D&D (2024) So the Power Feats Got Nerfed!

[UngeheuerLich]

GWM+PAM+SENT+HAM combo


Assassin:
Elven accuracy or gunner + sharpshooter + piercer

half orc barbarian;
orcish fury + tanarukk blood + GWM

wannabe caster:
Magic initiate + telekinetic + telepathic + fey or shadow touched(or both)

leader/healing support

Inspiring leader + healer + chef(maybe)


not to mention if you want to take some feat that is not optimal for build... 0 room for that.

or just ban few feats from being 1st level:
GWM, PAM, HAM, SS, CE

rest are not really any problem.

Thanks for the elaboration.

Now I know what the difference between your assessment and mine is:
I don't consider half of those character concepts but specific builds.
The first one for example works fine at level 1 and becomes more powerful with each feat. The concept is realized at level 4 when you got polearm mastery or sentinel.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Long time ago I identified the 5 strongest feats in 5E imho. They were.

Sharpshooter
Great Weapon Master
Healer
Warcaster
Resilient: constitution

...

So was Zardy right or wrong?

OK

1. No one takes Healer. It's not broken - just situationally powerful but you scale out of it, like Heavy Armour Master. And rather than getting nerfed it got buffed in its common casual use case. People who are healers now get some benefit from it.
2. Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are, like XBE and PAM situationally powerful with the right combinations. It's just that their situations (accuracy buffs) are more common than XBE and PAM's (damage buffs); the Archery fighting style gives an accuracy buff as does the Barbarian's reckless attack or other sources of Advantage.
3. GWM possibly even got buffed overall and especially if you're discounting combos; +1 strength is a lot and 1/turn prof bonus damage is pretty good. Warcaster certainly did. (Meanwhile Resilient: Constitution remained unchanged)
4. Where's Lucky?

But ultimately it didn't take much insight to see that the overwhelming majority of feats simply did not meet the bar. What's changed in the playtest packet is that feats that no one took, like Charger, got buffed.

The thing I'm finding interesting is just how few feats there are for casters. It looks as if Martials are supposed to take combat feats and (beyond Warcaster or Spell Sniper for warlocks) casters are meant to take utility feats like the revamped Keen Mind and the barely changed Actor.

 

[Li Shenron]

What's wrong with the new version? It's +1d4 to a failed check, once per target per day, so for the average party a maximum of 4-5 uses per day rather than the original's constant spamming - and that's only if they're 'lucky' enough to have a check fail by only a narrow margin.

Ah, I didn't notice the daily limit and thought it was at will

 

[MarkB]

Ah, I didn't notice the daily limit and thought it was at will

Yeah, with that limit it's thoroughly reined in, but I'm not sure I'd actually choose it as a cantrip now.

 

[Amrûnril]

I'm with you on Sharpshooter and GWM, but I'm having trouble following you on the rest.

How does the Healer feat "break the early game" as you say? It lets you use a healer's kit to revive a dying creature, and lets you use a healer's kit to cure 1d6+4+Hit Dice to a creature once per long or short rest. That seems very underwhelming to me for a feat...most folks would choose Magic Initiate, Cleric, spare the dying + cure wounds.

The Concentration mechanic is balanced out by itself, not by combat damage. Only being able to concentrate on one thing at a time is a huge bottleneck to certain spellcasters and spell effects. And even if that weren't the case, War Caster merely grants Advantage on the roll--it doesn't prevent it from happening. (And not to belabor the point, but there are plenty of non-damaging ways to break someone's concentration, that War Caster won't prevent--sleep is the classic, but there are others. And for everything else, there's dispel magic.

I don't see how Resilient (Constitution) trivializes anything. You get proficiency with Constitution saving throws and a +1 to the stat. That's hardly a win-button against spell interruptions.

Definitely agree with regard to Healer and Resilient. As for War Caster, advantage on concentration checks isn't overpowered on its own, but combined with opening up a hand for a shield or two-weapon fighting and expanding opportunity attack options, it feels like a borderline feat-tax for a lot of character concepts.

It has been nerfed because WotC conjured up an idea of "1st level feat" ad those feats must be weaker than other for some unknown reason.
Healer was put in those categories in hope that someone would finally take that feat.

Looking at the two lists, I honestly can't tell whether or not the developers intended the level 1 and level 4 feats to have a power difference (aside from the ASIs, of course). If the lists remain as is, re-combining them is going to be an immediate house rule in my games.

1. No one takes Healer. It's not broken - just situationally powerful but you scale out of it, like Heavy Armour Master. And rather than getting nerfed it got buffed in its common casual use case. People who are healers now get some benefit from it.

I really don't understand the argument that characters with existing healing powers don't benefit from the 2014 Healer feat. Having multiple resource pools for healing and being able to strategically choose between them is a perfectly reasonable benefit to invest a feat in. And requiring hit dice expenditure is a massive nerf to the feat, regardless of who takes it.

 

[dave2008]

because why not?

Some people don't like feats ( not me).?

My questions was really why full feats as opposed to the lesser "1st level" feats proposed. Not why or why not feats. I realize that was not clear.

more seriously;
feats come too late and too few for character customization.

for many character ideas you need 3 featw. that's 12th level.
Oh wait, there is no 12th level, campaign ended 2 or 3 levels ago.

But some people don't want a full fledge character a creation. In fact, when we start we don't even use classes. We start at level 0 with just a background. So if you need more feats start at 4th level. You get a background feat + 1 more and you have your archtype too!

 

[Horwath]

Some people don't like feats ( not me).?

My questions was really why full feats as opposed to the lesser "1st level" feats proposed. Not why or why not feats. I realize that was not clear.

But some people don't want a full fledge character a creation. In fact, when we start we don't even use classes. We start at level 0 with just a background. So if you need more feats start at 4th level. You get a background feat + 1 more and you have your archtype too!

an idea for sure.

if subclasses are moved to 1st level, then a place opens for an extra feat at 3rd level for every class.

 

[Bill Zebub]

(Edited for excessive snark. Which leaves....nothing.)

 

[dave2008]

an idea for sure.

if subclasses are moved to 1st level, then a place opens for an extra feat at 3rd level for every class.

my preference would be:

level 1: background (with half feat)
level 2: class
level 3: subclass
level 4: feat
level 5: class feature

It let's you build you character through first 5 levels. So it you want all that from the get-go you just start at level 5. Then your likely to finish at level 15!

Alternately these could be levels 0, 1, 2, 3, & 4 respectively.

 

[Krachek]

Take your win, but we are at early stage of the playtest, -5/+10 may strike back!