D&D 5E Feats Redux II

[CapnZapp]

I'm liking them. What I'd really like to do but don't have the time this moment is to think of common weapon wielder archetypes (sword + board, big axe, rapier & main gauche (dagger), net & trident, dagger thrower, 1H and hand free, light infantry, ranged+melee switching, etc.) including ones that aren't covered by 5e right now and look for where there'a a dearth or too much feat coverage.

That is true - but coming up with entirely new feats is really Wizards' job.

(And their effort so far was really poor - we don't want to be tied down to specific weapons, we want support for our chosen "mode" or style of fighting, just as you enumerate)

I'm not going to quote it, but I love what you did with Running. Crossbow Expert also packs a lot of goodness in a straightforward package.

Thanks. Can't take credit for Running though. That was suggested to me.

At one point the bottom talks about using your action to Dash, but everywhere else says bonus action to Dash. Not sure I'm following. Is this only usable for Rogues (+ Bard (Jester) and those with the Running feat?

Running is not a feat - it is a general rules change. Everybody gets to dash plus bonus dash, for "free"!

I have used a much more complicated rule to allow faster running. This is much simpler.

So when I talk of using your action, I specifically mean that unless you're a Rogue etc, you need to use your action to Dash in order to Charge (since using your action to Dash is your only way to use your bonus action to Dash, which is what triggering Charge).

But the end result is that everybody can take the Charger feat, and everybody can use it, thanks to the new Running rule.

Just as with the old feat, you don't automatically get to Attack + Charge (or Charge + Attack) but at least now it's possible (if you gain a bonus Dash somehow, like Rogues do).

I have two suggestions for Defensive Duelist, the first of which is just to call it Duelist since that seems to encompass it's larger role, the second is to change the first bullet point to:

• You gain a +1 bonus to AC provided you hold a light weapon or have a hand free.

This would open up some other classic archetypes as well as working well for casters.

Duelist exists already as a fighting style name. I really wanted to stick to either of the existing two feat names. I hope Defensive Duelist isn't THAT bad and that my players can get used to it - "oh yeah, whenever I play a dual wielder, Defensive Duelist is the feat for me".

As for the bullet point - you're probably right. I think I wrote it at a time when the phrase wasn't dependent on the overall condition (to wield a melee weapon in one hand and no shield).

I'm worried Savage Attacker is still too little for most except the paladin. Oh, and if it's ever used in a game that allows a finessable two-handed or versatile weapon (like the katana in the D&D Next playtest) it would become mandatory for rogue builds.

Me too. Not sure what to do about it.

At least it's easier to buff things than to nerf them. My biggest concern is when you lot tell me something is too good.

Feel free to explain mandatory katanas if you like

Finally, I'm not sure of the consistency of taking away a bonus to hit with Ranged Fighting style, and then giving a bigger bonus that also ensure SA with the new Sharpshooter feat. I know you want to detune ranged combat, but this seems like it Ranged now joins Protection as the "fighting styles that won't get taken". Perhaps if it was "+2 to hit whenever you have a penalty or disadvantage to a ranged attack". This way it can be used to partially offset cover, or partially offset long ranged, or poor visibility, still without giving a boost.

My other comment about Sharpshooter is that the penalty for long range is disadvantage, and it's just a bonus action to get advantage and offset that, so this does grant long ranges without penalty still, just at an additional cost (the bonus action) but with the additional bonus of an increased range. Not saying this is bad, just seeing if it's intended.

I'm sure plenty of people will dislike the new Archery Style. The alternative is to remove it entirely, however.

So let's not discuss it in terms of it being too weak. Let's discuss it in terms of how needlessly good it was before, and how ranged fighting is so damn good in 5E it certainly didn't need a super-generous general +2 to everything...!

That said - I'm open to new takes on Archery (and Protection) that makes them get taken. I just haven't spend much brain power on making sure Archers get stuff to take, since I have spent it on making sure Archers don't get the best stuff to take...

+2 to actual disadvantage... I guess I can do it. Minmaxers won't think of it as an improvement, though. Making attacks at actual disadvantage is something you never do.

I wanted Sharpshooter's benefits to still be linked to the name and theme. Out of all the variants this was the best, or least bad, in terms of concept as well as implementation.

The main benefit compared to old Sharpshooter's "ignore long range" is that short range remains better than long range. With the old feat, there was no reason to stick with short range, which made it outright broken for weapons like the hand crossbow - that effectively got its range increased from 30 to 120 ft. It was the unholy trifecta of not good enough rules; either that, or MMearls is a secret hand crossbow admirer, since SS+CE made it the best supreme weapon of all.

Sure long range goes from disadvantage to neutral, but the rules for disadvantage ensures you can never benefit from actual advantage there. I imagine minmaxers will stay at short range. Which I've doubled by the way, so there's that.

Thanks!

