1 D&D UA: Feats

[hypV]

With Resilient, I wish you could increase any ability score by one, not necessarily the one you gained proficiency in.

They should do that with every half-feat. It's unnecessarily limiting character customization options to encourage players to only look at the feats that let you add +1 to your primary stat. Why, for example, should my lore bard be mechanically punished because Keen Mind is a better fit for my character concept than Inspiring Leader or whatever?

[Segev]

They should do that with every half-feat. It's unnecessarily limiting character customization options to encourage players to only look at the feats that let you add +1 to your primary stat. Why, for example, should my lore bard be mechanically punished because Keen Mind is a better fit for my character concept than Inspiring Leader or whatever?

Why should you be punished by thinking Archery is a better feat for your character than Inspiring Leader? You should get +2 to a stat and a feat!

[hypV]

Why should you be punished by thinking Archery is a better feat for your character than Inspiring Leader? You should get +2 to a stat and a feat!

Unironically, yes. 5e's decision to make players choose between feats and ASIs was a step back from 4e and 3.5.

[animorte]

They should do that with every half-feat. It's unnecessarily limiting character customization options to encourage players to only look at the feats that let you add +1 to your primary stat. Why, for example, should my lore bard be mechanically punished because Keen Mind is a better fit for my character concept than Inspiring Leader or whatever?

I don’t know how I feel about this. I certainly get where you’re coming from because some of them can be limiting. But choosing your own stay on every feat kind of detached from the purpose of the feat more than likely.

Say you want Shield Master but add INT instead. That doesn’t really make much sense unless you’re an Eldritch Knight, Artificer, or Bladesinger. Perhaps I’ve just proven your point, but adding any of Int/Wis/Cha to that feat feels a little off.

Maybe that’s a concept then. You would be able to choose one of Str/Dex/Con for relevant physical feats and for the others choose one from Int/Wis/Cha. That opens it up a little more.

[Rukelnikov]

I am interested in a dual wielding barbarian, incidentally. Rage Damage applies to the off-hand attack, even if stat mod doesn't.

With current rules, Claw Barbarian is making 3 attacks at lvl 3...

No, disregard that, I thought claw counted as light weapons. You'd still need to be wielding something else to make the third attack.

[Woggle]

Ah, yes, I see. You're right, that is a nerf compared to the original 5.0 version. I suspect it's specifically to remove dual-wielding rapiers as an option, since that was always something that I saw people mocking as silly-looking optimization. Personally, I don't have a problem with dual-wielding rapiers, but...

Even with that nerf, you're still doing 1d8+1d6+stat mod damage with the feat (assuming both attacks hit), which is better than you're doing with a two-handed weapon...unless you have Extra Attack, of course. And you're doing it without spending a bonus action, which means the 1d10+1d4+(2x stat mod) that polearm master gives you is still costing more. And with a second feat, you, too, can get the 2x stat mod, if you really want to.

This doesn't change the fact the feat itself is just bad. An average of +1 damage to your main-hand just isn't worth it over almost any other feat. The only time I could see it being worth while is if you have a non-light magic weapon you want to two-weapon fight with.

[Rukelnikov]

This doesn't change the fact the feat itself is just bad. An average of +1 damage to your main-hand just isn't worth it over almost any other feat. The only time I could see it being worth while is if you have a non-light magic weapon you want to two-weapon fight with.

Yeah the feat remains largely useless, specially with the current rules for drawing weapon before or after each attack. On first turn in combat you can draw a weapon as you item interaction, take the attack action, and before making the attack drawing a second weapon, thus being eligible for the Light weapon 2WF on the first round without needing the feat.

The one use case though, would be if other weapon types had other properties you maybe wanted to make use of, otherwise an average of 1 damage, plus some extra on crits doesn't seem better than 1 stat point.

[Psyren]

Why is it that every time someone designs or redesigns dual wielding, it gets worse. I'm going to ignore this iteration if they keep that you need to wield a light weapon in the other hand in the final version, and use the original version instead.

D&D is a game. A FANTASY game. Not a real life simulation, for Gygax's sake.

