Feats - Improved!

[ro]

It doesn't take an action to draw a weapon, it is a free interaction that you can do as part of your movement and action, similar to many other interactions (PHB 190).

I was thinking of it in that the first weapon you draw is part of your attack (using your free object interaction), but if you draw a second weapon it costs your action.

Excluding Heavy weapons goes a long way toward making this more feasible.

It also throws a bone to versatile weapon users.

I'm still not a fan of the concept, however. I would never profess to be a weapon's expert, but it is my understanding that typically a shield is strapped to your forearm and then held in that hand, which is necessary to maneuver the shield and use it effectively. Otherwise it's just flopping around everywhere with no control. That grip is what would make any of the ranged attacks impossible, as you need two hands for the weapons.

This is more what I was picturing, although I would think a shield would be balanced enough to not simply flop around. It would seem that holding the shield with your hand in addition to your arm would steady it and make it effect against sword blows. There are shields that are arm-bound like this, and the are others that a merely hand-held.

If you do decide to continue keeping it in included, I would suggest lowering the AC bonus to +1, similar to two-weapon fighting. You might still be able to gain some benefit from the shield, kind of as a partial cover ability, but you can't use it at its fullest.

I was thinking about this before. I am not sure how to succinctly word it. It is easy to say "your shield only provides 1 AC instead of 2 AC", but does that wording nerf magic +1/+2/+3 shields to 1 AC?

I am also still unsure of how this compares to Warcaster, which allows the delicate somatic components of spells to be done with a shield.

 

[ro]

Finishing off my feedback:

11) Mounted Combatant: Solid enough. Charger is a good combo, though the base charger feat was also pretty fun to use.

12) Savage Attacker: I think you have to specify this only works with base damage, else Paladins will just eat this up. Even with just weapon damage alone its a pretty nice boost.

If I limit it to "base weapon damage", is once per short rest too weak?

13) Skulker: Good

14) Toughness: I actually consider this one of the strongest feats in the game in base form. In my party of 6, every single character has taken it. The amount of extra hp is just crazy. I like the combination with durable (durable is a crappy feat), but I think it actually needs a base nerf.

- Your hit point maximum increases by an amount equal to (Removed: twice) your level when you gain this feat. Whenever you gain a level thereafter, your hit point maximum increases by an additional one hit point.
- When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier (minimum of 2).

I'll have to weigh this one. A +2 Constitution ASI gives +1 HP per level, +1 Con saves, and other benefits (longer holding breath, +1 AC for some, etc). Tough (PHB) gives +2 HP, but not the rest. Durable is an underused feat. Tough didn't need a boost, but Durable didn't seem to fit anywhere else.

Is Durable of equal value to +1 Con saves and the other benefits? Is it equal to +1 HP per level? It certainly helps with healing.

 

[ro]

+2 ASI = +1 attack / +1 damage....which I would usually prefer over +2 damage. You have to hit to deal damage, there's nothing worse than a fighter missing with his big attacks. Plus there are plenty of instances when you don't need damage as much as just to hit. So I don't consider +2 damage to be crazy strong.

+2 damage is certainly not crazy strong, but on average you will consistently do more damage with this +2 than with +1 attack and +1 damage.

I really don't think the feat needs anymore. Its a solid feat without the boost.

It is a solid feat, although I feel it isn't taken enough. But I'll look it over again.

I think that's an option

Ok.

 

[ro]

Healer

Hey Soraka I feel like these multi-part feats are becoming too baroque. The Medicine Expertise seems fine to me, because it doesn't tread on anyone's toes. I'd perhaps cut the last two components. Trouble here is that Healer is already strong without the speed buff and AoO protection, which has the same narrative issue as Sentinel: how does the feat know when you take your move, that you will be healing someone later in your turn? What happens if a player chooses not to do that healing? Does the DM have to roll back the turn?

