Gladiator Feat (PEACH)

[clash]

Gladiator:
You are trained in the art of producing entertaining fights and gain the following benefits.

• You gain proficiency in the whip, net, and trident and there is no restriction on how many net attacks you can make per round.

• You gain proficiency with the performance skill. If you are already proficient you may choose another skill instead.

• Whenever you shove or disarm(dmg) a creature as part of the attack action, you may make a weapon attack against that creature as a bonus action.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It sounds big for a feat. Proficiency with three weapons would usually be three different feats (which is overpriced, but that's how it's usually done), the second part could probably be part of some improved disarm chain and would be quite a nice feat on its own and the third part is particularly nice. That would be about a must for anyone running a disarm build. It feels a bit like you were trying to build a prestige class instead. Like something with prerequisites strength>=14, some unarmed strike feat, proficiency bonus>=1. (That last part just to prevent this from being taken as a first level. A nobody starting out as a gladiator wouldn't be weird, but that's what prestige classes are.) This would make a fine 1st level for a project like that.

EDIT: The above is a bit mistaken, thanks for pointing that out.

[Xihirli]

That's already how Disarms work in the DMG, right?

[Lalliman]

It sounds big for a feat.

Are we talking about the same game? This is exactly the kind of scope that a feat is supposed to have to be worthwhile. You seem to be talking about 3rd edition, if not for your mention of proficiency bonus.

Anyways, there's one big problem here, which is that there's already a variant rule in the DMG that allows you to disarm in almost exactly the way you described. Which makes this feat weirdly dependent on that rule not being in use.

That being said, I do think think the disarm is a bit too easy to pull off, considering that monsters and NPCs only rarely have any skill proficiencies. I think the disarm would both make more sense and be more balanced as an opposed attack roll.

Other than that it looks fine to me.

[clash]

It sounds big for a feat. Proficiency with three weapons would usually be three different feats (which is overpriced, but that's how it's usually done),

Weapon Master grants 4 weapon proficiencies of your choice as a half feat and is often thought underpowered or useless. This is 3 very specific thematic proficiencies so the first point isnt worth half a feat.

the second part could probably be part of some improved disarm chain and would be quite a nice feat on its own and the third part is particularly nice.

The second part I felt didint deserve an entire feat, as shove actions are already available to you for free, and the existence of trip attack, push attack, and disarming attack as battle master maneuvers puts them all at the same power level. So this isnt an upgrade over what you can already do, just another option.

The third point is admittedly stronger but isnt that different from shield master. Would it be better to have the third point reversed to be exactly like shield master? Ie If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to disarm a creature within 5 feel of you.

[clash]

Are we talking about the same game? This is exactly the kind of scope that a feat is supposed to have to be worthwhile. You seem to be talking about 3rd edition, if not for your mention of proficiency bonus.

Anyways, there's one big problem here, which is that there's already a variant rule in the DMG that allows you to disarm in almost exactly the way you described. Which makes this feat weirdly dependent on that rule not being in use.

That being said, I do think think the disarm is a bit too easy to pull off, considering that monsters and NPCs only rarely have any skill proficiencies. I think the disarm would both make more sense and be more balanced as an opposed attack roll.

Other than that it looks fine to me.

I wasnt aware of the rule in the dmg. I dont really like the idea of an opposed attack roll. Would it be better if it targeted a strength save?

[Lalliman]

I wasnt aware of the rule in the dmg. I dont really like the idea of an opposed attack roll. Would it be better if it targeted a strength save?

I dunno, NPCs don't usually have save proficiencies either. Doesn't really change anything.

I guess if you don't find it thematically weird, you can just use the version in the DMG, which is as you described except the defendant can choose to use Acrobatics instead of Athletics. Which is only fair, otherwise any Dex fighter would be easy to disarm.

Do consider though that if you put this in the feat, then disarming is implicitly out of the question for anyone without this feat. It might be better to just declare that disarming rules are in play, and to add some other minor benefit to this feat.

[clash]

I like that idea. Any ideas for what would be suitable power to go with the other two benefits? Maybe some kind of bonus to perform checks? Wrapping something with the climbing onto creature into here would be cool too and fits the gladiator theme.