This version of dual-wielding is way better than the 5e version. Anything that relieves bonus-action-crowding is aces in my book.

I like what they've done with sharpshooter and spell sniper by giving them the attack in melee option that used to be limited to crossbow expert.

I also like that they've made crossbow expert what I think they meant for it to be, a one time shot with an already loaded hand crossbow. I hate that 5e hand crossbows are better than longbows. This fixes that.

It's not much of a restriction honestly. You can get more "hands" (e.g. Thri-Kreen, Hadozee, Loxodon etc), get repeating hand crossbows (e.g. Artificer), and probably even juggling via the new Equip rules.

[Rukelnikov]

This version of dual-wielding is way better than the 5e version. Anything that relieves bonus-action-crowding is aces in my book.

It is better mechanically, but doesn't allow dual wielding longswords.

[Arkhios]

This version of dual-wielding is way better than the 5e version. Anything that relieves bonus-action-crowding is aces in my book.

I don't mind the bonus action (tbh, I didn't notice they lifted that, but that only proves my point; the bonus action dependency, or lack thereof, is irrelevant in regards to what I was hoping to see), my problem is the fact that I can't play a character wielding two one-handed weapons even with the feat.

Whatever those weapons are (it really doesn't matter to me whether the stat being used is strength or dexterity).

[Psyren]

It is better mechanically, but doesn't allow dual wielding longswords.

Not natively, no. We may find that as a Warrior class or subclass feature, i.e. a nice thing only they get to do.

And even if they decide that they just don't want dual-wielding longswords to be part of 1DD, is it that big a deal? Any line they draw is going to be arbitrary at the end of the day. The 1 damage you lose from going shortsword is not going to break the bank.

[Rukelnikov]

Not natively, no. We may find that as a Warrior class or subclass feature, i.e. a nice thing only they get to do.

And even if they decide that they just don't want dual-wielding longswords to be part of 1DD, is it that big a deal? Any line they draw is going to be arbitrary at the end of the day. The 1 damage you lose from going shortsword is not going to break the bank.

The mechanics are not the problem, the imagery is.

EDIT: And I know you can get 2 longswords, and with extra attack make one attack with each, but the people most interested in doing that, would also, probably, be the ones interested in taking the dual wielder feat.

[Psyren]

The mechanics are not the problem, the imagery is.

EDIT: And I know you can get 2 longswords, and with extra attack make one attack with each, but the people most interested in doing that, would also, probably, be the ones interested in taking the dual wielder feat.

I'm not saying you're wrong to want true TWF with two non-light weapons. But if they enable that at all, it seems likely for that to be a Warrior thing.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm not saying you're wrong to want true TWF with two non-light weapons. But if they enable that at all, it seems likely for that to be a Warrior thing.

we'll see, I know that we can't evaluate these things in a vacuum, and assuming stuff will remain like it currently works in 5e is somewhat foolish, but its the only framework we have to operate.

[gloryblaze]

With current rules, Claw Barbarian is making 3 attacks at lvl 3...

No, disregard that, I thought claw counted as light weapons. You'd still need to be wielding something else to make the third attack.

Although it's fun to note that at level 5, when old!Light property Beast Barbarian would bonus action Rage and make 3 attacks Round 1—>juggle hand axes to make 4 attacks on Rounds 2+, the new!Light property Beast Barbarian can bonus action Rage and make 4 attacks on Round 1 via hand axe juggling, then (if they find a BA attack somewhere, perhaps Longtooth Shifter?) 5 attacks on Rounds 2+. And if the Barbarian, as a Warrior, selects TWF as their Level 1 Feat, those 5 attacks will all be a full 1d6 + Str + Rage. Not bad!

[Rukelnikov]

Although it's fun to note that at level 5, when old!Light property Beast Barbarian would bonus action Rage and make 3 attacks Round 1—>juggle hand axes to make 4 attacks on Rounds 2+, the new!Light property Beast Barbarian can bonus action Rage and make 4 attacks on Round 1 via hand axe juggling, then (if they find a BA attack somewhere, perhaps Longtooth Shifter?) 5 attacks on Rounds 2+. And if the Barbarian, as a Warrior, selects TWF as their Level 1 Feat, those 5 attacks will all be a full 1d6 + Str + Rage. Not bad!

