D&D 5E The Big 5e Playtest Feat Thread

[FireLance]

The 5 PCs in the 5e playtest document gave us a look at 5 themes and 10 feats, specifically:

Guardian (Cleric of Moradin)
- Defender
- Hold the Line

Healer (Cleric of Pelor)
- Herbalism
- Healer's Touch

Slayer (Fighter)
- Reaper
- Cleave

Lurker (Rogue)
- Ambusher
- Skulker

Magic-User (Wizard)
- Arcane Dabbler
- Find Familiar

So, what are your first impressions of the themes and feats?

Are they at the right power level?

Are they flavorful enough?

Do they do what you think feats should be doing?

Which is your favorite theme or feat?

Any other likes or dislikes?

 

[CM]

The new feats are probably what I am most enthusiastic for in 5e so far. They all open up interesting new customizations without being terribly complicated. No evidence yet of any purely numerical-type feats. Many of them grant abilities similar to what is found in 4e class features or at-will attack powers (compare Reaper to the 4e reaping strike, or Hold the Line to 4e combat superiority).

They are quite powerful, many giving effects at-will that would be similar to a 4e encounter power or magic item daily. Healer's Touch with all-maximized-healing-all-the-time seems like it might be a little out of line, but I haven't seen it in play yet.

Can't wait to see more.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I really like the feats so far. The only ones I'm concerned about are Reaper (I'm not comfortable with always doing damage on a miss) and Healer's Touch (which maximizes ALL healing you do, even potions you make, for free).

 

[DogBackward]

As long as they keep it like this, it'll be great. Nothing but new abilities and new ways to use your abilities. Not a single +1 bonus in sight. I love that.

I will say that I'm not a fan of Healer's Touch. Not because it's a bad feat, but because it will lead to people once again deciding that they have to have a healer in the group. With normal style healing, it's not as big a deal. With no healer, you're losing something, but not too much. But with a healer that also heals the maximum amount all the time... that's just too enticing not to have. So I see it resulting in always having a dedicated healer with Healer's Touch, just because of how convenient it is. And that, I think, is bad for the game.

 

[FireLance]

I will say that I'm not a fan of Healer's Touch. Not because it's a bad feat, but because it will lead to people once again deciding that they have to have a healer in the group. With normal style healing, it's not as big a deal. With no healer, you're losing something, but not too much. But with a healer that also heals the maximum amount all the time... that's just too enticing not to have. So I see it resulting in always having a dedicated healer with Healer's Touch, just because of how convenient it is. And that, I think, is bad for the game.

One possibility could be for Healer's Touch to only grant advantage on hit point recovery rolls.

 

[DogBackward]

One possibility could be for Healer's Touch to only grant advantage on hit point recovery rolls.

Now that I can get behind. I've always been a big fan of roll and keep mechanics as opposed to bland numeric bonuses. Plus, it's not quite as amazing, so won't be an automatic must-have.

 

[Li Shenron]

I will say that I'm not a fan of Healer's Touch. Not because it's a bad feat, but because it will lead to people once again deciding that they have to have a healer in the group. With normal style healing, it's not as big a deal. With no healer, you're losing something, but not too much. But with a healer that also heals the maximum amount all the time... that's just too enticing not to have. So I see it resulting in always having a dedicated healer with Healer's Touch, just because of how convenient it is. And that, I think, is bad for the game.

Reasonable concern.

OTOH, maximized healing effectively means a little less than double healing. Clearly that's a very good benefit, but this is more or less what a party with two healers have, in which case nobody would complain. Or a party who buys a lot of healing potions. Also, if the DM just spaces the encounters with some idle days here and there, all that extra healing may not be necessary, while OTOH if the gaming group likes adventures with lots of fights one after the other then this special ability comes in handy.

What I mean is that, while I agree that if analyzed in terms of the single character taking this ability, it sounds too good, if you see it in terms of an ability of the whole party this ability can be anything from nice-but-not-needed-much to must-have, depending on how the DM dials the adventure's knobs of number and spacing of encounters.

 

[DogBackward]

Words.

It's not that I think the feat is too good, or too powerful. It's power level is actually rather decent, considering the way healing is handled. But there should never be an automatic "I must have this" ability for anybody. If you make a healer of any kind, you will be taking the Healer's Touch feat, because it's such an obvious choice for any healer.

It's not too powerful, but it's just good enough to be something that will always show up, no matter what game you're in, as long as there's a healer. And that's boring.

 

[Sanglorian]

The new feats are probably what I am most enthusiastic for in 5e so far. They all open up interesting new customizations without being terribly complicated. No evidence yet of any purely numerical-type feats. Many of them grant abilities similar to what is found in 4e class features or at-will attack powers (compare Reaper to the 4e reaping strike, or Hold the Line to 4e combat superiority).

I agree. The feats are simple, substantial and flavourful. Taking any one of them would be a meaningful change for your character—not a piffling +1 to attack or a +2 to two tenuously-linked skills.

 

[variant]

I hope they maintain this level with all the other feats.