I was worrying about that movement/action connection. I am not sure how to make it more controlled. What about this:

"You may extend the range of your healing abilities: When you use your action or bonus action to restore HP or remove a condition or disease from a creature, you may simultaneously move toward that creature a distance up to your speed. Opportunity attacks against you have disadvantage during this movement, and this movement does not count against your movement for your turn."

Mage Slayer

Interesting idea to switch the check to the attacker. I had "If you hit, it (the caster) makes a Constitution saving throw. The DC equals 10 or half the damage you inflicted, whichever number is higher. If it fails its saving throw, its spell fails and has no effect." It seems quite workable to make it the attacker, and more fun for the Mage Slayer. This might need to make clear that magic items won't buff the ability check (because there is no equivalent for buffing the Counterspell spellcasting ability check).

Yeah, I like the attacker roll. I think simplifying it to an ability check rather than an attack is the easiest way to knock out magic item bonuses, +2 Archery, and the like.

Magic Initiate - v1

So this challenges whether spells should be gated to abilities. I think they should be. RAW Magic Initiate is strong by itself. Changing to slot already makes it very flexible.

Yeah, Magic Initiate is a great feat. We do see that spells are already not gated to abilities when they cross between Wisdom and Charisma from Cleric to Bard or from Intelligence to Charisma from Wizard to Sorcerer. Personally, I think that multiclassing should allow the choice of a single casting stat rather than favoring Sorcerer/Warlock/Bard/Palading or Cleric/Druid/Ranger or Wizard/.... But, short of that, I at least think that it makes sense and isn't overpowered to let you change the little bump you get from Magic Initiate to match the class you are bumping.

Magic Initiate - v2

This is an imaginative feat and I like the direction it is heading. It seems OP, but OTOH gives any class the chance to use magic. How does it compare with Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight? Does this feat make their whole archetype feel a bit like dunces?

It does seem OP, but it is level-limited. It does need to be balanced against Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight. This feat lags behind for 1st- and 2nd-level spells but jumps ahead for 3rd- and 4th-level spells. I don't like that. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the 4-8-12-16-19 feat progression. We could push 3rd back to 16 and 4th back to 19. Then it would be decidedly behind any spellcasting elsewhere in the game, keeping it safer in feat territory. Should everything be bumped back, ignoring the Variant Human? It would be slightly weaker than the stock feat before 8th level, but would improve later.

"Magic Initiate - Scaling
- Choose a class: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. You learn two cantrips of your choice from that class’s spell list. In addition, as you increase in character level, you learn the following spells from this list:
-- At 8th level, one 1st-level spell.
-- At 12th level, one 2nd-level spell.
-- At 16th level, one 3rd-level spell.
-- At 19th level, one 4th-level spell.
..."

Martial Adept

Don't give away class foundations (Fighting Style). That creates overshadowing opportunities for no good reason. Hmm... try listing your design pillars and constraints separately from your feat design work.

This feat already does that to Battlemasters, but nobody takes it so it doesn't matter. The new version would let these classes gain a second fighting style without multiclassing.

Who was this feat targeted at the first time around? The new version can be appreciated by any martial class.

A fighting style is roughly equal to a half-feat in power.

Mounted Combatant

The last part feels more like a clarification to me. I don't think rider should be given mind control of mount, just the ability to make reasonable requests. If they are friends, the mount will comply.

Absolutely no mind control. It is my understanding that RAW a mount can either act independently or, if the rider can communicate with it, act on the initiative of the rider, but in so doing it is limited to Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. My goal is for this feat to allow you to control an intelligent mount without limiting its abilities. Can you think of a wording that would convey this better?

Savage Attacker

I spent a bit of time contemplating this. It is hard to balance because it allows strong damage spiking. Say you are a 5th Rogue - 1d8+3d6+4 on a Sneak Attack. This takes your expected 19 damage and makes it 30. So over a day you are gaining about 30 points. At 11th level you'd be maximising say 1d8+6d6+5, so taking an expected 31 and making it 49. Gaining about 60 points a day. A Fighter at 11th with Extra Attacks could be gaining say 70 a day. Maximising could be good, but once per short rest is too limiting. A possible issue is whether even a small damage buff here pushes GWM too far? That's part of why I think it should be once a turn.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but once per turn would be a 60% increase over average damage for this Rogue. That's huge. A +2 ASI, in comparison, is closer to 15% on average.

