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

[Li Shenron]

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.

Yes, it's a risk.

What I meant to say is, that while I can definitely see everyone wanting to play a healer looking at that feat and think "it's a must-have for me", then after playing the game for a while it might turn out that you really didn't need it if the campaign is not particularly deadly and fast-paced, because the normal healing capabilities + the short/long rest rules already suffice.

IMXP the "must-have" abilities tend to be more under the attention of gamers who spend most of their time building characters rather than playing the game.

 

[steeldragons]

Question: Was there any mention in the test rules about the application of these Themes?

In other words, I'm wondering it was stipulated if "Magic-user", for example, was a Wizard/mage Theme or just a theme anyone could take?

I could see easily swappable options between the cleric's Guardian or the rogue's Lurker and the fighter's Slayer being all relatively interchangable among those classes...but could a Fighter take the Magic-User theme? Might we begin seeing sword-slashing warriors with at-will cantrips and ferret familiars on their shoulder? Or Wizard Lurkers or Rogue Healers?

I'm not 100% on how I feel about that or if I prefer the idea that each Class has an few Themes that are theirs alone with a separate list of "General" Themes that any class could take....or just Class specific Themes and that's it (no General oones).

I'm kinda envisioning enjoying the flavor of potentially mixing them up/anything goes Theme wise...but then, on the other hand, I know I'll run into "that doesn't make sense for the game world/setting" PCs that players think are great/cool/awesome/badass combos.

A modular option perhaps? Or just stipulated in the DMG or somewhere that swapping them could be allowed/houseruled...but that issues may arise?

I dunno.

But I am REALLY LOVING what I'm seeing thus far, Theme[feat]-wise. I think 2 feats per Theme is Goldilocks for me. Not too much. Not too little. Not too powerful. Not too useless.
[EDIT: Forgot the most important part (for me), TONS OF FLAVOR!...without being bogged down in +this, -that, X condition, 20 square burst, or any of the morass of crunchy fiddliness of Feats of the past.]
--SD

 

[variant]

Question: Was there any mention in the test rules about the application of these Themes?

In other words, I'm wondering it was stipulated if "Magic-user", for example, was a Wizard/mage Theme or just a theme anyone could take?

None, but we know from a tweet Mike Mearls sent that some themes will have restrictions, the Necromancer being restricted to arcane and divine casters is one of them. We also know there won't be any class restrictions to them from another tweet.

 

[steeldragons]

None, but we know from a tweet Mike Mearls sent that some themes will have restrictions, the Necromancer being restricted to arcane and divine casters is one of them. We also know there won't be any class restrictions to them from another tweet.

Gotcha. Thanks.

Hmm...well, guess I just have to be ready for the big ole DM's N-word, "NO!"

When that player is making the case that his Paladin is [kinda] a divine caster so he wants the Necromancer Theme...Uhhhh...or the Rogue wants to take Berserker. "I'm"raging" on my attack, and now I'm gonna go hide"... uhhhh...or what have you. (I'm sure there will be MUCH more ridiculous combos [to my world/game internal consistency. Other tables/settings will vary, of course] than that to show up in the offing.

 

[Li Shenron]

Question: Was there any mention in the test rules about the application of these Themes?

In other words, I'm wondering it was stipulated if "Magic-user", for example, was a Wizard/mage Theme or just a theme anyone could take?

(...)

...but could a Fighter take the Magic-User theme? Might we begin seeing sword-slashing warriors with at-will cantrips and ferret familiars on their shoulder? Or Wizard Lurkers or Rogue Healers?

Absolutely utterly yes!

Read the description of the current Wizard theme... of course it talks about "additional cantrips" but the rest of the description (and even the feat name) tells me that in fact this theme is more intended for non-Wizards to learn a couple of cantrips rather than for a Wizard who between regular cantrips and spells has less need for 2 more of them!

Then of course, some gaming groups may seriously dislike having this theme available for non-Wizards... but the truth is, it works a little like taking "half a level" (or even less) in the Wizard class.

EDIT: I forgot about the Find Familiar feat at 3rd level (in fact, I wasn't sure it came from class or theme), so if it comes from the theme then what I wrote above is valid for the first feat of the theme rather than the theme as a whole

 

[FireLance]

I think 2 feats per Theme is Goldilocks for me. Not too much. Not too little.

I suspect we're currently only seeing two feats per theme because the playtest caps at 3rd level. I'm quite confident that a theme will have more than two feats, but exactly how many more is a big question mark.

