D&D 5E Is it just me or does it look like we are getting the "must have feats" once again?

[doctorhook]

No character concept.

Just like other feats, this feat is designed to allow a PC to mechanically accomplish things that s/he could not do so without the feat. In this case, bypass resist x. No more, no less. Feats do not define character concepts. They define character abilities.

This is an attitude about feats that I had hoped 5E killed with extreme prejudice. 5E feats offer the potential to be rare, meaningful, character defining options. It really diminishes the possibilities for them when you reduce them to nothing but a mechanical bump.

For example, the Tough feat. The PC without the feat will typically not last as long in combat.

Thirteen pages, and apparently Tough is the first feat that fits the OP's description.

 

[Mistwell]

Thirteen pages, and apparently Tough is the first feat that fits the OP's description.

Does it? +2 HP/lev vs. +1 HP/lev and +1 on Con saves and +1 on Con ability checks (from +2 Con)? Let's say you're playing a spellcaster (the most likely type to want this feat). How often with +1 hp/lev difference come up vs. +1 on concentration saves from the ability boost instead?

I don't think it's must-have.

 

[KarinsDad]

If a character concept is modeled in game only by being inferior, then it's a clear message not to play the concept.

In 3e, for instance, you might want to play a Commoner, but the stats of that class make it very clear it's not suitable for an adventurer.

Yup.

In 5E, one could try to play a commoner. No matter which class the player takes, he doesn't wear armor, he doesn't cast spells, he doesn't use a shield.

He just fights with his club or dagger in combat. And is knocked out or killed a lot.

More to the point, D&D has a long tradition (and 5e has a real weakness for catering to tradition), of over-compensating specialists for real or imagined limitations or weaknesses.

The point is that the Elementalist is a totally fine concept to play in 5E without over compensating him. People seem to want more than the game system gives though.

Would an Elementalist not take Detect Magic because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Identify because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Dispel Magic because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Telekinesis because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Web because it is not a fire spell?
Would an Elementalist not take Haste because it is not a fire spell?

If a player decides to only cast fire spells and to not cast other spells that his PC took (or to take a lot of spells that have a low utility and are rarely used), that's not an indication that the basic character concept is not fine. It might indicate that the given player is a bit of a loon.

The game design is just fine.

 

[Dausuul]

Just like other feats, this feat is designed to allow a PC to mechanically accomplish things that s/he could not do so without the feat. In this case, bypass resist x. No more, no less. Feats do not define character concepts. They define character abilities.

Oh, come on. People object to the feat mechanics; you say the feat is fine as is, because it does what it's designed to do; you're asked what it's designed to do; and you regurgitate the feat mechanics!

By this metric, all feats are fine, because they all do what they're designed to do, because they all do what they do.

 

[KarinsDad]

Does it? +2 HP/lev vs. +1 HP/lev and +1 on Con saves and +1 on Con ability checks (from +2 Con)? Let's say you're playing a spellcaster (the most likely type to want this feat). How often with +1 hp/lev difference come up vs. +1 on concentration saves from the ability boost instead?

I don't think it's must-have.

We've (not necessarily you and I, but several people here) had this conversation before (in a very long thread). Tough is generally superior to +2 Con most of the time. I suspect that a lot of players will take it before taking +2 Con.

The +1 concentration check will matter 5% of the time when the spell caster is concentrating which will tend to be a bit rare in the first place. Concentration comes up for a few spells that require it and for when a caster is readying a spell. Typically rare events.

The +1 Con saves will probably matter more than the +1 concentration checks. And still, that's only 5% of the time for maybe 25% of creatures (and many spellcasters tend to hang back where neither is as important).


Tough is not a must have, but it's usually a lot better than +2 Con. Even for fighters. Damage is 100% of creatures. Con saves are maybe 25% of creatures and most of the real nasty ones are probably at higher levels.

 

[KarinsDad]

Oh, come on. People object to the feat mechanics; you say the feat is fine as is, because it does what it's designed to do; you're asked what it's designed to do; and you regurgitate the feat mechanics!

By this metric, all feats are fine, because they all do what they're designed to do, because they all do what they do.

This feat is not fine because it is a corner case.

But, feats do not define character concepts. Feats define a very very small subset of character abilities.


Saying that you cannot have a given character concept without a given feat is a bit disingenuous. There are usually more ways than one to skin a cat. A player could mutliclass to get some of the abilities he wants instead of using a feat. An elementalist could take Charm Monster in order to control elementals.

There are some specific feat abilities that can only be acquired via a feat, but that doesn't mean that they are character concept defining. Character concepts come from a lot more other aspects (race, traits, ability scores, class, background, roleplaying) than they do a feat or two.

 

[Obryn]

Me neither. There are feats that are very good for specific builds, but that's different. Alertness is very strong for assassins. Dual Wielding is essential for a two-weapon fighter who wants to keep up on damage past level 10. But the only feat I would consider a "must-have" is "+2 to your primary stat." That's the benchmark against which all feats must be measured, and it's a pretty high bar.

The feat that gives +1 to a stat and a save proficiency fits this bill, imo.

It's boring, but it's important.

 

[doctorhook]

Does it? +2 HP/lev vs. +1 HP/lev and +1 on Con saves and +1 on Con ability checks (from +2 Con)? Let's say you're playing a spellcaster (the most likely type to want this feat). How often with +1 hp/lev difference come up vs. +1 on concentration saves from the ability boost instead?

I don't think it's must-have.

To be fair, I was being sarcastic.

 

[Uchawi]

I see it more as the martial "must have" feat and the caster "nice to have" feat deja vous from previous editions.

 

[Dausuul]

I see it more as the martial "must have" feat and the caster "nice to have" feat deja vous from previous editions.

I don't really see it as either. Let's say you're playing the classic greatsword fighter, using point buy. Are you going to take Toughness over +2 Strength, Great Weapon Fighting, Resilience, or Heavy Armor Mastery? Those are all really good options. Don't get me wrong, Toughness is a solid feat and stands on a level with the rest. But it doesn't stand above them IMO. I could easily justify taking any of the above.