of it. Maybe if you’ve got a versatile weapon, and that ~+1 damage will make all the difference in the world? It doesn’t allow you to draw a second weapon to turn on TWF if you’re say, a Rogue, so it feels... useless. This one can go in the gutter, but I actually really like the rest. Also, the Fighting Style feat should be a half feat. My homebrew is.

[Waazraath]

Hey, Figured I'd drop a list of all the Warlock Invocations that have no prerequisites in here, to provide a Help Action to all relevant Theorycrafting.
Armor of Shadows
Beast Speech
Beguiling Influence
Devil's Sight
Eldritch Sight
Eyes of the Runekeeper
Fiendish Vigor
Gaze of Two Minds
Mask of Many Faces
Misty Visions
Thief of Five Fates(requires Warlock Spell Slot)


Mhhh... with this in mind some semi-random thoughts:
- devil's sight is great on a shadow monk, that has plenty of ki points to cast darkness
- cheesy, but devil's sight on the entire party makes for crazy party optimization.
- Mask of many faces is really strong for a feat; and also here, when doing party optimization, you can have the entire party pulling off infiltration tricks with only spending a feat. Also great for rogues, expertise in deception and your golden.
- Fiendish vigor is really strong at the low levels; very nice for a shadow monk before trading it for devil's sight, for example, but nice for everybody.

What's also nice is that this is a feat option that allows martials more options for those who want more buttons to push, also outside combat.

[Hytheter]

but it would, RAW, stack with Expertise (unless I'm missing something)

There's an explicit rule in the PHB preventing this. Page 12:

"Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be multiplied or divided (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. For example, the rogue’s Expertise feature doubles the proficiency bonus for certain ability checks. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll, you still add it only once and multiply or divide it only once."


Mhhh... with this in mind some semi-random thoughts:
- devil's sight is great on a shadow monk, that has plenty of ki points to cast darkness
- cheesy, but devil's sight on the entire party makes for crazy party optimization.
- Mask of many faces is really strong for a feat; and also here, when doing party optimization, you can have the entire party pulling off infiltration tricks with only spending a feat. Also great for rogues, expertise in deception and your golden.
- Fiendish vigor is really strong at the low levels; very nice for a shadow monk before trading it for devil's sight, for example, but nice for everybody.

The feat requires the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature. So no to shadow monks and no to whole party invocations, unless everyone takes a level in a caster class.

[Ignimortis]

There's an explicit rule in the PHB preventing this. Page 12:

"Occasionally, your proficiency bonus might be multiplied or divided (doubled or halved, for example) before you apply it. For example, the rogue’s Expertise feature doubles the proficiency bonus for certain ability checks. If a circumstance suggests that your proficiency bonus applies more than once to the same roll, you still add it only once and multiply or divide it only once."


Aw, dangit. This could've been the way to finally making it off the RNG at least for one skill.

[Waazraath]

The feat requires the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature. So no to shadow monks and no to whole party invocations, unless everyone takes a level in a caster class.

Ah, thnx, I stand corrected. Bummer, cause I think it's really fitting for a shadow monk and taking a few levels warlock (and cha 13+) is quite an investment. Still a very nice option for Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knigts, Paladins, Rangers and the like. And as a DM, I'd prolly allow it for casting monks as well, even though they technically lack the spellcasting feature.

[Appleheart]

Eldritch Adept so that Lore Bard that selects the Eldritch Blast Cantrip as part of their Additional Magic Secrets ability is selecting this feat later for Agonizing Blast/Repelling Blast.
!

I don't think so.

The feat says "If the invocation has a prerequisite, you can choose that invocation only if you’re a warlock and only if you meet the prerequisite.", so even if your Bard gets Eldritch Blast, since Agonizing Blast has a prerequisite you still need at least 1 Warlock level to be able to take it.

Sure, you only need 1 level instead of 2, but is that adjustment worth the cost of a feat? I wouldn't think so, in most cases.

[diplomancer]

Abjurer can now get the mage armor invocation to top off their Arcane Ward also. That is really powerful.

[Hytheter]

Ah, thnx, I stand corrected. Bummer, cause I think it's really fitting for a shadow monk and taking a few levels warlock (and cha 13+) is quite an investment.

Yeah, it's definitely a shame. I'm not really sure why either, seems kind of needless.

[Mikal]

2. So where's my wildshape feat?

The same place your action surge, sneak attack, smite, and rage feats are. Nowhere because those are features to integral to their classes which you still need to multiclass for

[Mikal]

Ah, thnx, I stand corrected. Bummer, cause I think it's really fitting for a shadow monk and taking a few levels warlock (and cha 13+) is quite an investment. Still a very nice option for Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knigts, Paladins, Rangers and the like. And as a DM, I'd prolly allow it for casting monks as well, even though they technically lack the spellcasting feature.

Just multiclass a level of cleric for a monk. You’re going to have the wisdom for it, you’ll get some cantrips (like guidance!) and a few spell slots which can be used for actual cleric spells or ADDITIONAL castings of darkness.

It said spellcasting, and that’s a spellcasting class.
Or a level of Druid if you’d rather have shillelagh

[JellyPooga]

The same place your action surge, sneak attack, smite, and rage feats are. Nowhere because those are features to integral to their classes which you still need to multiclass for

Invocations and Metamagic used to be integral to their Classes too. So did Expertise.

These Feats make me not want to bother playing D&D anymore. If I wanted a game with completely modular character abilities, I'd play GURPS. I don't play D&D for that because it does it badly.

[diplomancer]

My overall impression of the feats is that they're well balanced, nothing is garbage like Weapon Master or over powered like Sharpshooter.

Only one I don't like is the metamagic feat, and no, not because now other classes get some of the Sorcerer toys; this particular use is, in most games, simply not worth the cost of the feat. Not having flexible magic makes a huge difference to the utility of the feat. Maybe a niche use of getting 2 sorcerer levels instead of 3 and then taking the feat might come up, but until someone presents a build that takes special advantage of this particular combination, I'm not worried about it.

No, what I dislike about this feat is that it's basically a stealth errata to the Sorcerer; having realized they need at least 1, maybe 2 more metamagic options, they decided, instead of correcting that mistake, to create a feat tax to sorcerers and gave 2 Sorcery Points as a consolation prize for having to take the feat.

It's similar to the way they stealth corrected pact of the blade by making a patron for it. It's such a weird design decision :"There are no power level mistakes in the PHB. It cannot be changed, no matter what".

[Kane0]

No, what I dislike about this feat is that it's basically a stealth errata to the Sorcerer; having realized they need at least 1, maybe 2 more metamagic options, they decided, instead of correcting that mistake, to create a feat tax to sorcerers and gave 2 Sorcery Points as a consolation prize for having to take the feat.

It's similar to the way they stealth corrected pact of the blade by making a patron for it. It's such a weird design decision :"There are no power level mistakes in the PHB. It cannot be changed, no matter what".

Standard MO at this point sadly. The Ranger hasn’t been touched and yet we got an errata nerf to Healing Spirit...

[diplomancer]

Standard MO at this point sadly. The Ranger hasn’t been touched and yet we got an errata nerf to Healing Spirit...

And the Xanathar rangers are also a stealth errata to Rangers, as they are considerably better than the PHB ones.

Now, changing the subject; playtesting feats is probably not as hard as playtesting subclasses; any chance some version of these feats appearing in the November book?

[ezekielraiden]

The same place your action surge, sneak attack, smite, and rage feats are. Nowhere because those are features to integral to their classes which you still need to multiclass for

So, how exactly do you explain the metamagic thing, which is quite literally the one unique Sorcerer mechanic that you have to multiclass in order to get?

[Benny89]

I see some potential min-max options here!

1. Eldritch Adept - this one is gonna be fun! Devil's Sight for Sorcerers, Wizards, Bladesingers etc. Or Agonizing Blast for Hexblade 1/Paladins or Hexbards. Worth ASI? Hell yeah if you know you will be playing level 11+, having that sweet 3d10+15 on range at will is great without need to invest second level in Hexblade and delay your progression. Good feat for Vumans to take.

2. Metamagic Adept - Nice feat for Wizard at some point (probably level 8 or 12). Even if it's only 2 points, being able to Quicken Haste/Dimensional Door/Banishment etc. is really nice. Quicken spell + Disengage/Dash etc. is really great option to have. Subtle spell will also find its uses.

[jaappleton]

Abjurer can now get the mage armor invocation to top off their Arcane Ward also. That is really powerful.

The design team was aware of this one before releasing the UA.

Source: They told me. I told them I’d broken the UA, in jest, and Dan Dillon went “Yeah I did that one while writing it”.

———

EDIT:

Regarding the Metamagic Feat being a Tax on Sorcs to learn new Metamagic: Don’t forget that in the November UA, Class Feature Variants.... oh right it wasn’t.... Ok let me explain.

In that UA, there is no option to swap out Metamagic on a long rest. During the Dragon Talk that followed, where Jeremy goes over the design and answers questions, someone asked:

“Hey why no option to swap Metamagic? You let everyone swap everything else!”

And Jeremy Crawford gave a very concise answer: “We forgot to put it in. And if this UA were to move forward, that ability to swap Metamagic on a long rest would 100% be in the final version.”

So.... There you have it. While unfortunately not written down, it was 100% intended for it to be in.

[Ignimortis]

The design team was aware of this one before releasing the UA.

Source: They told me. I told them I’d broken the UA, in jest, and Dan Dillon went “Yeah I did that one while writing it”.


...this is insanely broken by 5e standards. You gain a semi-permanent shield of 5-45 HP which you can refill without resting. Sure, you paid a whole feat for it - but it's basically Tough, except when you lose hitpoints, you can recreate them before the next combat, and it takes like 2 minutes tops.

[Dork_Forge]

...this is insanely broken by 5e standards. You gain a semi-permanent shield of 5-45 HP which you can refill without resting. Sure, you paid a whole feat for it - but it's basically Tough, except when you lose hitpoints, you can recreate them before the next combat, and it takes like 2 minutes tops.

And that feat is also saving you a spell known and slots you'd be spending anyway as Mage Armor is the go to AC generator for most Wizards.

[stoutstien]

For this most part all them seem boring. Some are over/under tuned but that is standard for UA and expected but there really isn't anything new here.

[rlc]

So, my first inpressions:
I think that the fighting style and invocation feats should probably be half feats, but that could just be me.
The metamagic one is probably a little strong compared to some feats, but not really compared to other ones. Like, it probably isn't stronger than Great Weapon Master, or even the Slasher feat that's in this document.

[JackPhoenix]

...this is insanely broken by 5e standards. You gain a semi-permanent shield of 5-45 HP which you can refill without resting. Sure, you paid a whole feat for it - but it's basically Tough, except when you lose hitpoints, you can recreate them before the next combat, and it takes like 2 minutes tops.

You do realise there always were ways to do that, right? While Spell Mastery requires 18 levels of wizard, 2-level warlock dip is always an option (it's got cost, but it gets you Armor of Agathys too, which is great on abjurer), and Svirfneblin magic (deep gnome is good wizard race already) allows you to do that even faster, as you're doing it with 3rd level spell. And there are few magic items that allow you to cast abjuration spells.

[Benny89]

Abjurer can now get the mage armor invocation to top off their Arcane Ward also. That is really powerful.

Nice one, Finally I won't have to flex myself to either get Invocation, be Deep Gnome etc. to make it work.

Variant Human 1st level Hexblade for Mediym Armor, shields and Armor of Agathys and Feat: Eldricht Adept: Amor of Shadows invocation.

And then I will be running as 19 AC abjurer with extra 30-85 HP for every combat that doesn't trigger my concentration check :) + Armor of Agathys so they can kill themselfs if they hit me.

Ow, I like this combo already :).

[Ignimortis]

You do realise there always were ways to do that, right? While Spell Mastery requires 18 levels of wizard, 2-level warlock dip is always an option (it's got cost, but it gets you Armor of Agathys too, which is great on abjurer), and Svirfneblin magic (deep gnome is good wizard race already) allows you to do that even faster, as you're doing it with 3rd level spell. And there are few magic items that allow you to cast abjuration spells.

No, I didn't know. Well, one more broken thing to do that, I guess. Wizards keep getting more love instead of a heartfelt kick to the bottom like they deserve, IMO...

[Dork_Forge]

You do realise there always were ways to do that, right? While Spell Mastery requires 18 levels of wizard, 2-level warlock dip is always an option (it's got cost, but it gets you Armor of Agathys too, which is great on abjurer), and Svirfneblin magic (deep gnome is good wizard race already) allows you to do that even faster, as you're doing it with 3rd level spell. And there are few magic items that allow you to cast abjuration spells.