Not bad at all

[Segev]

Conversely, I am sympathetic to the argument that the dual wielding feat may not be worth it for only giving +1 dpr. All it does now is the increase of one weapon to not-light sizes (i.e. d8), and let you draw two weapons instead of one. I still see plenty of room for argument that the latter should be free, not a feat.

I think, at this point, drawing two weapons at once should be an additional function of the Light property, and Fighting Style: TWF maybe should absorb the "if wielding a light weapon in one hand, a non-Heavy weapon wielded in the other may be treated as Light" thing.

[Schwann145]

Not being able to TWF with two one-handed weapons is fine by me - I've always hated that imagery (no one dual-wields longswords, they're too large to reasonably do so! It looks awkward and goofy and comes across more as a power gaming move than a reasonable narrative choice, IMO).
However, it's definitely unavoidably true that the feat, as presented, is just a huge disappointment and not worth taking. I'd rather take two rounds to draw both weapons than saddle myself with that feat. It... needs work.

Also, I think people are missing that Polearm Master's bonus action attack no longer adds your modifier to damage. Worth noting!

[Psyren]

Conversely, I am sympathetic to the argument that the dual wielding feat may not be worth it for only giving +1 dpr. All it does now is the increase of one weapon to not-light sizes (i.e. d8), and let you draw two weapons instead of one. I still see plenty of room for argument that the latter should be free, not a feat.

I think, at this point, drawing two weapons at once should be an additional function of the Light property, and Fighting Style: TWF maybe should absorb the "if wielding a light weapon in one hand, a non-Heavy weapon wielded in the other may be treated as Light" thing.

You can draw weapons during each attack now (before OR after) so I definitely don't see a point to Dual-Wielder.

For example, you draw your first light weapon as an object interaction and attack with it. As part of that attack (before or after) you equip the other light weapon. Now you're holding them both and you can attack with the other one. After the "offhand" attack, if you want you can stow the second weapon again. Now your hand is free for whatever. Rinse and repeat on subsequent turns.

Drawing or stowing two weapons as part of every attack doesn't improve on the above enough to be worth spending a feat that could instead have gone to, say, Resilient, or Defensive Duelist, or Skulker, or Mage Slayer.

Not being able to TWF with two one-handed weapons is fine by me - I've always hated that imagery (no one dual-wields longswords, they're too large to reasonably do so! It looks awkward and goofy and comes across more as a power gaming move than a reasonable narrative choice, IMO).

Concur but I'll say it again - if any group would be able to run around dual-wielding big weapons it will be the Warrior group, so it makes sense we don't see that ability yet.

Also, I think people are missing that Polearm Master's bonus action attack no longer adds your modifier to damage. Worth noting!

Not sure where you're getting that. It reduces the damage die to a d4 but doesn't say anything about you not getting your ability mod to damage. (See the Light property for the necessary wording.)

[Segev]

Not being able to TWF with two one-handed weapons is fine by me - I've always hated that imagery (no one dual-wields longswords, they're too large to reasonably do so! It looks awkward and goofy and comes across more as a power gaming move than a reasonable narrative choice, IMO).
However, it's definitely unavoidably true that the feat, as presented, is just a huge disappointment and not worth taking. I'd rather take two rounds to draw both weapons than saddle myself with that feat. It... needs work.

I think my proposal for this has become:

1. Remove the Dual Wielder feat entirely.
2. Alter the Fighting Style: Two-Weapon Fighting feat to read as follows:
   
   FIGHTING STYLE: TWO-WEAPON FIGHTING
   1st-Level Feat
   Prerequisite: Warrior Group
   Repeatable: No
   You gain the following features:
   
   Deft Off-hand Strikes: When you make the extra attack of the Light weapon property, you can add your Ability Modifier to the damage of the extra attack.
   