A maximized damage once per turn would be a boon for Rogues, but not so much for Fighters and other Extra Attackers.

Maximizing only base damage dice once per turn is a very large boost at low levels. For a Rogue, it doesn't even out to a +2 ASI until Sneak Attack is adding nearly 40 DPR. For a Fighter, it drops behind a +2 ASI after 3 attacks.

Based on your numbers from GWM, SS CEx: updated!, it looks like we want an increase of ~150 damage per day. If once per rest gives us ~70 for the Fighter, twice per rest gives ~140, which is very close. Would that be a reasonable change?

"Savage Attacker
- Twice per short rest you can maximize some of your damage. For the rest of your turn, all of your base weapon damage dice rolls are replaced with the maximum possible roll."

Sharpshooter - Hunter

Let Rangers keep Hunters Mark to themselves. They don't have much anyway.

Too true. That's why I let them beef it up with this feat. But I'm not tied to this idea at all.

Sharpshooter - Sniper

Narratively hard to understand.

I'm thinking of a sniper making a critical head shot. But in D&D, one shot kills are not (normally) a thing. But, an accurate shot could still debilitate an enemy, and exhaustion is a mechanism to do that.

This would, obviously, be a replacement for the -5/+10 mechanic. It could be a fun, unique way to influence combat, but it has to be appropriately balanced.

Skulker

I dislike giving away Expertise in Stealth! Makes the feat perversely not help the class it should help, and gives away that class' crown jewels to other classes. Holy overshadowing.

Right, which is why I changed it to advantage instead of Expertise. Advantage will still benefit Rogues.

Spell Sniper - v1

I dislike the "your choice" part. One reason is it makes the uber-abilities (Dexterity!) even more uber.

The choice is limited to Charisma, Intelligence, or Wisdom.

Spell Sniper - v2

I'm less and less liking giving characters fiat advantage/disadvantage the longer I play 5e.

Fair enough. Advantage is an easily found bonus in gameplay as it is, although rarely for spellcasters. This gives spellcasters a piece of the fun. For a price. (1 feat)

Cantrip Master

Evokers everywhere wonder why they suddenly feel less special? Also, non-scaling cantrips generally do not scale for a reason!

Less special? Perhaps. They already share this with Clerics, Draconic Sorcerers, and Warlocks (who have it way better). This gives Evokers an additional bonus, and so that can still keep ahead of unspecial cantrip casters. Note that it does not apply to Eldritch Blast.

So, they do not scale for a reason. What is that reason, exactly? Note that the damage scaling does not apply to something like Shillelagh when used with Extra Attack. Also note that the very few cantrips that have not scaled by default seem oddly lacking.

As to scaling non-damaging cantrips, why not make utility cantrips more useful? It gives spellcasters more to do than a single spell cast and possibly a damage roll, if they are creative. Other characters get to make multiple attacks and such on their turns already. Mostly this will improve fun and flavor rather than power.

Dabbler

The ability to deconstruct the classes is a balancing nightmare! Being able to surgically extract the crown jewels of multiple classes! You might say - well it's level 8 so few characters will have it - it breaks only those that do! Three exclamations marks worth of instinctive this is disgusting. There should be some kind of prize

Haha! Yeah, this is near impossible to balance. I focused on early game abilities to try to keep it in check. This would obviate some multiclassing, which could be good or bad. It does make sense for a Ranger to be able to dabble in other Ranger subclasses, for instance. And it some cross-class dabbling can make sense, too.

It is definitely important to limit it to single class features rather than everything an entire class offers. I don't think that this is necessarily overpowered (you are spending a feat to get a roughly feat-powered ability) but it is certainly unpredictable.