Whilst there is currently methods to do it, adding more can't be a good thing and unlike the others this can be fit into any old Wizard build with just an ASI. No MAD dip delaying your Wizard casting, no specific race and ASI required and unlike the other ways, it's something you'd want and would be spending slots normally on anyway.

Pre-existing ways to exploit a feature doesn't justify adding more (and arguably better) ways to continue to exploit it.

[Chaosmancer]

In that UA, there is no option to swap out Metamagic on a long rest. During the Dragon Talk that followed, where Jeremy goes over the design and answers questions, someone asked:

“Hey why no option to swap Metamagic? You let everyone swap everything else!”

And Jeremy Crawford gave a very concise answer: “We forgot to put it in. And if this UA were to move forward, that ability to swap Metamagic on a long rest would 100% be in the final version.”

So.... There you have it. While unfortunately not written down, it was 100% intended for it to be in.

Oh wow, good to know.


...this is insanely broken by 5e standards. You gain a semi-permanent shield of 5-45 HP which you can refill without resting. Sure, you paid a whole feat for it - but it's basically Tough, except when you lose hitpoints, you can recreate them before the next combat, and it takes like 2 minutes tops.

Well, sort of.

If you spend the entire time refilling it, definitely quite potent, but wizards are the lowest HP and AC class generally. For an example, let us take three fights with a minute behind them (gladiator style, we did this in a game recently)

Let's say 8th level and +4 mod. That is 20 temp hp on the Wizard, who on average would have.... 50 hp and an AC of 15 (This is assuming a con of +2 and dex of +2). A minute is just enough time to refill that every combat, So they have a "total" of 110 hp, but only 20+current at any one time and that is a lower AC

However, compare to the Artillerist. They have 60 hp, an AC of easily 21, and they can use the Protector (with it's own AC and HP) to use a bonus action to regain 1d8+4, which we will average to 8. Once before each fight, every round in the fight which we'll say is three rounds each...average of 64 hp, max of 144 if you roll constant eights.

So, the wizard with this feat is certainly going into top-tier territory, but I wouldn't say it is outside of the capabilities of other classes.



No, I didn't know. Well, one more broken thing to do that, I guess. Wizards keep getting more love instead of a heartfelt kick to the bottom like they deserve, IMO...

I also was unaware... but that doesn't make this "more love" since multi-classing was available from the beginning.

[Eldariel]

Shield Training specifically screams "Mountain Dwarf" to me; they get medium armor but not shields, which is actually a much more significant bonus. This slots in perfectly for a Mountain Dwarf melee gish (who has enough racial stat bonuses to afford Str-focus even). 17/14/17/15 would be ideal, of course; then you could take Shield Training for 18 Con or Str and then ASI for 18 Con-or-Str/16 Int. Of course, only capping out Int on level 16 would be pretty meh. And 15/15/15/14 is a lot to ask; 34 point buy. Res: Con is OTOH also a feat they'd probably want making for use from both half-feats. Then I guess like Observant or something for the Int half-feat and it'd actually be pretty decent overall.

[Luccan]

It looks like 5e deliberately left out multiple-damage-type weapons, and for good reason. A creature is resistant or immune to piercing damage, and is hit by an attack does both piercing and slashing damage. Is that monster resistant or immune to that damage because it's piercing, or is the damage not resisted because it's slashing? Even attacks that deal multiple damage types (Divine Smite) specify a single type of damage for each portion. Even claw and bite attacks do only piercing damage. No damage is ever multiple damage types simultaneously in 5e.

Presumably the desire for this is partly based off it being the case in 3.X (maybe other editions too, but that's the one I'm certain of). Anyway, if your weapon dealt multiple damage types at the same time, you just assumed it was whichever was most beneficial. Which wouldn't exactly be complicated to implement in 5e, but it might be unbalanced. I'm not sure how many creatures are resistant or immune to only one type of physical weapon damage. Still, it would mean a Morningstar was more effective against skeletons, which makes more sense to me than not.

[nickl_2000]

Shield Training specifically screams "Mountain Dwarf" to me; they get medium armor but not shields, which is actually a much more significant bonus. This slots in perfectly for a Mountain Dwarf melee gish (who has enough racial stat bonuses to afford Str-focus even). 17/14/17/15 would be ideal, of course; then you could take Shield Training for 18 Con or Str and then ASI for 18 Con-or-Str/16 Int. Of course, only capping out Int on level 16 would be pretty meh. And 15/15/15/14 is a lot to ask; 34 point buy. Res: Con is OTOH also a feat they'd probably want making for use from both half-feats. Then I guess like Observant or something for the Int half-feat and it'd actually be pretty decent overall.

Githyanki would be perfect for this feat for a strength wizard. You get +2 to strength and +1 to intelligence. So 17 str and 16 int at level 1.

[jaappleton]

Githyanki would be perfect for this feat for a strength wizard. You get +2 to strength and +1 to intelligence. So 17 str and 16 int at level 1.

But wouldn't get a feat at lv1. :smalltongue:

[nickl_2000]

But wouldn't get a feat at lv1. :smalltongue:

Yup, but you would just have to use a great sword with booming blade from level 1-4. Nothing really all that bad there

[Citadel97501]

Githyanki would be perfect for this feat for a strength wizard. You get +2 to strength and +1 to intelligence. So 17 str and 16 int at level 1.

Class: 4th level Abjurer
Race: Mark of Warding Dwarf
Stats: 14 Dexterity, 16 Constitution, 16 Intelligence, dump charisma...
AC: 17 armor class: Shield + Mage Armor + 14 dexterity
HP: 36 hp, 18 hp ward, 10 THP Armor of Agathys = 64 that is more than a 16 constitution Barbarian :)
Melee: Axes and Booming Blade...

I still think this is better with a Variant Human even with the Armor of Agathys...simply due to getting it online at level 1.

[diplomancer]

You do realise there always were ways to do that, right? While Spell Mastery requires 18 levels of wizard, 2-level warlock dip is always an option (it's got cost, but it gets you Armor of Agathys too, which is great on abjurer), and Svirfneblin magic (deep gnome is good wizard race already) allows you to do that even faster, as you're doing it with 3rd level spell. And there are few magic items that allow you to cast abjuration spells.

Mark of Warding Dwarf is the race that benefits the most from it. No need to dip (though a 1 level dip in artificer is very good, and, unlike the warlock dip, won't make you lose slots), and you get Armor of Agathys and infinite arcane ward.

[Segev]

I'm not sold on all of them, but I want to comment on Eldritch Adept. While there are more powerful Invocation choices, what it does that makes me say "wow" is enable an Illusionist wizard to not need 2 levels of Warlock to feel like he's keeping up with the Warlock before level 11. A Vuman going Illusionist could take Eldritch Adept for Misty Visions right away, and any Illusionist can take it at level 4. Sure, the Warlock is now the better illusionist for levels 2 and 3, but that's a lot more manageable than levels 2-10 (which encompass the vast majority of play time since very few games really hit level 11 for more than the climax).

[clash]

One thing about these feats, is most of them would be pretty vital to my character concept if I planned on taking them. It really pushes me to vhuman even moreso then before. If I want a specific metamagic or invocation or fighting style or shields etc I dont want to wait to level 4. I want it at level 1.

[jaappleton]

One thing about these feats, is most of them would be pretty vital to my character concept if I planned on taking them. It really pushes me to vhuman even moreso then before. If I want a specific metamagic or invocation or fighting style or shields etc I dont want to wait to level 4. I want it at level 1.

All the more reason every table should have all PCs start with a feat at 1st level. (VHumans would get 2)

"Oh power creep!" Not if everyone starts with one, it keeps it a level playing field across the board, and lets face it..... some 5E adventures, especially the earlier ones (Tyranny of Dragons, I'm looking at you in particular), the PCs could use the help.

Also gives much more uniqueness and individuality to the player characters, helping them fulfill their builds and concepts without needing to arbitrarily wait until later.

GIVE 'EM FEATS.

[Segev]

One thing about these feats, is most of them would be pretty vital to my character concept if I planned on taking them. It really pushes me to vhuman even moreso then before. If I want a specific metamagic or invocation or fighting style or shields etc I dont want to wait to level 4. I want it at level 1.

While I fully agree that this feeling is present, I will point out that the way 5e is designed, you're not supposed to "come into your own" as the character design you're going for until level 2, 3, or even 4, depending on when the subclasses are chosen and what key features are considered fully iconic. Using the Illusionist Wizard as an example, playing a Variant Human to get Misty Visions at level 1 is highly tempting. You're an illusionist before you even take the subclass! But even a non-human (or normal, non-variant human) Illusionist just feels like they're hitting their stride properly at level 4. Yes, the warlock would have been better at levels 2 and 3, and ANY variant human who (for some reason) took Eldritch Adept for Misty Visions will feel more like an illusionist than the Illusionist who does not, but the majority of the game seems to take place between levels 4 and 10, so I don't think this is truly a problem.

Just an annoyance since it "feels" like you should have the central schtick going from level 1 or 2. Having to wait until 4 feels "off" even though it's more-or-less on schedule.

[Darc_Vader]

Nice one, Finally I won't have to flex myself to either get Invocation, be Deep Gnome etc. to make it work.

Variant Human 1st level Hexblade for Mediym Armor, shields and Armor of Agathys and Feat: Eldricht Adept: Amor of Shadows invocation.

And then I will be running as 19 AC abjurer with extra 30-85 HP for every combat that doesn't trigger my concentration check :) + Armor of Agathys so they can kill themselfs if they hit me.

Ow, I like this combo already :).

Technically you can’t cast Mage Armour on yourself if you’re wearing armour already. It’s still doable if you take your armour off to recharge your ward or have an Unarmoured ally nearby who is willing to let you spam cast it on them(forgot the invocation is self only), but it’s at the very least clunky to use like that.

[Civis Mundi]

Just an annoyance since it "feels" like you should have the central schtick going from level 1 or 2. Having to wait until 4 feels "off" even though it's more-or-less on schedule.

^Quoted for emphasis.

Characters not developing their central schtick at the earliest levels is why a lot of groups start at 3rd and refer to 1-2 as "tutorial levels." Unless you're learning the ropes of the game, it's frustrating to know that you're not really playing your character yet.

[Segev]

Technically you can’t cast Mage Armour on yourself if you’re wearing armour already. It’s still doable if you take your armour off to recharge your ward or have an Unarmoured ally nearby who is willing to let you spam cast it on them(forgot the invocation is self only), but it’s at the very least clunky to use like that.

If you're proficient with the armor, you can cast mage armor on yourself while wearing armor, you just don't get the 13+dex AC calculation; you get whatever your armor gives you.

[suplee215]

I wonder if TWF is going be more common now because any class can take it without dipping. Rogues, Paladins, barbarian, and even blade warlocks and blade singers would love an extra attack for a bonus action. Adding 4 to 5 damage helps twf a lot.

[Dork_Forge]

If you're proficient with the armor, you can cast mage armor on yourself while wearing armor, you just don't get the 13+dex AC calculation; you get whatever your armor gives you.

Mage Armor specificies in the description you touch a creature that isn't wearing armor. So presumably an armored creature is an invalid target for the spell (whereas what you're referring to is like if you had a natural armor and put armor on top).

[jaappleton]

I wonder if TWF is going be more common now because any class can take it without dipping. Rogues, Paladins, barbarian, and even blade warlocks and blade singers would love an extra attack for a bonus action. Adding 4 to 5 damage helps twf a lot.

TWF still isn't good.

You'd figure, looking at it, that "Oh a full bonus action attack, nice!" that something like Paladin would love it. Another Smite opportunity, plus Improved Smite at 11, it all makes sense.

Except now you need TWO magical weapons to fully bypass resistances, as opposed to something like a Glaive and Polearm Master combo or a Revenant Blade Double-Scimitar.

The best thing this does it allow Archery style on classes that typically can't get a fighting style at all. Bards stealing Holy Weapon or Swift Quiver, as an example. Or Valor Bards nabbing Dueling to pair with their shield. Rogues for Archery style.

I THINK this can do something for Monks but.... Dueling says you have to be wielding a weapon in one hand... Can you wield your own fist? They don't wear armor so they can't use Defense style. 2H weapons are out...

EDIT: On a Bladesinger? If you're actually looking to utilize that weapon and not use Bladesong strictly as an AC buff, yes. TWF is quite good. Paired with Spirit Shroud for another +1d8 on attacks, its especially solid. That's pretty much the only example I can think of where TWF is legitimately good, except for Fey Wanderer Ranger, but that went totally out of its way to accommodate TWF.