   Enhanced Dual Wielding. When you are holding a Weapon with the Light property in one hand, you can treat a non-Light Weapon in your other hand as if it had the Light property, provided that Weapon lacks the Two-Handed property.
   
3. Make it so that you can draw both weapons without having to spend extra actions doing so.
4. Maybe give rogues access to the Fighting Style feat as a bonus feat, possibly as part of a subclass or possibly as part of a choice of a few other options. Though maybe simply having rogues not able to wield rapier + dagger is fine. Stick with two short swords.

Also, I think people are missing that Polearm Master's bonus action attack no longer adds your modifier to damage. Worth noting!

You're incorrect. It doesn't have to explicitly state the bonus action attack gets the stat mod to damage; that's the default. It would have to expressly state, as the rules on Light Weapons do, and the rules in 5.0 for dual wielding do, that you do not get the stat mod to damage. Polearm Master's bonus action attack does a d4 damage die just like its normal attack does a d8 or d10 damage die: both get to add strength mod (or possibly another stat under certain circumstances) to the damage.

You can draw weapons during each attack now (before OR after) so I definitely don't see a point to Dual-Wielder.

For example, you draw your first light weapon as an object interaction and attack with it. As part of that attack (before or after) you equip the other light weapon. Now you're holding them both and you can attack with the other one. After the "offhand" attack, if you want you can stow the second weapon again. Now your hand is free for whatever. Rinse and repeat on subsequent turns.

Drawing or stowing two weapons as part of every attack doesn't improve on the above enough to be worth spending a feat that could instead have gone to, say, Resilient, or Defensive Duelist, or Skulker, or Mage Slayer.

That works, then, though I'd prefer it be a little less cumbersome and a little more clear to get to it. I agree that this works and is mechanically satisfactory, though.

Concur but I'll say it again - if any group would be able to run around dual-wielding big weapons it will be the Warrior group, so it makes sense we don't see that ability yet.

Perhaps! And maybe Swashbucklers will get to do it with rapiers.

[MisterD]

Actor: Why has performance replaced deception in a skill designed to LIE/FOOL a target. Will there be changes to the Performance/Deception skill

Charger: So, I can move 10 feet and shoot an arrow or cast a spell and add 1D8 to damage or push 10 feet at range?

Crossbow Expert:
1) Crossbow feat working only with crossbow.
2) When you make the extra attack for using a Light Weapon (Needs to be wielded in your other hand) You can use your ability Mod to damage if it is a light Crossbow. So, if you have 2 attacks, you can stab (Hand A first attack) then shoot (Hand B extra attack with light weapon) then stab (Hand A Second attack). Or shoot X-Bow 1 (Hand A, first attack) then shoot X-Bow 2 (Hand B, Light extra attack) Then…. No hands free to load x-bow to make second attack.

DUAL WIELDER: Lost +1 to AC

DURABLE Speedy Recovery. A feat to get fighter Second Wind.

ELEMENTAL ADEPT: Now races with racial spells and feats that give spells will not allow you to take this feat. You need Spellcasting or Pact Magic class feature.

GREAT WEAPON MASTER/SHARPSHOOTER: No more -5 attack for +10 Damage. Here is hoping it is part of the Warrior Group.

HEAVY ARMOR MASTER: Growing damage reduction vs all B/P/S damage not just non-magical

INSPIRING LEADER: At end of rest. No more 10-minute monologue. What does Witness entail – See/Hear/Understand?

KEEN MIND: No more mental compass, clock, or recall, BUT. Possible Prof or Expert in Arcana, History, Investigation, Nature, or Religion + Study (Int skills) action as a Bonus action.

MAGE SLAYER: no more Reaction attack if caster casts spell within 5’ and replace Advantage on a failed save with a once per long rest legendary resistance.