[Lalliman]

Providing proficiency in Performance, or double proficiency if already proficient, is an easy alternative. It's not very powerful, but I think that's fine, since most of this feat's power is in the third bullet point.

The climbing onto a bigger creature rule is fun, but I'm not sure what kind of bonus to tie to it.

[Blackbando]

I don't think granting double proficiency if already proficient is a good idea. It sort of punishes a player taking this feat if they don't take Performance proficiency.

Yes, UA has done this in the past, that's true. But, UA also gave us Loremaster wizard.

If you give it Performance proficiency, I'd personally recommend letting it give a different proficiency from a list (maybe Athletics, Acrobatics, or Intimidation?) if they already have Performance.

[clash]

Updated with performance proficiency.

[Lalliman]

I don't think granting double proficiency if already proficient is a good idea. It sort of punishes a player taking this feat if they don't take Performance proficiency.

That's only if you assume that having Expertise in one skill is considerably better than having normal proficiency in two. I don't think that's the case outside of Athletics and Stealth. I prefer to have the choice between specialising or broadening my skill set. But it's up to Clash to decide.

[Crisis21]

Unlimited net attacks is going to be horrible. Unlimited attacks with anything may break the game.

I get why you think being a gladiator and the Performance skill go hand-in-hand, but there's really no thematic reason why being a gladiator makes you a better actor in anything not related to gladiatorial matters.

I'd say ditch the performance proficiency, maybe make it so you have advantage on performance checks made during combat instead, and ditch the proficiency granting and give the player +1 to attack rolls made with trident or net.

So, basically, make this a weapon mastery-type feat focused on the 'trident and net' style of fighting.

Like so:

You get +1 to attack rolls made with the trident and net.
When you use your Attack action with the net, you may use a bonus action to attempt to disarm your opponent with the trident.
When you use your Attack action with the trident, you may use a bonus action to attempt to ensnare your foe with the net.
You have advantage on Charisma (Performance) checks made during combat.

[clash]

Unlimited net attacks is going to be horrible. Unlimited attacks with anything may break the game.

It doesnt give unlimited attacks with the net, it just removes the restriction that you can only ever make one net attack per turn. I may need to clarify that better though.

That aside, your feat is nice for a net and trident wielder, but it loses the bulk of what I am going for. The goal of the feat is to make non-damage option(shove and disarm and net) more appealing and available. The trident and whip seemed to match the flavor. As for the advantage on performance checks during combat, I had considered that but 5e doesnt really distinguish abilities on the basis of being in combat or not in combat. Further, gladiators were good at putting on a show and playing to the audience. That would bleed into other types of performances so I think that still makes sense thematically.

[Blackbando]

That's only if you assume that having Expertise in one skill is considerably better than having normal proficiency in two. I don't think that's the case outside of Athletics and Stealth. I prefer to have the choice between specialising or broadening my skill set. But it's up to Clash to decide.

It is vastly superior. Expertise is hard to get on most classes: only 2 classes get it by default, I believe only 2-3 subclasses give it, and only one feat (a racial feat, too!) grants it. Meanwhile, skill proficiencies are actually pretty easy to grab: everyone's gonna have at least 4.

[Crisis21]

It is vastly superior. Expertise is hard to get on most classes: only 2 classes get it by default, I believe only 2-3 subclasses give it, and only one feat (a racial feat, too!) grants it. Meanwhile, skill proficiencies are actually pretty easy to grab: everyone's gonna have at least 4.

Actually, there's a bunch of Feats that can grant expertise. Provided you already have proficiency in that specific skill, otherwise you just get proficiency. One per Skill plus a few Tool-related ones.

[Lalliman]

It is vastly superior. Expertise is hard to get on most classes: only 2 classes get it by default, I believe only 2-3 subclasses give it, and only one feat (a racial feat, too!) grants it. Meanwhile, skill proficiencies are actually pretty easy to grab: everyone's gonna have at least 4.

You're talking about supply, I'm talking about demand. This is the Performance skill we're talking about. There's certainly a benefit to having Expertise in it, but I wouldn't consider the choice between getting Expertise in Performance or getting proficiency in Performance and one other skill a moot choice at all.