[Grey Watcher]

I THINK this can do something for Monks but.... Dueling says you have to be wielding a weapon in one hand... Can you wield your own fist? They don't wear armor so they can't use Defense style. 2H weapons are out...

If other UA is in play, the Mariner "Fighting" Style from a few years back would be handy for Monks. Or that Grapple-specialist Fighting Style from a couple of months ago.

[Kane0]

Re: Abjurer Invocation spam, Ritual Alarm is still a thing and requires zero feat/MC investment, its just a bit slower. Nothing says you have to stand still while casting a spell as a ritual either...

[king_steve]

Some of these feats look like they might be replacements for some race features (e.g. the Fey Touched, Shadow Touched).

Do you think they might change character creation such that you can pick any race and select +1/+1 and a feat instead?

E.g. An Eladrin Elf might just have +1/+1 and the Fey Touched feat and maybe a Shadar-kai Elf might have +1/+1 and Shadow Touched?

It could be one way to handle decoupling race features, maybe.

[Eldariel]

I wonder if TWF is going be more common now because any class can take it without dipping. Rogues, Paladins, barbarian, and even blade warlocks and blade singers would love an extra attack for a bonus action. Adding 4 to 5 damage helps twf a lot.

A feat is a pretty massive cost. You could just be picking up Polearm Master or something instead and probably get way more mileage out of it (the bonus action attack and then some). Remember, these aren't free bonuses, they actually cost you an ASI/feat. TWF fighting style is pretty crap comparatively; it just brings it in line with everything else compared to others pushing their style ahead (okay, Great Weapon Style sucks too).

[nickl_2000]

Some of these feats look like they might be replacements for some race features (e.g. the Fey Touched, Shadow Touched).

Do you think they might change character creation such that you can pick any race and select +1/+1 and a feat instead?

E.g. An Eladrin Elf might just have +1/+1 and the Fey Touched feat and maybe a Shadar-kai Elf might have +1/+1 and Shadow Touched?

It could be one way to handle decoupling race features, maybe.

That's an interesting theory. Are they trying to generalize racial features into feat and make a feat at level 1 standard.

[Wildstag]

I kinda with the Fey/Shadow-Touched feats came in a separate "Plane-Touched" UA. It'd be great to see a Touched feat for each of the primary elemental planes, a Fiend-Touched, a Celestial-Touched, and an Aberration-Touched (for the Far Realms).

[Civis Mundi]

Re: Abjurer Invocation spam, Ritual Alarm is still a thing and requires zero feat/MC investment, its just a bit slower. Nothing says you have to stand still while casting a spell as a ritual either...

It's not just a bit slower, it's much slower--2 HP every 11 minutes. At just 5th level, it would take over an hour to recover from zero to full. That's still pretty good, but it practically requires a short rest to recharge. Yes, by RAW you can move while casting a ritual, but if anything actually happens within that time that requires your action or interrupts your concentration, you might not get much out of it. It'd be a contentious ruling at some tables at well. By comparison, casting mage armor at will means 2 HP every 6 seconds, requiring less than 1 minute to recharge (at least at 5th level). A Deep Gnome with Svirfneblin Magic's still got them both beat, of course. Nondetection at will mean 6 HP every 6 seconds, which scales very nicely even into the latest levels.

EDIT: As I think about it more, this makes me feel more reluctant about Eldritch Adept in general, which I don't otherwise mind too much. It makes it a must-have for any Abjurer, and anything that imposes a hard feat tax for all characters of a particular class or subclass is a step in the wrong direction. I think I'd be more comfortable with it if it required Pact Magic, so you'd need at least 1 level of Warlock.

[Cikomyr2]

All the more reason every table should have all PCs start with a feat at 1st level. (VHumans would get 2)

"Oh power creep!" Not if everyone starts with one, it keeps it a level playing field across the board, and lets face it..... some 5E adventures, especially the earlier ones (Tyranny of Dragons, I'm looking at you in particular), the PCs could use the help.

Also gives much more uniqueness and individuality to the player characters, helping them fulfill their builds and concepts without needing to arbitrarily wait until later.

GIVE 'EM FEATS.

Every character at level 1 gets an ASI.

There. Balanced resolved. Pick either the ASI or a feat. Have fun

[Christew]

That's an interesting theory. Are they trying to generalize racial features into feat and make a feat at level 1 standard.
Agreed. Could easily be early workshopping for a variant character design system. Perhaps *crosses fingers* for the announced player facing book?

[suplee215]

TWF still isn't good.

You'd figure, looking at it, that "Oh a full bonus action attack, nice!" that something like Paladin would love it. Another Smite opportunity, plus Improved Smite at 11, it all makes sense.

Except now you need TWO magical weapons to fully bypass resistances, as opposed to something like a Glaive and Polearm Master combo or a Revenant Blade Double-Scimitar.



I feel like this is heavily DM dependent. In my opinion, a DM should work with their players to give them magic items to encompass their preferred fighting method. I understand this does not cover adventure leagues and modules the DM doesn't help with but if you are a DM who is refusing to give your TWF player more than 1 magic item and makes it harder you're just making them despise the fighting type. As you pointed out giving a player 2 magic items to fight with is no different than 1 magic item that's a glaive or Double Scimitar.

[GooeyChewie]

I absolutely love the Chef feat. I'm looking forward to using it in the future.


It's a half feat with +1 wis or con, both useful
bard style extra healing on short rests
tiny bits of temp hp on bonus action demand - kind of wish it was more than proficiency, but I can see wanting to keep this low


Gonna make an Uncle Iroh character. Fresh jasmine tea every short rest, some rosewater tea cakes baked every morning

Iroh should have really high Wisdom, and the ability to cast fire spells to mimic firebending. Since we're already looking at UA, how about a Circle of Wildfire druid? I think I've found my next character!

[Dork_Forge]

TWF still isn't good.

You'd figure, looking at it, that "Oh a full bonus action attack, nice!" that something like Paladin would love it. Another Smite opportunity, plus Improved Smite at 11, it all makes sense.

Except now you need TWO magical weapons to fully bypass resistances, as opposed to something like a Glaive and Polearm Master combo or a Revenant Blade Double-Scimitar.

The best thing this does it allow Archery style on classes that typically can't get a fighting style at all. Bards stealing Holy Weapon or Swift Quiver, as an example. Or Valor Bards nabbing Dueling to pair with their shield. Rogues for Archery style.

I THINK this can do something for Monks but.... Dueling says you have to be wielding a weapon in one hand... Can you wield your own fist? They don't wear armor so they can't use Defense style. 2H weapons are out...

EDIT: On a Bladesinger? If you're actually looking to utilize that weapon and not use Bladesong strictly as an AC buff, yes. TWF is quite good. Paired with Spirit Shroud for another +1d8 on attacks, its especially solid. That's pretty much the only example I can think of where TWF is legitimately good, except for Fey Wanderer Ranger, but that went totally out of its way to accommodate TWF.

If a DM is willing to drop a magical Glaive or Double Scimitar, then there's nothing stopping them from dropping a couple magic weapons for the TWFer (especially if they invest in dual wielding).

I Have a TWfer in my campaign, I never set out to give him two magical weapons, but he's actively sought out crafting a weapon and when weapons have dropped considered if they suit his style.

As for written modules, a PC is far more likely to come across two magical weapons they can TWF than a Glaive or DS user is to come across a magical version as written.

Still only found a single magic weapon? Suck up the resistance or get your hands on Magic Weapon. If you're a Paladin with Improved Divine Smite or a Rogue looking for another chance to Sneak chances are you would rather get that damage in at all.

This is the poorest argument against TWF.

Edit: Forge Clerics and Artificers also make this far less of an issue, if it even is an issue to begin with.

[Greywander]

One thing about these feats, is most of them would be pretty vital to my character concept if I planned on taking them. It really pushes me to vhuman even moreso then before. If I want a specific metamagic or invocation or fighting style or shields etc I dont want to wait to level 4. I want it at level 1.

All the more reason every table should have all PCs start with a feat at 1st level. (VHumans would get 2)

"Oh power creep!" Not if everyone starts with one, it keeps it a level playing field across the board, and lets face it..... some 5E adventures, especially the earlier ones (Tyranny of Dragons, I'm looking at you in particular), the PCs could use the help.

Also gives much more uniqueness and individuality to the player characters, helping them fulfill their builds and concepts without needing to arbitrarily wait until later.

GIVE 'EM FEATS.
Ditto. A free feat at 1st level for everyone greatly increases your build options and prevents all 1st level characters from feeling same-y. It also diminishes the power of variant human, which most would probably consider a good thing.

I actually wish there was another way to earn feats during play. In fact, the DMG does suggest feat training as a possible quest reward, but I wonder how often DMs have used that? A homebrew option I could see is spending XP to buy feats (or ASIs). Feats and ASIs just feel too limited to create certain character concepts, though giving them out too freely would diminish the value of the fighter (and rogue).

[jaappleton]

If a DM is willing to drop a magical Glaive or Double Scimitar, then there's nothing stopping them from dropping a couple magic weapons for the TWFer (especially if they invest in dual wielding).

I Have a TWfer in my campaign, I never set out to give him two magical weapons, but he's actively sought out crafting a weapon and when weapons have dropped considered if they suit his style.

As for written modules, a PC is far more likely to come across two magical weapons they can TWF than a Glaive or DS user is to come across a magical version as written.

Still only found a single magic weapon? Suck up the resistance or get your hands on Magic Weapon. If you're a Paladin with Improved Divine Smite or a Rogue looking for another chance to Sneak chances are you would rather get that damage in at all.

This is the poorest argument against TWF.

Edit: Forge Clerics and Artificers also make this far less of an issue, if it even is an issue to begin with.

“DM has to work with you”
“Suck it up”
“Be a different class”

But I provided the “poorest” argument against TWF.
Gotcha.

[Luccan]

Ditto. A free feat at 1st level for everyone greatly increases your build options and prevents all 1st level characters from feeling same-y. It also diminishes the power of variant human, which most would probably consider a good thing.

I actually wish there was another way to earn feats during play. In fact, the DMG does suggest feat training as a possible quest reward, but I wonder how often DMs have used that? A homebrew option I could see is spending XP to buy feats (or ASIs). Feats and ASIs just feel too limited to create certain character concepts, though giving them out too freely would diminish the value of the fighter (and rogue).

I'm gonna argue variant human is as boring as standard if everyone gets a feat and that doesn't result in them getting two. Of course, I also don't think anyone should be level 1 with two feats, so I'd modify variant human all together. Maybe an extra skill and +1 ASI

[Dork_Forge]

“DM has to work with you”
“Suck it up”
“Be a different class”

But I provided the “poorest” argument against TWF.
Gotcha.

Please point to the abundance of magical Glaives and Double Scimitars in the published adventures.

I never said be another class, both I mentioned can create magical weapons for other classes, its a team game.

That's s if not having a magical offhand weapon is even that big a deal to begin with.

[ProsecutorGodot]

“DM has to work with you”
“Suck it up”
“Be a different class”

But I provided the “poorest” argument against TWF.
Gotcha.

I guess technically you could argue that citing needing two magical weapons as a requirement is just listing those twice, but still I think it wasn't really fair to call it a bad argument.

My train of thought always leads to "it's not just two magical melee weapons, but two that are compatible with their build." If they're not able to afford the further feat tax of Dual Wielder to go with this feat just to acquire a fighting style, the list of weapons that they can actually use starts to shorten further.

I also ride on the train of thought that your feat choice isn't going to create treasure in the world that didn't exist previously. A party full of Polearm Masters isn't suddenly going to make glaives a more common type of magical weapon. It's not impossible to find one but it's not going to be easier just because you want one right away. You'll probably find a Staff or Spear first, there's a lot more of them floating around.

This of course also ignores the fact that magical weapons are a bit of a rarity to start with, there might be a lot of time between when they got their first one and when they get the second one. Upgrading them is also a hassle. Getting a pair of them is only the first hurdle.

[Segev]

The TWF dwarf in my party has two magical shortswords. One of them is only magical because it has a magical property that makes it never stain or rust, but it still counts as magic.

[Kane0]

TWF is subpar for a few reasons, but its not catastrophic

[ProsecutorGodot]

TWF is subpar for a few reasons, but its not catastrophic

I've ran a game with a very successful one, I think the dissatisfaction is often a player expectation issue. The one in this game didn't care what weapon he was using, he hoarded weapons and since I gave a free feat to everyone already had dual wielder.