MEDIUM ARMOR MASTER: Still have disadvantage to Stealth rolls

MOUNTED COMBATANT:
1) Mounted Strike You have advantage to hit someone with a sword while mounted but not with a lance (Maybe lance will have a feature to give advantage while mounted?
2) Leap Aside. If mount can take ½ damage from a Dex Save, does the mounted rider also get to take ½ damage?
3) Veer. Reaction (once) vs original at will (Multiple)

OBSERVANT: no more reading lips or +5 to passive Perception/Investigation. but if do not have will get Insight, Investigation, or Perception proficiency or if you have proficiency can get expertise and search as a bonus.

POLEARM MASTER:
1) Works with ANY weapon with Heavy and Reach. – NO Quarterstaff/Spear.
2) The reaction is a melee attack and not an opportunity attack, so no longer works with Sentinel. No longer able to stop a target in its tracks at range with this feat and the sentinel feat.

RESILIENT: Only usable once not once per save you are not proficient in.

RITUAL CASTER: One option good for non-spellcasters and one option good for spell casters. Can live without the ability to create scroll using a feat instead of a class.

SENTINEL:
1) Halt: With OA target movement = 0. (No more Polearm Master synergy)
SHARPSHOOTER:
1) Yay. Can shoot into melee
2) Boo. Lost -5 to hit for +10 damage.

SHIELD MASTER:
1) Bash: Right after an attack have a free chance to knock target prone or push 5’. Not using a reaction or bonus action.
2) Interpose: No adding Shield bonus to Saves. Dex saves for no damage with a reaction. Thought= Make the AC bonus provided = Shield Bonus. So, if character has a +1 Shield, they provide +3 to Dex Save.

SKULKER: Love it for any sneaky ranged character OR for just one feat for +1 Dex and Blind fighting if not using ranged weapons……. SO, if hidden I can make a spell/melee attack and still be hidden if I miss?

SPEEDSTER: Mobility without the protection vs provoking Opportunity attacks.

SPELL SNIPER:
1) Now races with racial spells and feats that give spells will not allow you to take this feat. You need Spellcasting or Pact Magic class feature.
2) Bypass Cover: Does this allow melee and ranged attacks to bypass cover? New = attack rolls / Old = Ranged spell attacks
3) Increase Range: Spell with range of 10’+ get and addition 60’. No more double range. No more spells of touch or 5’)
4) No more free spells

WARCASTER:
1) Concentration: Advantage on ANYTHING that triggers a con save to maintain a spell.
2) Reactive: Question. A party member leaving your reach provoke. Cast cure wounds are a party member as a reaction if he/she moves away from me.



EPIC BOON OF COMBAT PROWESS – Once per combat, that miss hits (but cannot crit) For level 20 nice if you only have one attack.

EPIC BOON OF DIMENSION TRAVEL: DO you still need the components of the spell?

EPIC BOON OF ENERGY RESISTANCE: Force is not here.

EPIC BOON OF FORTITUDE: + 40 HP plus once per round (if you can regain HP multiple turns you get the HP + CON mod back per turn)

EPIC BOON OF IRRESISTIBLE OFFENSE: Situational but at level 20 maybe not that situational. Works against objects?

EPIC BOON OF LUCK: One Super luck (d10) per combat. Old = Short rest. New = Initiative, short/Long rest.

EPIC BOON OF RECOVERY: Once per long rest regain ½ your HP maximum and pass death saves if it is not a 1. Nice.

EPIC BOON OF THE NIGHT SPIRIT: As an action turn invisible till you take an action or reaction in DIM light.

EPIC BOON OF PEERLESS AIM: Once per initiative roll a missed range attach auto hit. Cannot crit.

EPIC BOON OF RECOVERY: once per long rest as a bonus action recover ½ full health in HP and pass all death saves greater than a 1.

EPIC BOON OF SKILL PROFICENCY: There are many ways of getting many skills in this game.

EPIC BOON OF SPEED: + 30’ at level 20. And loose dash/disengage. There are ways to get his pre level 20.

EPIC BOON OF UNDETECTABIITY: No bonus to stealth checks just auto cannot be seen or heard when hidden. Does this mean I can shout to other party members and remain hidden?

