D&D (2024) Playtest 6: Feats

[Horwath]

Horrible addition.

1: Fighting style feats:

Who will ever take those feats as full feats?

Now they are gated by having a fighting style already, so I do not see and martial giving up +2 to their primary(or secondary) for a redundant/backup fighting style.

Even the "overpowered" Archery style is not worth giving up +2 DEX.

I.E.
5th level character with extra attack.

with 18 in your attack stat(dex) you are expected to have 60% hit rate on average.

without +2 dex and with Fighting style you have 65% chance as your dex is 16/17, same as at 1st level.

now you have 2 attacks with 1d8+3, 60%hit, 5% crit: that is on average 10,2 damage per round

with 18 dex and no Archery you get on average 10,65 damage per round.

That means that you lose DPR when taking this feat instead of +2 dex. Not to mention other benefits of DEX(or other abilities) outside of just attacking.

This feat should be a half-feat, and even then it would be a wash if it's worth it. Sure 4th level with 17 stat so you can patch up that "17" is nice, but if you have your primary Fighting style, how bad do you need a second one?

And it should be available to all.


2: Ability score improvement.

now we have option to raise our ability to 22 at 19th level.
Or better said, now you lose an option, because anything except raising your primary stat to 22 is a trap option.
They have just taken away Epic Boon from 20th level and showed it down our throats at 19th level ASI "option".

How about a reverse?
We cap abilities at 18 and in next MM rework numbers from CR8 forward with that in mind.

This would leave room for more feats and raising secondary abilities.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I think the gating behind fighting style seems to indicate, that the class groups will not be explicitely named in the new playtest any longer. It will be left as a design guide with no mechanical impact. And I tend to agree here. Having paladin as priest instead of warrior and ranger as expert seemed a bit off.

It felt like filling a grid.

 

[Scott Christian]

2: Ability score improvement.

now we have option to raise our ability to 22 at 19th level.
Or better said, now you lose an option, because anything except raising your primary stat to 22 is a trap option.
They have just taken away Epic Boon from 20th level and showed it down our throats at 19th level ASI "option".

How about a reverse?
We cap abilities at 18 and in next MM rework numbers from CR8 forward with that in mind.

This would leave room for more feats and raising secondary abilities.

This is not a bad idea, but it will never happen.

People have tasted 20 and now they want 22. It's that simple. You could have the best idea on earth, but eventually what your idea will become is, "Let me get to 22 and have 'more feats and raising secondary abilities.'"

 

[DEFCON 1]

WotC believes (and I agree) that a player not optimizing their PC to numeric superiority (and anything below that being considered a "trap") to be a playstyle antithetical to most tables of Dungeons & Dragons.

If a specific player thinks "Oh, well now I HAVE to raise my primary score to it's max as soon as possible, including getting to 22... and thus all my options for 'fun feat options' are out the window"... that's their choice, but not one that most other players share, nor one that WotC needs to make default.

Maxing out your primary stat to 20 ASAP (and then 22 when it becomes available) is not required by the game in any sense... so if (general) you do that... then THAT is your 'fun feat option'. For (general) you... you find getting maxed out to be the most enjoyable way to play D&D, so there's no reason to bother giving you both.

And if by some chance (general) you happen to play at a table with a deadly DM such that getting maxed out in your primary stat IS almost a requirement and not really "fun" at all because that DM kicks the party's rear end with overpowered enemies... then that's your table's issue, and not a problem with the game on the whole. And WotC need not change their numbers in order to make (general) your life easier.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Yes, the only practical way to get fighting styles is a one-level dip into Fighter. They should not be in the feats section.

But, they are in the feats section purely because otherwise they would've had to dedicate a single page somewhere else to this warrior-specific feature, and who has space for that, they have 500 pages of spells to print.

 

[Horwath]

This is not a bad idea, but it will never happen.

People have tasted 20 and now they want 22. It's that simple. You could have the best idea on earth, but eventually what your idea will become is, "Let me get to 22 and have 'more feats and raising secondary abilities.'"

comparing to 3,5e and 4e, 20 is low. 8th level in 3.5e, on most characters, your primary was 22, maybe 24 if you had money for items.

If people accepted hard cap of 20(most of the time) they will not have problem with 18.

in 3.5 i had 16th level wizard with 28 Int, comparing to him, my 11th level wizard in 5e with 20 Int is a dumbass.

 

[Yaarel]

Wait. Are the level 0 background feats no longer existing?

 

[Emberashh]

Id argue the decision in the long long ago to tie feats and ASIs together was a bigtime overreaction. Feats aren't that good.

Partial ASIs are an okay compromise if we really must insist on throwing a badwrongfun on there, but frankly just let people have both.

More diversity of builds and people can engage more with that part of the game. Surely there'd be things thatd make for stress-inducing combos, but those are much more easily fixed than trying to thread the needle with badwrongfun.

 

[Amrûnril]

Now they are gated by having a fighting style already, so I do not see and martial giving up +2 to their primary(or secondary) for a redundant/backup fighting style.

This is the most perplexing part to me. As I see it, one of the main points of feats is to provide customization options that don't have to conform to a character's class. What would be the issue with allowing War Clerics, Blade Pact Warlocks, and the like to invest a feat in improving their martial abilities?

 

[TwoSix]

WotC believes (and I agree) that a player not optimizing their PC to numeric superiority (and anything below that being considered a "trap") to be a playstyle antithetical to most tables of Dungeons & Dragons.

I agree that pursuing max 20s isn't really that big of a deal, but I don't see the benefit to the game in leaving that option in the game at all. Why create a tension between pursuing mathematical effectiveness and choosing fun feats to develop your character when it isn't necessary?

Either cap stats to 18, or raise the values of the starting array/point buy, or make ASIs so they can't bump a stat by 2 (either get rid of it or make it give 2 +1s.)