Some players do prefer a matching set of weapons (often times of a specific type) and if they don't get them in a timely manner they blame TWF on it (a bit unfairly). That's just my personal experience with it anyway.

[Kane0]

TWF's strength is that it is a zero investment bonus action attack. The tradeoff for that is the caveats attached, making most other forms of bonus action attack superior once attained. The style and feat both reduce the drawbacks rather than grant bonuses like others do, and depending on your character build you could be facing more and more competition for that bonus action as you gain levels which further pushes TWF down in the cost-to-benefit comparisons.

So TWF is great at low levels, but if feats are on the table it is noticeably inferior by comparison once those come into play. This could well be because the likes of SS, PAM and GWM are just too strong, but it is what it is.

[Greywander]

I'm gonna argue variant human is as boring as standard if everyone gets a feat and that doesn't result in them getting two. Of course, I also don't think anyone should be level 1 with two feats, so I'd modify variant human all together. Maybe an extra skill and +1 ASI
Of course variant humans would start with two feats. But this still makes them a weaker choice than they previously were (but still good enough that I'd expect to see them played regularly). The problem is diminishing returns. You get one feat? You pick the one you wanted the most, i.e. the "best" feat. You get a second feat? Whatever you pick will be one you didn't want as much as the first one, i.e. the "second best" feat, ergo it must weaker than the first feat.

Of course, it won't be that much weaker. There are plenty of good feats where there's almost always something you could grab. Everyone likes feats such as Lucky, Alert, or Resilient, but these might not be your first picks because they aren't character/build defining. Now, you could see someone starting with both PAM and HAM at 1st level, but you know what? Why not let them have that if that's what they want? Sure, it will make them much stronger than a 1st level character should be, but that's the character they want to play. It will even out as they level up.

[MaxWilson]

TWF's strength is that it is a zero investment bonus action attack. The tradeoff for that is the caveats attached, making most other forms of bonus action attack superior once attained. The style and feat both reduce the drawbacks rather than grant bonuses like others do, and depending on your character build you could be facing more and more competition for that bonus action as you gain levels which further pushes TWF down in the cost-to-benefit comparisons.

So TWF is great at low levels, but if feats are on the table it is noticeably inferior by comparison once those come into play. This could well be because the likes of SS, PAM and GWM are just too strong, but it is what it is.

Other implications of the zero investment bonus action attack:

TWF is also great in one niche at mid- levels and up. Not for a PC to use directly--for a Necromancer's skeletons to almost double their melee damage output with dual short swords. They could hardly care less about missing out Two Weapon fighting style (Dex bonus to damage), since Undead Thralls's bonus is two to three times larger than their Dex bonus. 2d6+14 (21) damage per skeleton, times hit rate? Yes please. Skeletons have nothing better to dry with their bonus action anyway (usually).

Another case where the lack of TWF fighting style is not painful: I've also seen paladins use it to nova with on their smites, in tough fights.

[animewatcha]

Mark of Warding Dwarf is the race that benefits the most from it. No need to dip (though a 1 level dip in artificer is very good, and, unlike the warlock dip, won't make you lose slots), and you get Armor of Agathys and infinite arcane ward.

Break this down for me since I am trying to find mark of warding dwarf outside of there UA and my googling is failing. especially with infinite arcane ward.

[Dork_Forge]

Break this down for me since I am trying to find mark of warding dwarf outside of there UA and my googling is failing. especially with infinite arcane ward.

Mark of Warding is a Dragonmark subrace for Dwarf out of the Rising from the Last War (Eberron) book. The subrace adds some spells to your spell list if you have the spellcasting or pact magic features, one of which is Armor of Agathys.

The infinite ward part is in reference to the UA letting you pick up an invocation, you take Armor of Shadows and spam Mage Armor to regenerate your ward.

[Greywander]

Break this down for me since I am trying to find mark of warding dwarf outside of there UA and my googling is failing. especially with infinite arcane ward.
Eberron: Rising from the Last War. It's one of the dragonmarks, which act as alternate subraces for each race (or alternate racial traits for races that don't have subraces, like humans and half-orcs). The Mark of Warding gets all the base dwarf traits, but replaces their subrace traits with those of the mark.

[Citadel97501]

Break this down for me since I am trying to find mark of warding dwarf outside of there UA and my googling is failing. especially with infinite arcane ward.

Eberron - Rising from the Last War.
This is also where you can find artificer, and the other "mark" sub races.

[Civis Mundi]

Break this down for me since I am trying to find mark of warding dwarf outside of there UA and my googling is failing. especially with infinite arcane ward.

Mark of Warding Dwarf (https://www.dndbeyond.com/races/dwarf#HouseKundarak) is from Eberron: Rising from the Last War. It's a Dragonmark House, aka a fancy race variant. It can make a particularly good Abjurer with armor of agathys added to the spell list.

Infinite Arcane Ward comes in a lot of different forms. The Ward is recharged by casting abjuration spells of 1st level or higher. It recharges 2 HP per spell level, but doesn't specify you have to spend spell slots to do it. That means the basic way of recharging the ward is by continuously casting alarm as a ritual. I will note that Kundarak Dwarf is nothing special in this regard: all Abjurers have access to alarm, and you can't cast it as a ritual anyway (at least not in the published version). If you have access to the "Armor of Shadows" Invocation, you can cast mage armor at will, which will recharge it much faster. And last but certainly not least, if you're a Deep Gnome, you can take the feat "Svirfneblin Magic" to cast nondetection at will, which will charge your ward even faster as a 3rd level spell.

EDIT: Holy moly, it's like a whole troupe of ninjas just did battle in this thread.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

WotC's latest UA is bringing us 16 new feats.

https://media.wizards.com/2020/dnd/downloads/UA2020_Feats.pdf


Some of these straight up look like common fighter homebrew options made to fix the class.


Also, gonna be a lot of shield wizards out there.

[animewatcha]

Question. Shield training has a caveat for if you are a spellcaster or pact magic. Why not let a monk have a caveat in there? Monks with this feat can use a shield and still benefit from the unarmored abilities and what not.

What I am getting from this UA is that 'if you want something outside of your race/class, then take a feat." Which is weird cause that sounds an awful lot like 3.5e.

[Greywander]

Also, gonna be a lot of shield wizards out there.
You think that feat is better than a 1 level dip into cleric? Wizards don't need to use a shield as a spell focus, they just leave their other hand empty anyway. It's true that the feat wouldn't slow down their wizard progression, but you get a lot besides shields with a dip into cleric.

[Elricaltovilla]

Some of these straight up look like common fighter homebrew options made to fix the class.


Great minds think alike, and idiots all think the same.:smalltongue:

[Man on Fire]

It's really too bad that WotC thinks you should have to choose between interesting, fun abilities and the necessary math to ensure your character can even function on level. Oh well, that's what house rules are for.

Because 3.5 handling the feats left and right and making the whole sea of them to the point they made creative roleplaying impossible (since if there was a feat for something it meant you could not do said thing without that feat and there was a feat for anything, so everyone were reduced to "I hit it with a sword") was so much better?

[Luccan]

Because 3.5 handling the feats left and right and making the whole sea of them to the point they made creative roleplaying impossible (since if there was a feat for something it meant you could not do said thing without that feat and there was a feat for anything, so everyone were reduced to "I hit it with a sword") was so much better?

I don't think that was intended to be a comparison to 3.5. You can both have 5e's (IMO) superior feats and 3.X's "system" of not having that tied to and competing with ASIs.

[rlc]

I'm not sure if anybody else has said this, but I jist noticed that the crusher, piercer, and slasher feats all work with unarmed strikes, if they deal the respective type of damage.

[micahaphone]

I'm not sure if anybody else has said this, but I jist noticed that the crusher, piercer, and slasher feats all work with unarmed strikes, if they deal the respective type of damage.

Crusher would be fun as a str based boxer. Batter people around with impactful hits. A crit provokes a mini stunning strike where your opponent is shaken up for a moment

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Question. Shield training has a caveat for if you are a spellcaster or pact magic. Why not let a monk have a caveat in there? Monks with this feat can use a shield and still benefit from the unarmored abilities and what not.

What I am getting from this UA is that 'if you want something outside of your race/class, then take a feat." Which is weird cause that sounds an awful lot like 3.5e.

Only casters get to get nice things easily, if you want to be a martial, or use martial features, you need to beg harder.




You think that feat is better than a 1 level dip into cleric? Wizards don't need to use a shield as a spell focus, they just leave their other hand empty anyway. It's true that the feat wouldn't slow down their wizard progression, but you get a lot besides shields with a dip into cleric.

Yes. This feat beats out a first level dip of Cleric.

I don't have to boost Wisdom to get this feat. I can get it via V Human. I don't ha e to delay my wizard casting. Most of all, I don't have to have a roleplaying reason based around a deity.

My Str will be low as a wizard, why would I want to out on medium or heavy armor? Mage Armor + shield + shield spell will be all the rage.


Great minds think alike, and idiots all think the same.:smalltongue:

"Great minds think alike, fools seldom differ" is how it goes.

Smart people think in a similar fashion and may reach different conclusions, but fools will have the same conclusion more often than not.

The same people can be both the smart person and the fool in this situation. A smart person could manipulate data to get the result they want, making them a fool.

[Zhorn]

I like these. I do hope they make it to publication.
As is, I think I shall have these on my pre-approved list for what UA players in my games can take.

[Mr Adventurer]

Arcane Tricksters can finally get Subtle Spell!

Edit: the shield feat also grants you a spellcasting focus is you didn't have that already i.e. ATs, EKs

[Arkhios]

First impression: YAY; MORE FEATS! And some of them actually pretty nice (e.g. Fighting Initiate is right up my alley. Should it become official, I would definitely consider it for my Paladin)

Second impression: MEH... I was expecting more on - maybe, I dunno - their approach on handling psionics?

[Dork_Forge]

After having some time to chew on this UA I've narrowed down some more what I don't like:

Not only is it largely stepping on toes and giving away defining features, it's a lot of recycled content.

We're what, five, six years into the edition now? And this UA has a lot of feats that amount to 'you get this feature from this class,' instead of giving us a lot of fresh content. Even if I didn't mind the toe crushing, a feat to get an invocation? Great... How about some new invocations? We haven't had any since Xanathar's three years ago. Steal metamagic? Okay... how about some a new metamagic or three?

Out of 16 feats:

-At least 4 are stealing feats (Eldritch Adept, Metamagic Adept, Fighting Initiate and tracker (sorry, this is just gouging Ranger features))

-At least another 3 are in the same ball park: Tandem Tactician is just ripping off the Mastermind, Artificer Initiate has no reason to exist, the Artificer list is just a mash up of other lists anyway and Practiced Expert is basically Prodigy but a half feat without racial restriction.

-2 are just giving access to preexisting spells (primarily from the PHB), Artificer Initiate also fits here, but is already mentioned

-Parceling off shield proficiency into a half feat and cramming the unnecessary focus ability in isn't exactly new or innovative or anything really but straight power creep, primarily for casters.

Leaving us with 6 feats that actually tread newish waters (Gunner is essentially CBE for guns, but the fact they're supporting guns more is something new and interesting).

It's been long enough, give us new subclasses, give us psionics, give us more support for existing features (invocations and styles) and give us new and interesting feats. We're well past avoiding splat bloat and well into the territory of race bloat (and maybe even adventure bloat).

[Ignimortis]

After having some time to chew on this UA I've narrowed down some more what I don't like:

Not only is it largely stepping on toes and giving away defining features, it's a lot of recycled content.

We're what, five, six years into the edition now? And this UA has a lot of feats that amount to 'you get this feature from this class,' instead of giving us a lot of fresh content. Even if I didn't mind the toe crushing, a feat to get an invocation? Great... How about some new invocations? We haven't had any since Xanathar's three years ago. Steal metamagic? Okay... how about some a new metamagic or three?

It's been long enough, give us new subclasses, give us psionics, give us more support for existing features (invocations and styles) and give us new and interesting feats. We're well past avoiding splat bloat and well into the territory of race bloat (and maybe even adventure bloat).

We didn't get any new mechanics since the Mystic playtest (which was deemed a failure and scrapped, wasn't it?). And that was the only new mechanic in town. All we're getting besides psionics these past 6 years is new stuff that does the same things as the old stuff. New subclasses, new races, new adventures - nothing is actually "new", it's just rearranged numbers at its' core. Everything is bound into the same short rest/long rest philosophy, no new class dared to buckle that, even in UAs which are obviously side content. Designers take zero risks, but also produce very little stuff in the end. If 5e were a videogame, it'd be Skyrim - only held afloat by what people create for it themselves.