EPIC BOON OF THE UNFETERRED: Bonus action that disengages from combat and also ends grappled and restrained condition.



FIGHTING STYLE (ARCHERY) = Same +2 to hit with Ranged weapons.

FIGHTING STYLE (DEFENCE) = Same + 1 to AC in armor

FIGHTING STYLE (DUELING) = Same +2 damage (just reworded a bit)

FIGHTING STYLE (GREAT WEAPON FIGHTING) = NEW = Even if roll 1 or 2 to is it possible for an endless look if keep rolling 1 or 2.

FIGHTING STYLE (PROTECTION) = Instead of giving disadvantage to an attack roll against a creature you can see you give a -2 to the attack roll that HITS if using a shield

FIGHTING STYLE (2 WEAPON FIGHTING) = SAME but different wording with new rules.

Also, some thoughts on skills:
Skills and Ability Checks:
1) UA mentions Stat check [skill] and the stat do not always match the skill associated with it. Example:
A) Influence [action] under ability check it states Charisma check and lists Animal Handling.
B) Athletics mention either STR or DEX
2) My Thought: skill will get Proficiency bonus if trained in it so when DM says make an ability check based on a stat, the player then can explain what skill they use and why and they can use a skill to add Proficiency to roll.

Is passive Perception (and other passive skill use) gone and replaced with DC check

Strength Check (Acrobatics or Athletics) –From Jump

[Dork_Forge]

Conversely, I am sympathetic to the argument that the dual wielding feat may not be worth it for only giving +1 dpr. All it does now is the increase of one weapon to not-light sizes (i.e. d8), and let you draw two weapons instead of one. I still see plenty of room for argument that the latter should be free, not a feat.

I think, at this point, drawing two weapons at once should be an additional function of the Light property, and Fighting Style: TWF maybe should absorb the "if wielding a light weapon in one hand, a non-Heavy weapon wielded in the other may be treated as Light" thing.

The UA version is presumably balanced around being a half feat, but given they want that to be the standard, and the scope of other feats, it's an atrocious nerf to what was already a mild feat. They should retain the +1 AC, defense is the point of off handing a dagger anyway, and since they clearly want to conform to that imagery, give the benefit.

You can draw weapons during each attack now (before OR after) so I definitely don't see a point to Dual-Wielder.

For example, you draw your first light weapon as an object interaction and attack with it. As part of that attack (before or after) you equip the other light weapon. Now you're holding them both and you can attack with the other one. After the "offhand" attack, if you want you can stow the second weapon again. Now your hand is free for whatever. Rinse and repeat on subsequent turns.

This does assume that the object interaction will work the same way, which, given that they're offloading drawing into the Attack action seems likely it will change. I hope they change how this works in the UA, as written it looks like you can two weapon fight... without actually holding two weapons when you start attacking. It feels more egregious than the drop and draw shenanigans we already have.

[Witty Username]

Power Attack: When you use the Attack action on your turn to make a weapon attack, you can choose to not apply your proficiency bonus to your attack roll. If the attack hits, the weapon deals extra damage equals to double your proficiency bonus.

If they go that route, I expect it as a fighter class feature.

It is better mechanically, but doesn't allow dual wielding longswords.

Y'all who were complaining that were complaining that rapier and dagger wasn't supported in 5e, why you have to wish on a bad genie.

I like the base rules better, I think the dual wielder feat should be the base rules and a feat to get non-light weapons, and a second attack with the off hand weapon (extra attack people only), and the +1 AC was neat, small but neat.

[Schwann145]

Not sure where you're getting that. It reduces the damage die to a d4 but doesn't say anything about you not getting your ability mod to damage. (See the Light property for the necessary wording.)

Special attacks have always specified exactly what damage they do. The OG PAM feat specifically included ability modifier in it's damage calculation for this reason. I don't see anything in the UAs that would change this standard, so why wouldn't it still apply?

[Segev]

Special attacks have always specified exactly what damage they do. The OG PAM feat specifically included ability modifier in it's damage calculation for this reason. I don't see anything in the UAs that would change this standard, so why wouldn't it still apply?