Favored Item

Make it a boon, not a feat, and let the DM award it when merited.

That's an option. I like the idea of a character choosing to be built around a favorite item though with out the DM's direct involvement.

Magic Manipulation

Change the save! Increase DC by 2! Bounded accuracy cries tears of blood.

Nonsense! Increasing DC was in both Theurgy and Lore Master UAs. It barely compares to all the attack bonuses every martial class gets. Changing the save is a Lore Master thing, too: it's not really that crazy, once per rest. Again, this is a full feat. And spellcasters don't have many feat options.

Magical Weapon

This feels like a concept for one of the basic features of a new archetype. Not a feat.

I could totally see that. I've thought about Pact of the Blade when reading over it. It's not OP for a feat though.

Trained

While I like that changing to giving advantage means it also boosts Bards and Rogues (who can add it to Expertise) I couldn't in clear conscience as a DM ever let my players get their hands on this feat!

Why is that, exactly? Do you really think skill advantage is that much of a game breaker that a play shouldn't be able to spend a feat to get it?

Weapon Master

Ditto, but twice as much.

This one I'm having more trouble balancing. My intent was to make something that could replace GWM and SS and apply to the player's chosen weapon path. The abilities presented are all carefully balanced to be approximately a +1 ASI in value, half a feat.

Cantrips

How about changing these. Keep them as actions. Keep them as Concentration. Let them run 2 rounds or until expended. I suggest that because I'm coming to understand this design space and we can't really let players have easy access to fiat advantage. Blade Ward is less of an issue of course.

I like the idea of extending True Strike to two rounds. That gives a little benefit. Even so, it probably is better to just attack twice in that case unless you are waiting for an enemy to come in range.

What if rather than give advantage, it only negated disadvantage?

"True Strike
Divination cantrip
Casting Time: 1 bonus action
Range: 30 feet
Components: S
Duration: Concentration, up to 2 rounds
You extend your hand and point a finger at a target in range. Your magic grants you a brief insight into the target’s defenses. Once before this spell ends, you may ignore disadvantage on one of your ability checks, attack rolls, or saving throws."

 

[Stalker0]

If I limit it to "base weapon damage", is once per short rest too weak?

I personally don't think so, but I'll let people check the math. What's cool about it is that it gives a very "THIS IS IT" moment in the combat. For example, a fighter would combine this with his action surge. A sword and board fighter might switch to a GW or even TWF for that round just to eek out more damage.

I'll have to weigh this one. A +2 Constitution ASI gives +1 HP per level, +1 Con saves, and other benefits (longer holding breath, +1 AC for some, etc). Tough (PHB) gives +2 HP, but not the rest. Durable is an underused feat. Tough didn't need a boost, but Durable didn't seem to fit anywhere else.

Is Durable of equal value to +1 Con saves and the other benefits? Is it equal to +1 HP per level? It certainly helps with healing.

The thing is...CON is very primarily about the HP. Yes there are other benefits, but the extra HP is the number 1 reason you want more con. And further, we should remember that ASI and feats aren't mutually exclusive. A person can get to a 20 con and then take toughness to get even more!

So with that in mind, I think you could rule 2 HP per level as +3 Con. Its not quite as strong as a full +4 Con...but its close. So the feat by ASI math is too strong.

You could then say 1 HP per level is effectively +1.5 Con. So then adding in the durable benefits should round it off to +2 Con, right in line with an ASI bump

 

[Stalker0]

Trained (replaces Heavily Armored, Lightly Armored, Linguist, Moderately Armored, Skilled, and Weapon Master)

I really like this feat. I love how flexible it is, and really helps to address some of the really weak aspects of some feats. The only thing I would remove is the Skill Advantage part.

That is the one thing that pushes the feat a bit too far. Some people may not care, others balk at it. I think getting advantage should remain the realm of specialized feats, instead of a general feat like this.

