• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Legends & Lore: A Bit More on Feats

Legends & Lore
A Bit More on Feats

By Mike Mearls

Mike provides you with an update about feats in D&D Next this week. Take a peek at what he reveals—and feel free to take up the discussion with Mike over on Twitter this time around.

What are your thoughts?

dnd_4ll_20130715_pic2_en.jpg
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I like the direction with meatier feats as an alternative to abilities improvement. Also like the variance between +2 bonus to one ability or a +1 bonus to two different abilities.
 
Last edited:


If they can make all feats that powerful, it might work out. Can't say if it's properly balanced, but they are certainly interesting and "worth" taking.
 

The previous article on feats a couple of months ago seemed very promising, but today's article felt to me like a let down.

I thought they wanted to get rid of "feats granting fiddly bits", but these examples show that right now the only alternative they have in mind is mega-feats granting fiddly bits in triple amount.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought that was one of the main reasons why some people don't like feats. OTOH for those who did like 3ed feats, these mega-feats just mean that you have much less customization available than before. As Mearls admit, now essentially you are picking a whole specialization, but you cannot break it down into smaller blocks.

Furthermore, I am starting to hate the ability stats bloat with a passion. I want to get rid of it altogether.
 

I thought they wanted to get rid of "feats granting fiddly bits", but these examples show that right now the only alternative they have in mind is mega-feats granting fiddly bits in triple amount.

This is my big concern. I hope the feats aren't quite so fiddly in their final form as the ones shown here. I can see the 'reduce to 0' thing being forgotten on a regular basis. The 'take -5 deal double damage' I don't mind, since it's a choice a player has. But things that trigger and must be remembered should go away...
 

This is my big concern. I hope the feats aren't quite so fiddly in their final form as the ones shown here. I can see the 'reduce to 0' thing being forgotten on a regular basis. The 'take -5 deal double damage' I don't mind, since it's a choice a player has. But things that trigger and must be remembered should go away...

Agreed. Ideally a feat should have one good static ability, one good activated ability, and zero triggered abilities. So instead of having that trigger, the feat should allow maybe an attack at two targets at once at a -2 penalty or something like that.

I also don't like that the reliance on ability scores seems to be creeping back. Get rid of Con bonus to DR thing and either make it based on level, or on AC, or static number.

Heavy Armor Master
Prerequisite: Proficiency with medium armor
Benefits:
1. You have proficiency with heavy armor. If you were already proficient with heavy armor before taking this feat, instead you can ignore up to 2 points of check penalties a heavy armor you wear induces.
2. When you are wearing heavy armor, you have a +1 bonus to AC, and you reduce all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage you take by an amount equal to the AC bonus granted by your armor.

Great Weapon Master
Prerequisite: Proficiency with simple weapons?
Benefits:
1. You gain proficiency in heavy martial weapons. If you were already proficient with heavy martial weapons before taking this feat, instead you deal extra damage equal to your class attack bonus with heavy martial weapons.
2. When you make a melee attack with a weapon, you can take any penalty to the attack roll. If you do, for each point of penalty you either deal +2 damage with that attack or you attack one additional target that's within range (regardless of number of targets you still make one attack with a single attack roll).
 
Last edited:

I'm firstly pleased that they realised the trouble with giving only +1 to an ability - the +2 or +1/+1 is definitely better. Having said that, I now fear that ability scores already start much, much too high. If you use the standard array with a 15, and get race and classes bonuses to it, then take your first feat, you're already at 19. Not much further you can go with that. I would suggest that it would be a good time to get rid of the class bonus, and maybe even racial bonuses, provided they can differentiate them sufficiently with other features.

As for the feats themselves, it's good that they are so meaty. I'm really not sure about -5 to hit to double damage (which damage is doubled for starters). Shouldn't this, and the cleave effect only work with martial heavy weapons? I'm inspired anyway, because it means you can have a feat to differentiate weapons and fighting styles - this is clearly about hitting things hard and cleaving. The finesse weapon feat might grant a parry and a precise strike for more damage. The dagger feat might allow you to throw them and attack in melee in the same action, and improve their critical damage. You get the idea. The armor feat seems fine, and I have no problem with ability-dependence. I don't see the point in abilities if they aren't connected to lots of different things for characters of all types.
 

I really like where they are going with the feats.

The feats may be a bit more complex than in 3e, since they add several feats into one, but I am guessing the optimal way of doing it will be to do a 50/50 split between feats and ability gains, so you end up with fewer, but more powerful feats. I hope they manage to create feats that are more even in power than the 3e feats.
 

I don't like "Power Attack" style abilities. They make only limited sense within the fiction - given that the action economy and attack roll is all abstract anyway, any successful hit can be narrated as a wild, powerful blow; and any miss can be narrated as a wild swing that went ride. And worse, they are maths traps: the point of the ability is to increase your PC's DPR, but whether or not they actually do that is highly sensitive to your initial chance to hit (as determined by your attack bonus and the AC you are aiming for).
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top