New UA: Feats

[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.