Ultimately I don't think the skill advantage is needed for this feat to be good. It works exactly as it needs to, allows a player a very custom, general feat that can let them fill in gaps in their character. Without that skill advantage, I think it is a wonderful feat...honestly my favorite of your custom bunch.

 

[ro]

I personally don't think so, but I'll let people check the math. What's cool about it is that it gives a very "THIS IS IT" moment in the combat. For example, a fighter would combine this with his action surge. A sword and board fighter might switch to a GW or even TWF for that round just to eek out more damage.

That's a winning idea right there!

The thing is...CON is very primarily about the HP. Yes there are other benefits, but the extra HP is the number 1 reason you want more con. And further, we should remember that ASI and feats aren't mutually exclusive. A person can get to a 20 con and then take toughness to get even more!

So with that in mind, I think you could rule 2 HP per level as +3 Con. Its not quite as strong as a full +4 Con...but its close. So the feat by ASI math is too strong.

You could then say 1 HP per level is effectively +1.5 Con. So then adding in the durable benefits should round it off to +2 Con, right in line with an ASI bump

In my opinion HP is less important than Con save bonuses for Concentration-favoring spellcasters, even while gaining HP is a very valuable thing. That +1 Con save easily outpaces the value of Durable.

 

[ro]

I really like this feat. I love how flexible it is, and really helps to address some of the really weak aspects of some feats. The only thing I would remove is the Skill Advantage part.

That is the one thing that pushes the feat a bit too far. Some people may not care, others balk at it. I think getting advantage should remain the realm of specialized feats, instead of a general feat like this.

Ultimately I don't think the skill advantage is needed for this feat to be good. It works exactly as it needs to, allows a player a very custom, general feat that can let them fill in gaps in their character. Without that skill advantage, I think it is a wonderful feat...honestly my favorite of your custom bunch.

Thanks! I will really think about that. I love the idea of a character having a way to get advantage or expertise if they really want it. Especially if the UA skill feats aren't available. I could add a limitation "You can gain advantage in at most two skills when you take this feat." or something similar. Would that be enough to keep it balanced? Maybe I should just get rid of the advantage part...

As [MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION] and I have debated elsewhere, I feel like characters should be able to excel at their niche skills. I don't think a Rogue or Bard should be strictly better than all Wizards at Arcana, for example. I'm ok with them being phenomenal at a whole bunch of skills, but being strictly the best at every skill they try seems out of place to me. That's why I favored giving access to advantage or expertise in this feat.

 

[Stalker0]

Athlete
You have undergone extensive physical training to gain the following benefits:
- You gain proficiency in the Athletics or Acrobatics skill.
- When you are prone, standing up uses only 5 feet of your movement.
- Climbing and swimming don’t cost you extra movement.
- You can make a running long jump or a running high jump after moving only 5 feet on foot, rather than 10 feet.
- You decrease the Strength requirements of heavy armor by 2.
- You suffer no penalty for being encumbered, and when you are heavily encumbered, you instead suffer the penalty of being encumbered.
- You can hold your breath for twice as long as normal.
- Once per day when you would gain a level of exhaustion, you may choose not to. You regain this ability after a long rest and ingesting some food and drink.

Thought I would take a try at tidying this feat up a bit. I also think some of the abilities are a little extraneous, so I tried to condense it a bit. I felt that the encumbrance stuff is already factored in to a +2 str, no need to add on to that in this feat.

Athlete
1) You gain proficiency in the Athletics or Acrobatics skill.
2) Climbing and Swimming do not require extra movement.
3) All of your jumps are running jumps. Standing from prone only requires 5 ft of movement.
4) When you would gain a level of exhaustion or suffer HP loss due to suffocation, you may choose not to. You regain this ability after a long rest.

 

[ad_hoc]

Your initial design goal of making feats better than a +2 ASI is flawed. Feats are only balanced by being narrower and slightly less powerful than an ASI. Otherwise feats should always be taken, and thus are not special.

Feats should be seldom taken because then characters that have them are special. The current problematic feats are ones that most characters take.