[ezekielraiden]

I'm not sold on all of them, but I want to comment on Eldritch Adept. While there are more powerful Invocation choices, what it does that makes me say "wow" is enable an Illusionist wizard to not need 2 levels of Warlock to feel like he's keeping up with the Warlock before level 11. A Vuman going Illusionist could take Eldritch Adept for Misty Visions right away, and any Illusionist can take it at level 4. Sure, the Warlock is now the better illusionist for levels 2 and 3, but that's a lot more manageable than levels 2-10 (which encompass the vast majority of play time since very few games really hit level 11 for more than the climax).

Heaven forbid Wizards ever fail to be best (or co-best) at anything. They aren't Warlocks of the Coast, after all.

[Kane0]

Not only is it largely stepping on toes and giving away defining features, it's a lot of recycled content.


Yep, thats a good summary of my response to this too.

Crusher, Slasher and Poisoner are the biggest steps in ‘new’ directions that I approve of, but even those are just a weaker repelling blast/Lance of lethargy for martials and elemental adept (poison) respectively.

[Eldariel]

TWF's strength is that it is a zero investment bonus action attack. The tradeoff for that is the caveats attached, making most other forms of bonus action attack superior once attained. The style and feat both reduce the drawbacks rather than grant bonuses like others do, and depending on your character build you could be facing more and more competition for that bonus action as you gain levels which further pushes TWF down in the cost-to-benefit comparisons.

So TWF is great at low levels, but if feats are on the table it is noticeably inferior by comparison once those come into play. This could well be because the likes of SS, PAM and GWM are just too strong, but it is what it is.

We actually have a TWFer in our party (Swords Bard) - he's doing fine. But obviously he could be doing more with another combat style. Perhaps the most direct comparison is Dueling Spear/Quarterstaff & Board PAM vs. Dual-Wielder TWFer wielding two...swords or whatever.

Spear & Board has:
Attack for 1d6+7
Bonus attack for 1d4+7
+2 AC (and magic shield options)
(and the reaction attack when enemy approaches and all that)


Dual-Wielder has:
Attack 1d8+5
Bonus attack for 1d8+5
+1 AC

Both invest fighting style and a feat. So Dual-Wielder has a bit less damage on the first attack (though the difference equalizes on crits), a bit more damage on the bonus attack on crits (equal otherwise), 1 point less AC, and no additional boons. The big thing is that the TWFer has no advantages in any category, which is a bit silly. It's not disastrous by any means but there's no real good reason to go TWF other than non-warrior classes (e.g. Rogue) going for that extra attack at zero investment.


Of course, Crossbow Archery blows both of these out of water especially since it can also use Sharpshooter, while these lack a good damage enhancer. If I were designing Dual-Wielder, it would make the extra attack a part of your attack action opening up your bonus action to other shenanigans. Though I'd prefer such benefits to be a part of combat style improvement instead; it could afford to go much further that way.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Heaven forbid Wizards ever fail to be best (or co-best) at anything. They aren't Warlocks of the Coast, after all.

Fighters by the bay would be a game I play.

[Kane0]

Waterside warriors? Bay Barbarians?

Coastguard!

[nickl_2000]

Waterside warriors? Bay Barbarians?

Coastguard!

River Rogues, Tributary Thieves, Fjord Fighters!

[Dork_Forge]

We actually have a TWFer in our party (Swords Bard) - he's doing fine. But obviously he could be doing more with another combat style. Perhaps the most direct comparison is Dueling Spear/Quarterstaff & Board PAM vs. Dual-Wielder TWFer wielding two...swords or whatever.


This comparison has a little bias in it (as likely my response will) but it's worth noting anyway:

Is the Bard multiclassed? If not they don't have shield proficiency (Swords Bard gets medium armor, Valor gets medium armor and shields) so spear and board isn't an option to begin with (and using a spear/staff/trident may not match their character anyway).


Spear & Board has:
Attack for 1d6+7
Bonus attack for 1d4+7
+2 AC (and magic shield options)
(and the reaction attack when enemy approaches and all that)


Dual-Wielder has:
Attack 1d8+5
Bonus attack for 1d8+5
+1 AC

Both invest fighting style and a feat. So Dual-Wielder has a bit less damage on the first attack (though the difference equalizes on crits), a bit more damage on the bonus attack on crits (equal otherwise), 1 point less AC, and no additional boons. The big thing is that the TWFer has no advantages in any category, which is a bit silly. It's not disastrous by any means but there's no real good reason to go TWF other than non-warrior classes (e.g. Rogue) going for that extra attack at zero investment.

-You note magical shield options, a TWFer with Duel Wielder has a very wide array of magical weapons to choose from (literally anything one handed).

-The TWFer isn't caught with their pants down if combat suddenly breaks out (shield takes an action to don/doff)

-TWF opens up asymmetrical weapon fighting, such as using a Rapier in one hand, but a whip in the other to leverage reach

-The spear user has to be STR based, which seeing as you need a minimum of 14 to get the most out of medium armor, makes them particularly MAD in a subpar stat (Dex is overall just more useful). If to correct this the build takes on a single level dip of Hexblade, great, still need 14 Dex and now ASIs, class features and casting are set back a level.

Though my biggest issue here is that the feats aren't equal, it's widely acknowledged that Duel Wielder could be pumped in comparison to PAM/SS/GWM (on it's own it really isn't bad) and that's normally seen as a weak point of TWF. On the other hand your spear and shield alternative NEEDS PAM to be competitive, assuming two Swords Bards with a focus on melee (point buy):

-The TWFer uses two shortswords from the outset, getting the style at 3rd, bumping Dex at 4th and depending on the availability of magic items at that point in the campaign, either maxes Dex or takes Duel Wielder.

-The spear and sword bard (assuming they get shield prof from... somewhere, if as part of subclass no shield until 3rd) uses a spear from the start, gets Dueling at 3rd, bumps Str at 4th and preumably forgoes maxing Str at 8th for PAM as it has a higher effect immediately.

In this comparison (which I think is true to the situation), the spear Bard is behind the TWF Bard in damage at every step until they get PAM at which point if they postpone maxing their stat, will be less accurate than the TWF.

In reality PAM only beats out TWF if you roll well enough to burn an ASI for it early on (even 8 is in the upper reaches of most common play) or if you restrict yourself to V. Human to get it from the offset. At which point you either need to dip Hexblade (delaying everything and setting yourself back against the TWF comparison) or become very MAD and pump and otherwise mostly useless stat (only relevant for some weapons, heavy armor and athletics, which a Bard could just use Expertise on and the build doesn't have a free hand to grapple with).

[Cikomyr2]

First of all, I like it. Yes, many of these feats steal stuff from other classes, but...

But strangely, the classes who best benefit from these out-class abilities are the classes who have these abilities in the first place.

You now can put more Sorcerer in your Sorcerer. You put more Mastermind in your Mastermind. You put more Warlock in your Warlock.

It's awesome. These feats allow you to double down your class at the cost of other classes getting a few minor items from your class list.

[da newt]

Sorry if this has already been addressed (I skimmed).

If a party all take Eldritch Adept for Devil's Sight I think you could create an OP party once a PC or 3 get access to DARKNESS. It seems exploitable to me.

[nickl_2000]

Sorry if this has already been addressed (I skimmed).

If a party all take Eldritch Adept for Devil's Sight I think you could create an OP party once a PC or 3 get access to DARKNESS. It seems exploitable to me.

It is, but you still need the entire party to have taken the same feat and have access to the spellcasting/pact magic feature.

[jmartkdr]

We actually have a TWFer in our party (Swords Bard) - he's doing fine. But obviously he could be doing more with another combat style. Perhaps the most direct comparison is Dueling Spear/Quarterstaff & Board PAM vs. Dual-Wielder TWFer wielding two...swords or whatever.


The short, short version fo this is: for strength-based characters (and hexblades), PAM gives you all the upsides of twf with less investment and some extra stuff, but for dexterity-based characters it's not on option (there are no finesse polearms) so twf is better.

So it really comes down to whether the other advantages of dex (initiative, stealth) beat out the other advantages of PAM (extra opp attacks, access to GWM) in your campaign/ for your concept.

[Eldariel]

This comparison has a little bias in it (as likely my response will) but it's worth noting anyway:

Is the Bard multiclassed? If not they don't have shield proficiency (Swords Bard gets medium armor, Valor gets medium armor and shields) so spear and board isn't an option to begin with (and using a spear/staff/trident may not match their character anyway).



-You note magical shield options, a TWFer with Duel Wielder has a very wide array of magical weapons to choose from (literally anything one handed).

-The TWFer isn't caught with their pants down if combat suddenly breaks out (shield takes an action to don/doff)

-TWF opens up asymmetrical weapon fighting, such as using a Rapier in one hand, but a whip in the other to leverage reach

-The spear user has to be STR based, which seeing as you need a minimum of 14 to get the most out of medium armor, makes them particularly MAD in a subpar stat (Dex is overall just more useful). If to correct this the build takes on a single level dip of Hexblade, great, still need 14 Dex and now ASIs, class features and casting are set back a level.

Though my biggest issue here is that the feats aren't equal, it's widely acknowledged that Duel Wielder could be pumped in comparison to PAM/SS/GWM (on it's own it really isn't bad) and that's normally seen as a weak point of TWF. On the other hand your spear and shield alternative NEEDS PAM to be competitive, assuming two Swords Bards with a focus on melee (point buy):

-The TWFer uses two shortswords from the outset, getting the style at 3rd, bumping Dex at 4th and depending on the availability of magic items at that point in the campaign, either maxes Dex or takes Duel Wielder.

-The spear and sword bard (assuming they get shield prof from... somewhere, if as part of subclass no shield until 3rd) uses a spear from the start, gets Dueling at 3rd, bumps Str at 4th and preumably forgoes maxing Str at 8th for PAM as it has a higher effect immediately.

In this comparison (which I think is true to the situation), the spear Bard is behind the TWF Bard in damage at every step until they get PAM at which point if they postpone maxing their stat, will be less accurate than the TWF.

In reality PAM only beats out TWF if you roll well enough to burn an ASI for it early on (even 8 is in the upper reaches of most common play) or if you restrict yourself to V. Human to get it from the offset. At which point you either need to dip Hexblade (delaying everything and setting yourself back against the TWF comparison) or become very MAD and pump and otherwise mostly useless stat (only relevant for some weapons, heavy armor and athletics, which a Bard could just use Expertise on and the build doesn't have a free hand to grapple with).

Well, perhaps in the specific case of Swords Bard it actually matters. Still, yeah, TWF can use more weapons but one weapon only applies to a half of their attacks. Further, if both do have magical equipment for both their hands, both get same attack value while the S&B also gets +3 extra to AC.

Overall, TWF fails at way too many points. Giving up the AC bonus of a shield AND the damage bonuses of GWM/SS for...what, exactly? It's certainly not higher AC, reach, damage, or utility.


The short, short version fo this is: for strength-based characters (and hexblades), PAM gives you all the upsides of twf with less investment and some extra stuff, but for dexterity-based characters it's not on option (there are no finesse polearms) so twf is better.

So it really comes down to whether the other advantages of dex (initiative, stealth) beat out the other advantages of PAM (extra opp attacks, access to GWM) in your campaign/ for your concept.

Quarterstaff PAM also works on casters with Shillelagh access (Druids, some Clerics).

[Christew]

Not only is it largely stepping on toes and giving away defining features, it's a lot of recycled content.
I don't think new features is the goal of this document. The prevalence of class features, half feats, and spell access point to the purpose being to enable new character options (both single and multiclassed) using existing mechanics. They are trying to remove barriers to being able to execute a given character concept within the extent system.

Also, they already announced an upcoming player focused book (a la XGtE). Remains to be seen what it will contain, but be patient. I don't think being X years in means they are going to abandon the brand protection approach that has been working great for them and suddenly start splatting all over the place.

First of all, I like it. Yes, many of these feats steal stuff from other classes, but...

But strangely, the classes who best benefit from these out-class abilities are the classes who have these abilities in the first place.

You now can put more Sorcerer in your Sorcerer. You put more Mastermind in your Mastermind. You put more Warlock in your Warlock.

It's awesome. These feats allow you to double down your class at the cost of other classes getting a few minor items from your class list.
I think this is a great design feature. I kind of disagree with those claiming these feats are "stepping on toes" because the base class benefits more from these feats than any other class.

[Dork_Forge]

Well, perhaps in the specific case of Swords Bard it actually matters. Still, yeah, TWF can use more weapons but one weapon only applies to a half of their attacks. Further, if both do have magical equipment for both their hands, both get same attack value while the S&B also gets +3 extra to AC.

