New UA: Feats

[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 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/d...2020_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.

[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.

"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.