The wording in the new feat says the damage die is a d4. It doesn't say the damage of the attack is a d4. Weapon damage defaults to (damage die)+(stat mod). By specifying that the damage die is a d4, it is only changing the die size, not the entire damage calculation.

[Rukelnikov]

The wording in the new feat says the damage die is a d4. It doesn't say the damage of the attack is a d4. Weapon damage defaults to (damage die)+(stat mod). By specifying that the damage die is a d4, it is only changing the die size, not the entire damage calculation.

I read it the same way.

[Xoronis]

One particular thing I noticed is that, when the weapon tables come out, if one of the weapons that qualifies for Polearm Master is one handed, you could combine that with the Dual Wielder feat for 2 additional attacks. I'm also expecting them to explicitly not do this, since previously everything with Heavy and Reach also had Two-Handed.

[Willie the Duck]

Okay, overall, I'm neither impressed nor revulsed. I think a lot of the things here are stuff people have complained about/commented on/discussed to death throughout 2014 to whenever our attention wandered to other things. The CBE/SS and PAM/GWM combos have been tamed down, and some of the goofier concepts to come out of the rules specifics (dual wielding lances, one-handed quarterstaff and shield PAM, etc.) have been removed. Speedster seems a poor cousin to Mobile, which I guess gives rogue some unique character but limits other melee skirmishing.

The one I really dislike is Ritual Caster. Not because it is more or less strong, but because it removes it as filling a conceptual role. That being the fighter or rogue (or anyone else really) that gives up a feat to fill the bare necessity role of a wizard, cleric, or druid in a party that doesn't have one (taking spells like identify, detect magic, comprehend magic, augury, purify food & drink, etc.). Limiting it to 2 and to 1st level spells only steers away from that model. Honestly, I had hoped they would go the other way, with RC being the same as it has been, and maybe having a high-er level additional one where you could pick up later minimum-necessary cleric-wizard role-filling like raise dead, remove curse and plane shift. That would make a party with no (pure class) cleric or no wizard actually doable without needing the ol' "caster you know back in town" or the like.

Other than that:

It's weird. On the one hand, no need to use a bonus action. On the other hand, unless you get a Repeating Shot Crossbow (or are a Thri-Kreen) you can only have it in the first round of combat, as you now have to have two light weapons in your hands, and so can't reload your crossbow.

Would it work to use a dart in the other hand, drawing one a round? This seems like a semi-goofy combo this might have made the latest craze.

That wouldn't be a bad idea if you feel SS is to powerful. I'm just very worried about martials getting nerfed so hard on damage output without knowing what's coming for casters (priests, mages) maybe its balanced perfectly..... but I guess that's what these UA's are for right? So lets hit them surveys haha.

I would advise/suggest to everyone who will listen to include in your feedback something like, "these are fine... if you are likewise toning down casters."

[ZRN]

They should do that with every half-feat. It's unnecessarily limiting character customization options to encourage players to only look at the feats that let you add +1 to your primary stat. Why, for example, should my lore bard be mechanically punished because Keen Mind is a better fit for my character concept than Inspiring Leader or whatever?

I think a point in favor of the current model is that it can encourage you to take feats and live with an odd stat for a few levels rather than "optimize" by taking ASIs to get your primary stat to 20 and then feats afterwards.

Like, if my rogue wants Skulker, I need to take that feat before I'm at 20 dex or I'm wasting a point. If that were flexible, I might be tempted to take ASIs to get to 20 dex and then put the extra point from Skulker into Con or whatever. But the developers should (and seemingly do) recognize that I'll actually have more fun playing with a cool feat for 4 levels rather than a slightly higher stat, so they're giving me the long-term incentive to do so.

[animorte]

The one I really dislike is Ritual Caster…

Initially I agree with this complaint, but I’m still waiting to see if we have additional features relevant to Ritual Caster. To be entirely fair, gaining additional spells to cast as ritual is quite strong compared to Magic Initiate. Not really having a limit aside from “how often the DM decides to provide” isn’t structured = easily abused.