And Bladesingers, Rogues (who also need a finesse weapon anyway) or anyone that doesn't want to be Str based or a Hexblade and is either a V. Human or rolled high.

It looks like you're assuming both all weapons are +1, the TWFer has the potential to have to +1s sure, they could also have a +1 and a Flame Tongue, Frost Brand etc. Likewise the speat and shield might not even get a +1 shield, they could get a shield of missile attraction or a sentinel shield. Assuming everything is equal only favours the PAM build (like assuming both have maxed stats for example when you don't even need dual wielder to effectively TWF).



Overall, TWF fails at way too many points. Giving up the AC bonus of a shield AND the damage bonuses of GWM/SS for...what, exactly? It's certainly not higher AC, reach, damage, or utility.

What is it actually failing at? It's failing because it fall behind in damage to feat based builds? TWF is one of the higher damage strategies in Tier 1 and holds it's own in Tier 2, I've seen and played many TWFers at this point and no one (including myself) felt left behind in damage compared to a great weapon or Sharpshooter based build. If everyone gets a free feat then sure, PAM it on up, but in most games that feat is a significant opportunity cost (be it increasing you primary stat, being MAD, delaying features etc.). TWF just works and if you can grab the style, it's pretty darn effective.


Quarterstaff PAM also works on casters with Shillelagh access (Druids, some Clerics).

And results in a first round of not making your attack a lot of the time because you're casting Shillelagh (unless you're playing in a type of game where it's reasonable to cast something like that all day, but that's it's own kettle of fish).


I don't think new features is the goal of this document. The prevalence of class features, half feats, and spell access point to the purpose being to enable new character options (both single and multiclassed) using existing mechanics. They are trying to remove barriers to being able to execute a given character concept within the extent system.

Personally I think the new prevalence of half feats is a result of realising that ASIs are too few and far between and so are highly contested (this would be remedied with a separate feat system, but obviously it's too late now unless one of their new variant rules amounts to free feat at 1st level).


Also, they already announced an upcoming player focused book (a la XGtE). Remains to be seen what it will contain, but be patient. I don't think being X years in means they are going to abandon the brand protection approach that has been working great for them and suddenly start splatting all over the place.

A single player orientated book every two years wouldn't be splatting all over the place and would leave us in a better place than we are now. We've had one real player supplement in 5es lifecycle, Xanathar's. That might not be too bad and you say be patient, but a decent chunk of Xanathar's was just republished content (about 10% of the subclasses in Xanathar's are from the SCAG, there's spells from EE players companions). What we ended up with instead was an insane amount of race options and pieces of player options scattered across various books (like the Artificer in RftLW with a bunch of race options, which was also a full priced book despite Wayfinder's Guide also being paid and Rising still featuring art from older editions). We're getting two official adventures per year (which often contain items and spells that make it difficult to keep track of everything that's in the game and it's balance concerns), that we're meant to play through with essentially the same build options we've had for the last 3 years?

I'm probably just really salty on their approach to publication, but I struggle to think 1 player option in 5/6 years is enough when they're still churning out 2/3 books every year (and we can see from UA, there's certainly enough content there).

[Civis Mundi]

I don't think new features is the goal of this document. The prevalence of class features, half feats, and spell access point to the purpose being to enable new character options (both single and multiclassed) using existing mechanics. They are trying to remove barriers to being able to execute a given character concept within the extent system.

Also, they already announced an upcoming player focused book (a la XGtE). Remains to be seen what it will contain, but be patient. I don't think being X years in means they are going to abandon the brand protection approach that has been working great for them and suddenly start splatting all over the place.

I think this is a great design feature. I kind of disagree with those claiming these feats are "stepping on toes" because the base class benefits more from these feats than any other class.

I agree that the issue isn't stepping on toes. Dips are much better at that, because there are 20 levels and only a handful of feats. (Sidenote: Maybe it's because it's very early and I haven't had any coffee, but I can't stop giggling at a "handful of feats." Please send help.)

In general, I think Eldritch Adept and Metamagic Adept are better on a Warlock or Sorcerer (respectively) than on another class. With Metamagic Adept, I think the issue is the added sorcery points, because it makes it strictly suboptimal for a Sorcerer not to pick up the feat.

For me, what makes a good feat--well, part of what makes a good feat is in comparison to the existing canon of feats. A good feat has to at least somewhat compete with options like Polearm Master or Sharpshooter or Crossbow Expert, and of course it has to compete with a simple +2 to an important stat. Depending on our proclivities, we might want to say it has to be worse than an option like Sharpshooter, which is already acknowledged to be one of the most powerful options in the game. We want it to be optimal for certain builds or certain situations, but not for all builds and all situations, whether that literally means "all builds," or if it means all of a particular class or subclass. Because then it becomes a feat tax, which reduces options for customization.

That's why I like Eldritch Adept, although I do think it might be worth tweaking re: Armor of Shadows + Arcane Ward, and you might consider a requirement of CL4 or higher if you don't like Invocations being taken early. It does have shades of Precocious Apprentice cheese. Besides these potential exploits, it works exactly as we'd want a feat of its kind to work. It's useful for a number of builds, but it's probably best for a Warlock. It's not a feat tax, but it helps Warlocks lighten the Invocation tax.

I think Metamagic Adept needs a couple things to make it work. 1) No bonus to sorcery points, and a commensurate bonus instead (perhaps +CON or CHA). 2) More available Metamagic, to make it worth taking for anything but those sorcery points on most Sorcerer builds.

[Scarytincan]

I'm liking a crusher monk with staff and sling, especially if the new way to select monk weapons goes through to allow making sling a monk weapon with scaling damage.

Really like that they're trying to address poison, especially with mercy monk hopefully coming out, but so much wrong with this feat as is, as many others have touched on already.

Fey touched granting MS, hex, and a stat is too strong sadly, and shadow feat is a bit weak. Really like the flavor for both but think they need to move closer together first.

Fighting initiate I could actually see being bumped up to a half feat honestly.

[Segev]

Heaven forbid Wizards ever fail to be best (or co-best) at anything. They aren't Warlocks of the Coast, after all.

:smallannoyed: Yes. Because obviously, if you want to play an illusionist, you shouldn't look to the subclass called "Illusionist." You should know you should be playing a Warlock. But only if you want to play an Illusionist from levels 2 through 10. If you want to play an Illusionist from levels 11 onwards, of COURSE you should play an Illusionist-subclass Wizard.

That's great game design, and totally intuitive, and clearly anything that would let you play a single-class character who is the best build option for his signature schtick from levels 1 through 20 would be horrible design.


Look, I am not saying "wizards should be best at everything," but pretending that Warlocks were designed to be "the best illusionists" when there's a subclass of another class called "illusionist" sounds more like "I hate wizards" than "I have a reasonable desire for Warlocks not to be overshadowed by Wizards in this particular way."

In terms of stealing a Warlock's schtick, Magic Initiate is more dangerous. That can get you Eldritch Blast. The real hazard of Eldritch Adept is the quick-and-easy mage armor on an Abjurer, and I do agree that's pushing it. But even that doesn't really take anything away from Warlock. It is just a little higher on the power curve than most options for a low-to-mid-level wizard.

An Illusionist Wizard being able to cast silent image at will at the cost of a feat hardly tells Warlocks to go cry in a corner.

[Chaosmancer]

Arcane Tricksters can finally get Subtle Spell!

Edit: the shield feat also grants you a spellcasting focus is you didn't have that already i.e. ATs, EKs

Oh, I never thought about that.

Hmm... It might be worth it for the EK, but I'm not convinced. I think warcaster does enough of the same stuff in terms of casting focus, and is better that "wasting" the earn of shield proficiency.

This feat really needs something more to make it pop for martials.

[RSP]

:smallannoyed: Yes. Because obviously, if you want to play an illusionist, you shouldn't look to the subclass called "Illusionist." You should know you should be playing a Warlock. But only if you want to play an Illusionist from levels 2 through 10. If you want to play an Illusionist from levels 11 onwards, of COURSE you should play an Illusionist-subclass Wizard.

That's great game design, and totally intuitive, and clearly anything that would let you play a single-class character who is the best build option for his signature schtick from levels 1 through 20 would be horrible design.


Look, I am not saying "wizards should be best at everything," but pretending that Warlocks were designed to be "the best illusionists" when there's a subclass of another class called "illusionist" sounds more like "I hate wizards" than "I have a reasonable desire for Warlocks not to be overshadowed by Wizards in this particular way."

In terms of stealing a Warlock's schtick, Magic Initiate is more dangerous. That can get you Eldritch Blast. The real hazard of Eldritch Adept is the quick-and-easy mage armor on an Abjurer, and I do agree that's pushing it. But even that doesn't really take anything away from Warlock. It is just a little higher on the power curve than most options for a low-to-mid-level wizard.

An Illusionist Wizard being able to cast silent image at will at the cost of a feat hardly tells Warlocks to go cry in a corner.

First, they’re called “School of Illusion” because that’s where they focus their study: the school of Illusion. They aren’t (nor should they be) just the best illusionist because they study very hard.

It’s two different ways to accomplish a similar goal: playing a character who focuses on illusions.

Taking away the illusionist Warlock’s Schtick and giving it to Wizards, is really just a case of the rich getting richer.

More so with the prospect of giving either Subtle spell twice a day, as the Sorc losing out to Wizards and Warlock’s is common in how they’re designed already.

Subtle should be much more valued for anyone focusing on illusions than at-will Silent Image, as otherwise, it’s probably pretty obvious you just cast a spell.

And I love Silent Image (particularly at will), but I don’t think it’s worth shedding tears that a class other than Wizard got a cool toy: Wizards are fine without having the option to cherry pick the best stuff from other classes.

Along those lines, a feat that lets you adopt a spell list as part of your own class list would be similar to Eldritch Adept or the metamagic one. For a Feat: “Choose another class’ spell list. The spells on that list count as being on your current class’ spell list.” Or something similar. This would actually solve quite a few build issues.

[Dork_Forge]

Oh, I never thought about that.

Hmm... It might be worth it for the EK, but I'm not convinced. I think warcaster does enough of the same stuff in terms of casting focus, and is better that "wasting" the earn of shield proficiency.

This feat really needs something more to make it pop for martials.

Warcaster does nothing to replace the need for a focus or components, if you're a sword and board EK and you want to cast anything with a component then you're out of luck unless you have something like a Ruby of the Warmage (Xanathar's common item) regardless of whether or not you have Warcaster. The two feats would be complimentary, not redundant in terms of the casting aspect.

[Tesla_pasta]

Lots of fun stuff here. A lot of these are much stronger than PHB options, but I think a majority of the PHB options are never worth the cost of an ASI so I'm very much in favor of (slightly) powercreeped feats.

of course, VHumans and Hexblade dips get EVEN better with these options, but thats
a seperate issue :smallsigh:

I really like the Crusher/Slasher/Piercer since they let fighters develop more of a weapon specialist identity, and Chef is such a fun idea. I think I'm gonna start letting all my PCs take a free feat at level 1 (and remove VHuman entirely) just so that PCs can start to develop a unique mechanical/flavor identity from level 1.

The characters I most want to play now are VHuman shadow/divine soul sorcerer with Metamagic adept or VHuman Eldritch Knight with Fey Touched. 2 more sorcery points and extra metamagic options makes me so much more interested in the sorcerer class!

Eldritch knight with access to Hex (or Hunter's Mark) PLUS and extra 1st and 2nd level slot PLUS an extra point of Int??? Sign me the hell up. Hex gives the EK a way to spend spell slots on damage that ADDS to their weapon attacks instead of replacing them, not to mention how well it pairs with Action Surge for burst damage. Plus learning misty step gives an additional spell known outside of your restricted schools, which is always welcome.

[Segev]

An interesting thing about the metamagic feat: it CAN be a "no need for Sorcerer dips" thing, or it can reduce sorc dips by 1 level (to two levels, instead of 3), because Font of Magic with the ability to convert spells to SP would still be very useful if you make a lot of use of your one metamagic feat. e.g. arcane tricksters with subtle spell.

First, they’re called “School of Illusion” because that’s where they focus their study: the school of Illusion. They aren’t (nor should they be) just the best illusionist because they study very hard.

It’s two different ways to accomplish a similar goal: playing a character who focuses on illusions.

Taking away the illusionist Warlock’s Schtick and giving it to Wizards, is really just a case of the rich getting richer. "The illusionist Warlock" retains all the ability he had before.