 

[CapnZapp]

It also means that you often don't actually get to apply your Fighting Style benefit: - this would be a better mechanic for a feat, which by their nature can get away with being verysituational. A Fighting Style ability should be something that consistently improves your preferred choice.

Well, sure, but at least I can keep the wording 95% the same

(Catering to archers isn't really a priority here. They should just be thankful they got to keep their Dex to damage... )

The wording of the last part here doesn't seem to change the Rapier plus Hand Crossbow archetype: You can still get the bonus attack when holding just a single hand crossbow, and it doesn't mention removing the free hand requirement to load the hand crossbow, only changes the action.

So you spotted that, eh!

Actually I saw it too. But then I went - does it matter?

Yes, you gain the benefit both when you wield Rapier plus Hand Crossbow, as well as when you wield Hand Crossbow plus Hand Crossbow... and when you wield only a Hand Crossbow.

In the last of those three cases, you can shoot twice with your single Hand Crossbow. All three cases are cool though, so...

I think the archetype is changed. Previously it didn't work, like at all. Now it does. The fact you can still use only the Hand Crossbow shouldn't make that less of an improvement, wouldn't you say?

(Also consider Rapier + Hand Crossbow makes you eligible for Defensive Duelist, which Hand Crossbow alone doesn't. You can use everything about DD except the point about TWF, but CE already gives you everything you need in that department)

Let's not forget about the biggest change, though: Crossbows remain loading weapons. So they can only ever shoot a single bolt per round (two with CE). If you're a fighter, you're still better off with hand weapon plus hand crossbow, since this lets you put your full Extra Attack to use on your hand weapon, and then fire off a bonus bolt each round just because it's so cool

Seems a little odd that you can't use that longsword to parry if you're holding it in both hands.
Or that you can parry a blow with a stick, but not a shield.
Mechanically, can't see too much of an issue, other than being superior defensively style to using a shield. Its just trying to visualise the concept seems counterintuitive to me.

You think?

If you hold your weapons in two hands, you have the damage feats to look forward to. At least with a versatile weapon, you could concievably take and use both offense and defense feats. (Not that you'd ever do it as a minmaxer)

Of course I see your point. But can you implement it without a lot of fussy language? (Perhaps it's easier to just create a new feat for the two-handed defensive style; Quarterstaff anyone?)

Probably worth specifying whether you're picking one of the weapon damage rolls, or adding them both together.

Aha, it wasn't clear enough? Sure.

(The answer is the second. The first is the original, crappy, PHB feat)

Designer blindness, I'm sure!

 

[CapnZapp]

Overall I like most of these tweaks to feats. I do feel that the power attack feature of great weapon master should probably be -proficiency to attack and +proficiency (or +2×Proficiency) to damage, as it is way too easy to cancel out disadvantage to make the feat a meaningful choice. The player should ideally not want to *always* use it.

Sorry but extensive playtest and analysis have made me convinced the old -5/+10 mechanism is all bad. And -prof/+profx2 is even worse (in that it's actually better than -5/+10)

As a minmaxer, disadvantage can be cancelled out - but it also makes actual advantage impossible. That's the real cost here.

As a designer, +prof is way better than +profx2 (or a static 10). At low levels it won't wreck verisimiltude - it only becomes significant at the levels where it no longer is such a big deal.

In fact, assuming my players calculate it's still worth taking, I don't expect them to take it until at level 12 at the earliest.

My only other gripe is the feat proposed for Metaphysics Adept. Like it or not, this feat should NOT exist. Wizards do not need access to metamagic and sorcerers already have a bit of an identity crisis on their hands. Metamagic is literally the only thing they have going for them as a unique feature, and while the proposed feat is admittedly weaker than it would be than the normal class features, it seriously threatens the class's "thing". A feat like this is only acceptable if one of two things is done alongside: 1) The sorcerer class is somehow altered/buffed or 2) Another feat equally desirable for sorcerers is created (i.e. outright additional spells known, and not in a magic initiate sort of way).

I hear you and I understand the thinking but I respectfully ask that we agree to disagree.

As I have said, I have given up on the Sorcerer, pretty much. And I don't think anyone should be forced into that class just to get hold of the fun that is metamagic. In fact, I consider making metamagic the unique schtick of sorcerers to be a horrible horrible design mistake. What I really want is for metamagic to be opened up to all (full) casters. (Or at least give it to Wizards and Psions!) This is just a small step on that path.

If it makes the players avoid the Sorcerer class, is that really such a bad thing. It really needs a complete redesign, since it really only "clicks" for characters with a Red Dragon daddy.


Thanks for your comments!

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay, so I sat down to take a look at your GWM changes. First, I need to establish a baseline: what's typically the highest and lowest AC you'll run into by level? This is very tough to define. The "baseline" ACs from the DMG define a 65% hit chance if someone starts with a 16 and ups their attack stat at 4 and 8. But, bounded accuracy means you can use low CR things for a long time. Levels generally limit how high of an AC you'll run into, though.