 

[FireLance]

Hmm...well, guess I just have to be ready for the big ole DM's N-word, "NO!"

When that player is making the case that his Paladin is [kinda] a divine caster so he wants the Necromancer Theme...Uhhhh...or the Rogue wants to take Berserker. "I'm"raging" on my attack, and now I'm gonna go hide"... uhhhh...or what have you. (I'm sure there will be MUCH more ridiculous combos [to my world/game internal consistency. Other tables/settings will vary, of course] than that to show up in the offing.

In the interest of modularity, I hope 5e clearly distinguishes between mechanical restrictions, which are there to prevent characters from breaking the game, and flavor restrictions, which are there to support a specific game or campaign style, but which will not create mechanical problems if they are ignored.

So, I might not want paladin necromancers in my game, but unless it creates mechanical problems, I'd rather 5e call it out as a flavor restriction so that others can have them in their games if they want.

 

[Sanglorian]

So, I might not want paladin necromancers in my game, but unless it creates mechanical problems, I'd rather 5e call it out as a flavor restriction so that others can have them in their games if they want.

It also depends on how flexible the themes are. A paladin who talks to the souls of the dead and summons up the spirits of those who were wronged by evil sounds like a great application of the Necromancer theme!

I suspect we're currently only seeing two feats per theme because the playtest caps at 3rd level. I'm quite confident that a theme will have more than two feats, but exactly how many more is a big question mark.

My money's on 5-level themes, with three feats. That seems like a nice point to be considering a prestige theme or picking up another basic theme.

 

[steeldragons]

In the interest of modularity, I hope 5e clearly distinguishes between mechanical restrictions, which are there to prevent characters from breaking the game, and flavor restrictions, which are there to support a specific game or campaign style, but which will not create mechanical problems if they are ignored.

So, I might not want paladin necromancers in my game, but unless it creates mechanical problems, I'd rather 5e call it out as a flavor restriction so that others can have them in their games if they want.

Oh sure, yeah! I'm not looking to dictate anyone else's games/options.

(In fact since posting that/totally making it up off the cuff, my mind is actually percolating the idea of a paladin necromancer [or fallen/anti-paladin necro] who would make an awesome character for a pre-undead "Death Knight"...or someone looking to become one...)

But I agree, that there's a definite difference between mechanical "breaking" restrictions and flavor ones...since the game, to a certain extent, ought not dictate toooo much flavor, I don't know if we should expect any more than them to call out the mechanical no-no's (and I hope they would).

Of course anything they place a restriction on, there will always be players who say "That's stupid! Why can't I do that! I wanna play that Warlock with the Barbarian background so I can cast my curses while raging through a battle axe and the Dragon-podiatrist Theme for extra spontaneous nail-clipping and bunyon immunity!Why can't I combine these for a +42 attack bonus and immunity to everything?! They're ruining the game for me! wah wah yada yada wah." [often simply because it is restricted and the umpteen options already provided for them don't make them pretty-special-snowflake-enough. ] And there will be DMs who allow it. If that makes things "fun" for them, then bully.

But, yeah, I do hope the game will call out things as "may present a broken mechanic/be overpowered" or something, at least...and certain theme restrictions (like the Necro for arcane/divine casters only) that make sense.

--SD

 

[Gold Roger]

I like the new feats. They really change the way a character plays and empower the role themes play through that.

Themes are, with backgrounds, one of the most exiting parts of DDN for me. It allows for great customizability without having to go through huge feat lists and jumping through hoops to get close to a concept. That's a huge boon for casual players and for me as a DM.

Now, I know players that love to choose every single feat and detail about their character. If wotc stays true to their word, I can sit down with such players and hammer out custom themes. Everybody (at my table) wins.

While obviously, everything we know and hear can change and already might have, at some (recent) point mearls talked of putting rules and suggesting into the basic rules for changing theme availability by class from campaign to campaign.

Considering we know that the game is being build, so you:

-Can play without themes and feats

-Can play without themes and freely chosen feats

-Can play with only the default themes for every class (so every lvl1 rogue is a lurker)

The options to:

-play with themes allowed depending on class and campaign on a case by case basis shouldn't be a stretch

Now, even if the core game says "the DM decides wether and what themes are available", there's always going to be players that'll whine that they can't play their Gythianki custom-casanova-background diabolist paladin. In that case, playstyle incompability might just be to much.