Look, if you wanted to strip away the Illusion subclass from Wizard entirely, and make a Patron for Warlocks that actually gave them the Illusionists' powers, that'd be fine, too. I know you think I'm somehow obsessed with wizards being the most powerful evar, but I'm really not. I'm for two things: theme, and coherence. I consider it very bad design if you will find yourself, to play the exact same concept/fantasy, wanting to entirely switch out your build from one class to another at level 11. The fact that Misty Visions is so powerful as it pertains to enabling the fantasy is the main issue. (Mask of Many Faces is also powerful for that, but already had an alternative.)

The fact that you think letting wizards have silent image at will takes anything away from Warlocks suggests more wizard-hate than wanting a subclass focused on illusions and their mastery to be able to wave illusions of creatures and phenomena casually into existence suggests unfair bias in favor of wizards.

Seriously, is "Illusionist Warlock" something that the class says should be? Or is illusion just a trick in their bag? Taken as a whole, the illusion abilities they have seem meant to complement their trickster archetypes. They don't have any special power over illusions, just their usual "at will spell" schtick for a couple low level ones. It just so happens that that casualness of creating them steps hard on the Illusionist wizard's toes until level 11, when the Illusionist Wizard can mimic it with Malleable Illusions + major image upcast to permanent duration.


More so with the prospect of giving either Subtle spell twice a day, as the Sorc losing out to Wizards and Warlock’s is common in how they’re designed already. You've a much better gripe, here, but that has more to do with a failure in design for sorcerers. Metamagic is very nice, but it doesn't live up to the "expand versatility of a limited number of spells" concept it was sold on. Sorcerer is not a good class as designed. It may or may not, mechanically, hold up, but it just doesn't have that "fun" factor, as evidenced by how many people keep trying to fix it so it does more things or does them better.


Subtle should be much more valued for anyone focusing on illusions than at-will Silent Image, as otherwise, it’s probably pretty obvious you just cast a spell. Okay, and...? The ability to cast them at will is about the casualness of it, not about the subtlety. The times where subtlety matters are unusual enough that you can get by spending spell slots on the spells to cast them. Misty Visions is about being able to use it for trivialities, for fun, for fluff and flavor as part of your everyday schtick. The spells per day are sufficient for real and serious uses of silent image. It's about the fantasy of playing the illusionist, not about raw power.


And I love Silent Image (particularly at will), but I don’t think it’s worth shedding tears that a class other than Wizard got a cool toy: Wizards are fine without having the option to cherry pick the best stuff from other classes. It's not "shedding tears that a class other than wizard got a cool toy." Again, that you say so suggests more about hating wizards on your part than about loving them on mine. I'm not looking at "wizards." I'm looking at Illusionist Wizards, and recognizing that, without this feat, if you want to play "a master of illusions," you want to play a Warlock up to level 10, then completely rebuild your character as a Wizard from levels 11-20. Which either involves cheating, or killing off your character and replacing him while trying to ignore that they're two different characters. Alternatively, you could play a Warlock 2/Wizard 18, but then you're delaying an already-unlikely level 11 access to permanent major image until level 13.

That is the design flaw I see this addressing. The Warlock is no less capable than it was before. But now I'm not tempted to dip Warlock 2 just to play a proper illusionist, nor am I having to metagame whether the game will get to level 11 or beyond, and possibly whether to just scrap a character and replace it so it can do what I want it to at all levels.


Along those lines, a feat that lets you adopt a spell list as part of your own class list would be similar to Eldritch Adept or the metamagic one. For a Feat: “Choose another class’ spell list. The spells on that list count as being on your current class’ spell list.” Or something similar. This would actually solve quite a few build issues....you either have no grasp of balance, or you're exaggerating profusely. There already exists a feat to add a spell to your spells known. It's called Magic Initiate. Anybody can take it. At best, you have a case here for allowing Magic Initiate to swap out the spell every level.

[MaxWilson]

Look, if you wanted to strip away the Illusion subclass from Wizard entirely, and make a Patron for Warlocks that actually gave them the Illusionists' powers, that'd be fine, too. I know you think I'm somehow obsessed with wizards being the most powerful evar, but I'm really not. I'm for two things: theme, and coherence. I consider it very bad design if you will find yourself, to play the exact same concept/fantasy, wanting to entirely switch out your build from one class to another at level 11. The fact that Misty Visions is so powerful as it pertains to enabling the fantasy is the main issue. (Mask of Many Faces is also powerful for that, but already had an alternative.)

The fact that you think letting wizards have silent image at will takes anything away from Warlocks suggests more wizard-hate than wanting a subclass focused on illusions and their mastery to be able to wave illusions of creatures and phenomena casually into existence suggests unfair bias in favor of wizards.

Seriously, is "Illusionist Warlock" something that the class says should be? Or is illusion just a trick in their bag? Taken as a whole, the illusion abilities they have seem meant to complement their trickster archetypes. They don't have any special power over illusions, just their usual "at will spell" schtick for a couple low level ones. It just so happens that that casualness of creating them steps hard on the Illusionist wizard's toes until level 11, when the Illusionist Wizard can mimic it with Malleable Illusions + major image upcast to permanent duration.

This opinion will be controversial, but: 5E has too many classes. This thematic issue arises only because 5E's design insists that making a deal for power with a fiend requires its own character class with unique and fiddly mechanics, instead of just modeling the concept as a wizard with a background ("I have an ongoing relationship with Grazz't, who gives me knowledge/DMG blessings/charms in exchange for my loyalty and obedience").

[Chaosmancer]

Warcaster does nothing to replace the need for a focus or components, if you're a sword and board EK and you want to cast anything with a component then you're out of luck unless you have something like a Ruby of the Warmage (Xanathar's common item) regardless of whether or not you have Warcaster. The two feats would be complimentary, not redundant in terms of the casting aspect.

True, but I think you nailed the point.

The feat can be completely replicated with Warcaster and a 50 gp item for EKs.

Actually, with just the Ruby of the Warmage, since you do the somatic with the hand holding the focus. Which leaves you nothing except the free don/doff... which isn't really worth a feat.

[Segev]

This opinion will be controversial, but: 5E has too many classes. This thematic issue arises only because 5E's design insists that making a deal for power with a fiend requires its own character class with unique and fiddly mechanics, instead of just modeling the concept as a wizard with a background ("I have an ongoing relationship with Grazz't, who gives me knowledge/DMG blessings/charms in exchange for my loyalty and obedience").

Eh, I do disagree with this. Classes that encapsulate concepts in mechanics are the primary point of having classes. IIRC, you're not a fan of class-based design in the first place, so I suspect your response to this will be, "And why is that a problem?" but I feel the need to point out that you could extend the argument you're making to the point where there's no class difference between clerics, druids, sorcerers, or wizards, and it's just a background fluff whether you get spells from a spellbook, bloodline, faith, or the like. I don't know what your feelings on 4E were, but this is very close to the nature of my problem with 4E and why I despise trying to play in it.

Further, I disagree that this arises as a consequence of Warlock existing as a class. The problem could be solved a number of ways. This feat is one of them. Another would be replacing Improved Minor Illusion with (essentially) Misty Visions as a 2nd level subclass feature. Another would be to decide the Warlock SHOULD be the go-to class for illusionists, and create a Patron who gives the 6th and 14th-level Illusionist features as Patron features, and enables major image to be upcast to 6th level via making it a mystic arcanum. Or just adds programmed illusion to the Warlock spell list, I guess; I think that could do just as well with Malleable Illusions. I forget if mirage arcane is a Warlock spell; if not, add that to their class list, too.

This problem arises because it just so happens that Misty Visions is ideal for the kind of casual illusion-use that is the fantasy of "being an illusionist." Warlocks don't get much, if anything, else that does it, but for a wizard to catch up to that level of casual use, he needs both Malleable Illusions and permanent illusions to manipulate. Which is why it creates the friction.

This would, in fact, only be "solved" with a "meh, your warlock is just a wizard who fluff-wise got his spells from Grazzt" approach in that there wouldn't be any way to get silent image at will, so the frustration of not living up to that element of the fantasy would just be suffered in silence rather than having it stand out in contrast to another class having that key ingredient.

[Scarytincan]

Spear and shield user with polearm master, crusher could be fun, and can add piercer to boot!

Devil sight on shadow monk is a go as shadow monks can cast spells.

[animewatcha]

Could the crusher, slasher, and piercer feats have been combinable into one feat while keeping the once per turn restriction and the critical hit language?

[Civis Mundi]

Devil sight on shadow monk is a go as shadow monks can cast spells.

Unfortunately while Shadow Monks are able to "use [their] ki to duplicate the effects of certain spells," the feat's prerequisites are the Pact Magic class feature (from Warlock) or the Spellcasting class feature (from some other class with spell slots), not merely the ability to cast spells. Otherwise, you could take the feat simply by being a race that comes with spellcasting (like Drow or Tiefling), or by taking Magic Initiate at an earlier level or something like that.

[Greywander]

Honestly, I think the spellcasting requirement should be dropped from Eldritch Adept. Most invocations don't interact with spellcasting at all, and the ones that require a spell slot would simply be unusable.

[Scarytincan]

Unfortunately while Shadow Monks are able to "use [their] ki to duplicate the effects of certain spells," the feat's prerequisites are the Pact Magic class feature (from Warlock) or the Spellcasting class feature (from some other class with spell slots), not merely the ability to cast spells. Otherwise, you could take the feat simply by being a race that comes with spellcasting (like Drow or Tiefling), or by taking Magic Initiate at an earlier level or something like that.

Hm good catch. I think that should be changed. In my experience, the most common 'wish I had one invocation but don't wanna have to do a 13 cha multiclass dip' is devil sight for shadow monks...

[Eldariel]

And Bladesingers, Rogues (who also need a finesse weapon anyway) or anyone that doesn't want to be Str based or a Hexblade and is either a V. Human or rolled high.

It looks like you're assuming both all weapons are +1, the TWFer has the potential to have to +1s sure, they could also have a +1 and a Flame Tongue, Frost Brand etc. Likewise the speat and shield might not even get a +1 shield, they could get a shield of missile attraction or a sentinel shield. Assuming everything is equal only favours the PAM build (like assuming both have maxed stats for example when you don't even need dual wielder to effectively TWF).

What is it actually failing at? It's failing because it fall behind in damage to feat based builds? TWF is one of the higher damage strategies in Tier 1 and holds it's own in Tier 2, I've seen and played many TWFers at this point and no one (including myself) felt left behind in damage compared to a great weapon or Sharpshooter based build. If everyone gets a free feat then sure, PAM it on up, but in most games that feat is a significant opportunity cost (be it increasing you primary stat, being MAD, delaying features etc.). TWF just works and if you can grab the style, it's pretty darn effective.

And results in a first round of not making your attack a lot of the time because you're casting Shillelagh (unless you're playing in a type of game where it's reasonable to cast something like that all day, but that's it's own kettle of fish).

Yeah, it's "fine" with zero resources. That's about as good as it gets. Sadly, specialisation in TWF is somewhere between diminishing returns and absolutely horrendous. Whereas other combat styles tend to get better with more resources, TWF gets marginal improvements. It's not bad enough to be unplayable, but there's no sane reason for it being as weak as it is. You could easily buff it heavily without making it obviously the best style. Like "+2 damage to all attacks and +2 AC and +2 to hit"-much.

[Luccan]

Could the crusher, slasher, and piercer feats have been combinable into one feat while keeping the once per turn restriction and the critical hit language?

It'd be a nice way to encourage players using multiple weapons. Just for variety's sake if nothing else.

[Cikomyr2]

It'd be a nice way to encourage players using multiple weapons. Just for variety's sake if nothing else.

Enrage your players by giving these to your NPC guards.

Players with their movement reduced to 0 would be soooo pissed

[MaxWilson]

Hm good catch. I think that should be changed. In my experience, the most common 'wish I had one invocation but don't wanna have to do a 13 cha multiclass dip' is devil sight for shadow monks...

Eldritch Knights get native access to Darkness (it's an evocation spell) so Devil's Sight would be very worthwhile for them. I'd argue that that combo is the best possible use of this feat: at that point it's practically a 2nd level Greater Invisibility spell that can be cast on a whole group of PCs simultaneously.

===============================================


Eh, I do disagree with this. Classes that encapsulate concepts in mechanics are the primary point of having classes. IIRC, you're not a fan of class-based design in the first place, so I suspect your response to this will be, "And why is that a problem?"