Your changes do something interesting, though, so you MIGHT be onto something. I've compared a super basic, no magic item, level 20 fighter's single attack at Str 20 vs. Str 18 and GWM with a great sword with Great Weapon Fighting. Yes, this is all currently stacked against GWM, because I've added the most to the base weapon without going into magic items.

Without advantage, the only time the Great Weapon Master is going to beat Str 20 is against ACs of 14 and lower. With advantage, you're better off at AC 16 and lower. The "standard" AC at this level is 19. Averaged across an AC window of 12 to 25, with the GWM only using the feat when it would increase their own damage (requiring perfect metagame knowledge, so this shouldn't happen in play too often), the GWM deals 0.5 less damage on average than the Str 20, and 0.01 more damage with advantage (advantage negated to standard).

But, this is with a +6 proficiency bonus. This collapses immediately with lower. At +6 proficiency, though, your GWM is nearly even with +1 to hit and damage, which is where I'd want it to be. It will be weaker, though, with magic items, as the disadvantage would be more and more painful when your base damage per hit is increased.

Rather than disadvantage/negating disadvantage paired with a scaling damage bonus, you either need disadvantage with a fixed damage bonus or a scaling attack penalty with a scaling attack bonus. I'll test out -Prof/+Prof. If your GWM is even with +1 to hit and damage, it's only half a feat, though.

Not a comment on your findings, but perhaps I can simplify thinsg for you by making an assumption.

If you assume noone will pick up this before level 12 (and 20 Strength), how does it fare then?

Furthermore, assume an actively optimizing party, where the fighter is constantly served advantage against his opponents for free.

That is, the feat in its best light: You lose advantage, but gain +4 to +6 dmg on every hit. Worth it?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Well, sure, but at least I can keep the wording 95% the same

(Catering to archers isn't really a priority here. They should just be thankful they got to keep their Dex to damage... )

It should still feel like a meaningful choice. Swapping it around with the last point of your sharpshooter feat would be better.
Or remove ranged weapons getting ability to damage as baseline, and make that the benefit of the Fighting style.

So you spotted that, eh!

Actually I saw it too. But then I went - does it matter?

Just checking, based on what you mentioned about it, that this functionality was intended.

You think?

If you hold your weapons in two hands, you have the damage feats to look forward to. At least with a versatile weapon, you could concievably take and use both offense and defense feats. (Not that you'd ever do it as a minmaxer)

Of course I see your point. But can you implement it without a lot of fussy language? (Perhaps it's easier to just create a new feat for the two-handed defensive style; Quarterstaff anyone?)

I'd suggest removing the "parry" capability from that feat and making it a separate feat. Or even a Fighting style.

I can't see a mechanical issue. Just the restrictions didn't seem to make sense from a "realism" point of view.

Aha, it wasn't clear enough? Sure.

(The answer is the second. The first is the original, crappy, PHB feat)

Designer blindness, I'm sure!

I couldn't remember whether the original feat was a reroll (in which case this new feat would still have been a buff to it.)
Its probably pretty clear if the reader didn't know what the original feat does, but I think most readers will, so making sure its clear couldn't hurt.

 

[CapnZapp]

It should still feel like a meaningful choice. Swapping it around with the last point of your sharpshooter feat would be better.
Or remove ranged weapons getting ability to damage as baseline, and make that the benefit of the Fighting style.
/QUOTE]
I'm fine just enforcing the rule as written that creatures grant cover to each other.

Not having a buff to ranged fire is fine with me.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

I can't see a mechanical issue. Just the restrictions didn't seem to make sense from a "realism" point of view.

I understand.

There's just too many factors playing a part here

Your criteria will have to be a luxury rather than an essential component in the light of this.

In other words, I dont oppose further development, but this is as far as I've come so far.



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Xeviat]

Not a comment on your findings, but perhaps I can simplify thinsg for you by making an assumption.

If you assume noone will pick up this before level 12 (and 20 Strength), how does it fare then?

Furthermore, assume an actively optimizing party, where the fighter is constantly served advantage against his opponents for free.

That is, the feat in its best light: You lose advantage, but gain +4 to +6 dmg on every hit. Worth it?

If you assume it's high level only, and you assume there are no other things for a Str focused character to spend their feats on, AND you don't care about it being balanced against +2 Con or Toughness ... at level 17 it's worth about +1 to hit and damage.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

... at level 17 it's worth about +1 to hit and damage.

Sorry, I don't understand how it can provide a bonus to hit.

It's really hard to read you as anything else than the feat being a total failure - a total bonus of +2 is hardly worth it compared to even a secondary ASI, or another feat.

So if that really is what you mean, feel free to say so I need accurate data to calibrate my designs.


Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[dave2008]

Thank you for contributing Capn - it is much appreciated.