D&D 5E Moar Feats

[Agamon]

These feats rock! To hell with 3E/4E-style mechanical bonus feats.

You know, that dude with the sword might be saying that, too. Good call.

 

[Dausuul]

"The minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier."

By my reading, that means if you're rolling 1d6+5, the minimum you can get back is 10 (out of a roll that would normally yield 6-11). This seems the most logical reading of a somewhat poorly written feat.

However, a number of people seem to think this minimum value applies to the number shown on the die, rather than the total. In that case, I would argue you should be getting back 15! If you roll less than the minimum, the minimum replaces your roll, even if the roll is the highest number you could possibly have gotten on the die. Nowhere does it say that the minimum is capped by the size of the die you're rolling.

 

[Paraxis]

"The minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier."

By my reading, that means if you're rolling 1d6+5, the minimum you can get back is 10 (out of a roll that would normally yield 6-11). This seems the most logical reading of a somewhat poorly written feat.

That is my reading as well, and to be honest it is an ok feat but not that great. Hopefully the party cleric and potions of healing will be enough healing people don't think this is needed.

I hope the Elemental Adept feat has more to it, specifically treating monsters with immunity to your chosen element as if they had resistance or something like that. Nothing like being the fire elementalist and the DM throwing fire elementals at you, throwing darts at them isn't a very productive use of your round.

All in all from the feats we have seen I still think most characters are far better served by taking +2 to their primary ability score. Maybe some of the combat feats will be worth not immediately increasing strength or dexterity to 20 first.

I would never take dungeon delver, way to dependent on the number of traps put in the game by the DM so it is a mother may I like ability, and if you do take it I assume it will lead to just more traps or harder traps.

 

[Remathilis]

"The minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier."

By my reading, that means if you're rolling 1d6+5, the minimum you can get back is 10 (out of a roll that would normally yield 6-11). This seems the most logical reading of a somewhat poorly written feat.

However, a number of people seem to think this minimum value applies to the number shown on the die, rather than the total. In that case, I would argue you should be getting back 15! If you roll less than the minimum, the minimum replaces your roll, even if the roll is the highest number you could possibly have gotten on the die. Nowhere does it say that the minimum is capped by the size of the die you're rolling.

How I see it.

10-11 Con: 2-6 (due to min 2).
12-13 Con: 2-6 +1 (4-7)
14-15 Con: 4-6 +2 (6-8)
16-17 Con: 6 +3 (9)
18-19 Con: 6 +4 (10)
20 Con 6 +5 (11)

I really don't think Wizards intended wizards to heal over their HD with this feat (which is like saying: I rolled a 10 on a d6, plus con mod).

I imagine this one is already heading to the FAQ...

 

[Marshall]

"The minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier."

By my reading, that means if you're rolling 1d6+5, the minimum you can get back is 10 (out of a roll that would normally yield 6-11). This seems the most logical reading of a somewhat poorly written feat.

However, a number of people seem to think this minimum value applies to the number shown on the die, rather than the total. In that case, I would argue you should be getting back 15! If you roll less than the minimum, the minimum replaces your roll, even if the roll is the highest number you could possibly have gotten on the die. Nowhere does it say that the minimum is capped by the size of the die you're rolling.

Poorly worded is an understatement.... The way its written really means that ye ole 20 CON Wiz get 15HPs back per die. Natural Language FTW.

 

[Remathilis]

That is my reading as well, and to be honest it is an ok feat but not that great. Hopefully the party cleric and potions of healing will be enough healing people don't think this is needed.

Its a good feat for those looking for "low magic healing" solutions.

I hope the Elemental Adept feat has more to it, specifically treating monsters with immunity to your chosen element as if they had resistance or something like that. Nothing like being the fire elementalist and the DM throwing fire elementals at you, throwing darts at them isn't a very productive use of your round.

Any caster worth his salt knows never to put all your eggs in one basket. Even if you are a fire mage, a magic missile or extra shocking grasp should help against the fire elemental.

All in all from the feats we have seen I still think most characters are far better served by taking +2 to their primary ability score. Maybe some of the combat feats will be worth not immediately increasing strength or dexterity to 20 first.

Ain't it nice we have that option?

I would never take dungeon delver, way to dependent on the number of traps put in the game by the DM so it is a mother may I like ability, and if you do take it I assume it will lead to just more traps or harder traps.

I wager this feat might have some use in module play. Still, as a person who routinely played trapfinder in my group, I like the idea that every door or chest isn't a death sentence anymore. (Well, may not be a death sentence anymore).

Basically, they took out trapfinding/trap sense/trapspotter from 3e/Pathfinder and made them an optional feat. Take if you want, forget it if you don't. Options!

 

[fanboy2000]

Poorly worded is an understatement.... The way its written really means that ye ole 20 CON Wiz get 15HPs back per die. Natural Language FTW.

Not that it matters a whole lot. You're capped at maximum HP (which is explicitly stated), and you have to spend HD to recover. If a Wizard really wants to pump their CON to 20 and take durability, they deserve the extra healing.

 

[Dausuul]

That is my reading as well, and to be honest it is an ok feat but not that great. Hopefully the party cleric and potions of healing will be enough healing people don't think this is needed.

Like I said, the primary value of Durable is the Con bump. Remember that a 13 Con provides exactly the same benefit as a 12 Con; if you ended up with a 13 during character creation (either because you rolled stats or because you used point buy and had one left over) you have a stat point that's doing nothing for you. Durable changes that. You can gain the benefit of upping your Constitution, and trade that wasted stat point for a minor perk (in this case, improved hit point recovery).

I hope the Elemental Adept feat has more to it, specifically treating monsters with immunity to your chosen element as if they had resistance or something like that. Nothing like being the fire elementalist and the DM throwing fire elementals at you, throwing darts at them isn't a very productive use of your round.

I highly doubt it. I think what we're seeing is all there is to EA. I'm fine with that, but I really hope they scale back elemental immunities of monsters. The playtest was far too generous in this regard. Resistance is fine, but immunity should be granted only in cases where it just makes no sense for the creature to be damaged by whatever it is. Fire elementals need to be immune to fire damage, but fire giants don't. (Maybe nonmagical fire.)

 

[skotothalamos]

so if the Durable feat makes me resilient, what does the Resilient feat do? Does it make me more durable?

 

[Remathilis]

so if the Durable feat makes me resilient, what does the Resilient feat do? Does it make me more durable?

No. It makes you tough.