Actually I am a fan of class-based design in the sense that classes add interesting constraints on optimization, so you can't (and therefore aren't tempted to) cherry-pick the best and most cost-effective abilities. Instead you pick a package, and each package always has some stuff that wouldn't interest you enough to pay for on its own but can be interesting in play as long as you're being forced to pay for it anyway. Compare GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy templates to D&D classes, and notice how if the DM _doesn't_ require you to stick closely to a template, dominant strategies emerge such as sinking all of your points into one weapon skill (or spell) to maximize your chances to hit/parry.

For me, the fact that e.g. Necromancers are "forced" to take Grim Harvest instead of Portent is a plus.


but I feel the need to point out that you could extend the argument you're making to the point where there's no class difference between clerics, druids, sorcerers, or wizards, and it's just a background fluff whether you get spells from a spellbook, bloodline, faith, or the like. I don't know what your feelings on 4E were, but this is very close to the nature of my problem with 4E and why I despise trying to play in it.

I don't know 4E (only played it for a few hours) but this is also basically how AD&D 2nd edition works, and I'm fine with that. There's priests, and there's wizards, and while specific types of priests (druids, priests of Thor) and specialty wizards (wild mages, metamagicians) do exist, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem: the entities themselves are not multiplied beyond necessity. (In theory you could even unify wizardly magic with priestly magic, I just think that's a lot of work for little gain because priestly magic and wizardly magic are very different from each other, unlike 5E wizard magic and e.g. sorcerer or warlock magic, which are basically just a subset of wizard magic.)


Further, I disagree that this arises as a consequence of Warlock existing as a class.

Mmmmm. I may have overstated the problem. I can imagine ways you could still wind up with a similar problem even if they were all just one class: if Illusionist is a specialty, and Warlock is a specialty, and you can only have one specialty, then if Warlock has a unique and highly-desirable illusionist ability you could still wind up in a similar place. But I think the drive to create new mechanics exacerbates the problem, because it creates demand for new crunch which isn't always well-integrated with the theme of the class--in short, if warlocks were a wizard specialty built specifically around a warlocky theme, I doubt you'd actually see this problem in play where warlocks are accidentally the best illusionists for a while and then come to a crashing halt later on, because you'd be thinking all along about "what is a warlock really?" as you wrote their abilities, instead of thinking about ways to pad out their invocation list with more options.

Maybe I'm just grognard-griping though.

The problem could be solved a number of ways. This feat is one of them.

Sure, I just think there's a root cause of which this is only a symptom. You disagree, which is fine.


Another would be replacing Improved Minor Illusion with (essentially) Misty Visions as a 2nd level subclass feature. Another would be to decide the Warlock SHOULD be the go-to class for illusionists, and create a Patron who gives the 6th and 14th-level Illusionist features as Patron features, and enables major image to be upcast to 6th level via making it a mystic arcanum. Or just adds programmed illusion to the Warlock spell list, I guess; I think that could do just as well with Malleable Illusions. I forget if mirage arcane is a Warlock spell; if not, add that to their class list, too.

That Major Image fix seems pretty inelegant--as you note, it doesn't fit well into the existing Mystic Arcana crunch.


This problem arises because it just so happens that Misty Visions is ideal for the kind of casual illusion-use that is the fantasy of "being an illusionist." Warlocks don't get much, if anything, else that does it, but for a wizard to catch up to that level of casual use, he needs both Malleable Illusions and permanent illusions to manipulate. Which is why it creates the friction.

I guess you could also take the viewpoint that this is a LFQW thing: at higher levels (18+), wizards blow warlocks out of the park with illusion magic. At mid levels (6-11), they each have strengths and weaknesses. Below level 6 warlocks are clearly better.


This would, in fact, only be "solved" with a "meh, your warlock is just a wizard who fluff-wise got his spells from Grazzt" approach in that there wouldn't be any way to get silent image at will, so the frustration of not living up to that element of the fantasy would just be suffered in silence rather than having it stand out in contrast to another class having that key ingredient.

Yep. Note that today there is no way to, for example, control illusions of multiple demons simultaneously, and it's not a problem for most people because 5E just doesn't do that. But if Trickery clerics and only Trickery clerics could do that, that would probably bug people who want to play Illusionists.

[Bosh]

This is making me want to play a melee sorcerer with the feat to let me see in magical darkness. Something along the lines of:
1st level spells: defensive spells and some out of combat utility.
2nd level spells: darkness darkness darkness and some out of combat utility.
Metamagic: twincast booming blade spam.

Seems like it'd work great as a tank. Lock down people in darkness with booming blade spam and have great defenses due to darkness. Could even dump Cha since spells like Shield and Darkness don't run on Cha.

Could see devil's sight be used in a lot of crit fisher builds as well.

[Bosh]

Of course variant humans would start with two feats. But this still makes them a weaker choice than they previously were (but still good enough that I'd expect to see them played regularly). The problem is diminishing returns. You get one feat? You pick the one you wanted the most, i.e. the "best" feat. You get a second feat? Whatever you pick will be one you didn't want as much as the first one, i.e. the "second best" feat, ergo it must weaker than the first feat.

Of course, it won't be that much weaker. There are plenty of good feats where there's almost always something you could grab. Everyone likes feats such as Lucky, Alert, or Resilient, but these might not be your first picks because they aren't character/build defining. Now, you could see someone starting with both PAM and HAM at 1st level, but you know what? Why not let them have that if that's what they want? Sure, it will make them much stronger than a 1st level character should be, but that's the character they want to play. It will even out as they level up.

Not necessarily. There are some feats that synergize very well. Sentinel and PAM are both solid feats but getting them both is a BIG power boost so getting the second of the pair is a bigger boost than getting just one. Those are probably the most synergistic feats but they're not the only pair that'd make the second feat a bigger power boost than the first one.

[Segev]

Not necessarily. There are some feats that synergize very well. Sentinel and PAM are both solid feats but getting them both is a BIG power boost so getting the second of the pair is a bigger boost than getting just one. Those are probably the most synergistic feats but they're not the only pair that'd make the second feat a bigger power boost than the first one.

Indeed, I would contend that the limiting factor on feats is often the number you get. Some feats, too, are the sort you'd pass by if you could have only one, but pick up both if you can have both. (Failing to think of examples right now, but I have run across that in my own decision-making at times.)

[Ignimortis]

This opinion will be controversial, but: 5E has too many classes. This thematic issue arises only because 5E's design insists that making a deal for power with a fiend requires its own character class with unique and fiddly mechanics, instead of just modeling the concept as a wizard with a background ("I have an ongoing relationship with Grazz't, who gives me knowledge/DMG blessings/charms in exchange for my loyalty and obedience").

In a class-based system, a new class is usually a means of accessing new mechanics.

Do I think that 5e has too few mechanics spread between too many classes? Yes. Druid only exists as a non-Cleric because it gets Wildshape. Barbarian could've been a subclass of Fighter for all I know. Paladin and Ranger could've been one class, because their only defining features are short enough to fit in a goodly-sized subclass. Bard is literally Rogue without Sneak Attack and full casting slapped on. Sorcerer is Wizard, but worse until it comes to specific usage of Metamagics. Warlock is actually pretty unique and deserves to stay - though I'd redo it completely anyway.

Could I personally make 10-12 classes which would use more noticeably different mechanics to justify them existing? Also yes. Although there probably wouldn't be a Druid per se, or Paladin, or Ranger as their own class.

[Hytheter]

Could the crusher, slasher, and piercer feats have been combinable into one feat while keeping the once per turn restriction and the critical hit language?

Worth noting that as half feats it's not necessarily unviable to take multiple, especially if you're a vhuman or fighter. I would skip piercer myself as it is the least interesting, but using both slasher and crusher could be fun for PAM builds. With point buy, a vhuman fighter could get Slasher, Crusher and PAM and still max Strength by level 8. Slash with your glaive, bonk them back 5ft with the blunt end, step back and dare them to approach and take your reaction attack.

TWFers could play around with it too.

[Azuresun]

I think this is a great design feature. I kind of disagree with those claiming these feats are "stepping on toes" because the base class benefits more from these feats than any other class.

And stepping on toes only matters for any given table if a) there's a character of the class being emulated also in that party and b) if the player of the latter character actually cares.

[Joe the Rat]

Spear and shield user with polearm master, crusher could be fun, and can add piercer to boot!

*Stab*
*Stab*
*Whack!* "...over here"

Hmm... I'd almost want to swap the critical crit for something more fun, like impalement. get a grapple. I suppose that really only works for melee though.


Something that occured to me when visualizing hijinks: When using Pushing Maneuver or the Open Hand FoB push, what's the order of operations with Crusher? Does your 5' any which way you can go at the front or end?

[Snownine]

I feel like fighting initiate could have stood to have been a half feat and granted a +1 to str or dex. I don't think that a fighting style alone is worth an ASI in most circumstances, especially on classes that only get 5 of them.

[Citadel97501]

I feel like fighting initiate could have stood to have been a half feat and granted a +1 to str or dex. I don't think that a fighting style alone is worth an ASI in most circumstances, especially on classes that only get 5 of them.

I can agree with that for some of them, but Archery is already extremely powerful a flat +2 is crack...

[clash]

I can agree with that for some of them, but Archery is already extremely powerful a flat +2 is crack...

I mean it's competing with +2 dex which means:
+1 to hit with ranged attacks and finesse weapons
+1 to damage
+1 to AC
+1 to acrobatics, stealth, sleight of hand
+1 to initiative

I can't say it's strong enough in it's current form that I would ever take it before maxing out dex. Sure dex is the strongest stat, but archery is also arguably the strongest fighting style.

Might be too strong as a half feat, but maybe add something else in. Combine it with weapon master or something(Both rogue and monk have limited proficiency and if anyone like bard or cleric wanted to take this it could be useful there as well).

[D.U.P.A.]

Decent, but some power creep in form of half-feat which are powerful for a half-feat (but fine otherwise).

[rlc]

[Fighting Initiate m]ight be too strong as a half feat, but maybe add something else in. Combine it with weapon master or something(Both rogue and monk have limited proficiency and if anyone like bard or cleric wanted to take this it could be useful there as well).

I guess that's fair, or maybe it could give three weapons of your choice, instead of the six that weapon master gives.
Monks would probably want the class variant ua in the mix, but the bare-handed fighting style would be good for monks in low level games.

[Snownine]

I mean it's competing with +2 dex which means:
+1 to hit with ranged attacks and finesse weapons
+1 to damage
+1 to AC
+1 to acrobatics, stealth, sleight of hand
+1 to initiative

I can't say it's strong enough in it's current form that I would ever take it before maxing out dex. Sure dex is the strongest stat, but archery is also arguably the strongest fighting style.

Might be too strong as a half feat, but maybe add something else in. Combine it with weapon master or something(Both rogue and monk have limited proficiency and if anyone like bard or cleric wanted to take this it could be useful there as well).

My one concern with that is that is does not really do anything for a martial character that may want to take the feat as they already get full weapon proficiencies. If a barbarian wants great weapon fighting, a paladin wants two weapon fighting, or a fighter want's defensive fighting, ect. they are only benefiting from the fighting style aspect and not the Weapon Master aspect. I do agree that it is pretty strong as a half feat, but I don't think it is broken.

Edited for typo.

[ZRN]

Look, I am not saying "wizards should be best at everything," but pretending that Warlocks were designed to be "the best illusionists" when there's a subclass of another class called "illusionist" sounds more like "I hate wizards" than "I have a reasonable desire for Warlocks not to be overshadowed by Wizards in this particular way."

I agree that this feat isn't a problem, but as to the general point - I think it's a mistake to assume that illusionists should be the best at illusion spells. Why? Because arguably evokers aren't the best at evocation (sorcerers), enchanters aren't the best at enchanting (bards), transmuters aren't the best at transmutation (druids), and abjurers aren't the best at magical defense (clerics?).

In general 5e isn't really designed for you to build characters around being the "best at X." You're "supposed" to pick a class that matches your character's skillset and use subclasses, feats, etc. to specialize from there. When you play a wizard, you're picking "nerd who knows a LOT of powerful spells," and then sub-specializing that into "...and is really into illusion spells." A warlock is picking "reality-hacker who cheats his way into arcane power," and Misty Visions is one of your reality-bending tricks that gets around the normal rules of magic.

That said, IMHO it makes great sense for a wizard who's really into illusion magic to (spend his feat to) learn to "bend the rules" of normal spellcasting a bit. This is really an ideal example of what a good feat should do: it lets you specialize your character in a way that doesn't detract from your main class progression.

[togapika]

All I know is that since they included a feat for gun users, this CLEARLY means the next player book will include stats for a playable Giff...


Right...?



Please?