D&D 5E Resilient Feat

[CapnZapp]

On the other hand, if I were running a high-level campaign where levels 16 and 19 were real actual things, and fighters and rogues had a good shot at getting a second bonus feat, I would lean toward disallowing it.

Except, of course, you don't have to disallow anything, since taking this feat twice is clearly not allowed in the first place.

Thank you for a clear analysis on why the rules don't allow it - it is (of course) because the rules are written with the assumption all twenty levels are going to be used.

(Before you react to this: consider the alternative. If the PHB were written under the assumption all twenty levels would NOT be reached, how ridiculous would that be?)

In practice, most campiagns don't use all levels, and you're right, many characters will only take one or two feats, tops.

So if we put this proposal "allow Resilient twice" on the spectrum of all possible houserules, then yes, it is probably on the "less harmful" end of the scale.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

To me using feats is the life-blood of 5E character customization, and throwing out all feats just because a few are in need of another round of balancing is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Do you really consider it to be meaningful customization if every sword-guy ends up with Strength 20, Great Weapon Master, Lucky, and Resilient? Or is it more meaningful customization if they only have Strength 20 in common, and then they're free to put points into Dex or Con or Wisdom?

That's what I'm getting at. It looks like feats give you more options, but since they only add a couple of meaningful feats per character and the feats completely replace your ability to boost non-primary stats, it actually gives you fewer real choices.

If you really wanted feats to be both included and meaningful, you should probably be looking to add some more feats to the ones in the book. Remember, everything you make up is entirely as legal as the stuff already written in the book. You're supposed to create your own feats, classes, races, etc.

Except, of course, you don't have to disallow anything, since taking this feat twice is clearly not allowed in the first place.

Taking feats at all is not explicitly allowed in the first place. Feats are an option that the DM can invoke, just like the DM is free to say that some feats are allowed or changed or whatever. Once you've taken the first step into allowing feats at all, it's not much further to start making up your own feats or changing the literal wording of the feat into something that makes more sense at your table.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

Do you really consider it to be meaningful customization if every sword-guy ends up with Strength 20, Great Weapon Master, Lucky, and Resilient? Or is it more meaningful customization if they only have Strength 20 in common, and then they're free to put points into Dex or Con or Wisdom?

I do, because some "sword guys" might instead go with Alert, Dual Wielder, and Defensive Duelist. Another might go Durable, Heavy Armor Master, and Savage attacker. Each build is equally viable, and even more exist. I think you are making some pretty big leaps in your assumption that particular feats are too good to not be picked.

I also think that you are forgetting that even after your main stat is maxed, it is still, in my experience, a difficult choice to decide if I wanna increase my Dex or Con, or go with a feat. This is especially true of classes such as the Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and College of Valor Bard, just to name a few where multiple ability scores are fairly important.

 

[mellored]

Each of those feats is extremely obvious to a particular type of character, which means they aren't a real choice, and their inclusion makes the game less interesting. A barbarian with a greatsword doesn't have a real choice between the Great Weapon Master feat and +2 Wisdom or +2 Dexterity, because the feat is obviously better.

Why is +2 Dex bad for a barbarian? That's +1 AC, intuitive, save, and skills.

And do you regularly play at level 19-20? They get 5 ABI, and assuming you start with 16 Str and 16 Con, you need 4 of them to max out. Meaning it's only a choice at level 19.


Most of the rest of the classes have a solid option of taking +2 Con that's pretty comparable to most feats.

i.e.
Wizard with 20 Int, 20 Dex, 18 Con isn't doing poorly.


IMO, the only feats that are clearly better then stats is inspiring leader and healer. Which is almost +2 con for the whole party.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I do, because some "sword guys" might instead go with Alert, Dual Wielder, and Defensive Duelist. Another might go Durable, Heavy Armor Master, and Savage attacker. Each build is equally viable, and even more exist. I think you are making some pretty big leaps in your assumption that particular feats are too good to not be picked.

I should have been more verbose, but I meant that anyone who uses a greatsword will greatly resemble anyone else of the same class who uses a greatsword; likewise with dual-wielders, shield-users, etc.

It looks like you have all of these choices, because you have a fighting style and all of these ability boosts to select, but realistically that's all locked into place as soon as you decide which weapon to use. If you choose to use a greatsword, then you no longer really have a choice of fighting style or which ability score to increase or which feats to take, because there are obvious correct choices which help you toward your goal of swinging a greatsword. At most, you might have a choice between two things, or you could choose which order to take the obvious feats, but it's still going to come out virtually identical to anyone else of the same class and concept.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I should have been more verbose, but I meant that anyone who uses a greatsword will greatly resemble anyone else of the same class who uses a greatsword; likewise with dual-wielders, shield-users, etc.

It looks like you have all of these choices, because you have a fighting style and all of these ability boosts to select, but realistically that's all locked into place as soon as you decide which weapon to use. If you choose to use a greatsword, then you no longer really have a choice of fighting style or which ability score to increase or which feats to take, because there are obvious correct choices which help you toward your goal of swinging a greatsword. At most, you might have a choice between two things, or you could choose which order to take the obvious feats, but it's still going to come out virtually identical to anyone else of the same class and concept.

Ok, I think I understand a bit better where you are coming from. But I think this is a feature, not a bug necessarily, of D&D (or any tabletop RPG that has structured rules). Any such game is going to reward players that optimize characters and punish those with sub-optimal builds. It's not something you can ever really be free of unless you go total freeform, at least from my perspective. This is why I operate in a way that rules and structure are informed by the role playing and story, rather than vice versa. This way, I find ways to reward players for their creativity and storytelling, rather than for choosing the best builds. If everyone is having fun and the feats add to that, then I see no harm. But if I see a player with a character that is struggling to keep up because of lame duck mechanics choices, I find it rather easy to build them up through story rewards and boons and such. This helps provide a model in my games to show that a character can find ways to improve other than picking the exact right feat or skill. They become less concerned with the "right" choice and more geared towards the "fun" choice.

 

[CapnZapp]

Do you really consider it to be meaningful customization if every sword-guy ends up with Strength 20, Great Weapon Master, Lucky, and Resilient? Or is it more meaningful customization if they only have Strength 20 in common, and then they're free to put points into Dex or Con or Wisdom?

That's what I'm getting at. It looks like feats give you more options, but since they only add a couple of meaningful feats per character and the feats completely replace your ability to boost non-primary stats, it actually gives you fewer real choices.

If you really wanted feats to be both included and meaningful, you should probably be looking to add some more feats to the ones in the book. Remember, everything you make up is entirely as legal as the stuff already written in the book. You're supposed to create your own feats, classes, races, etc.

Taking feats at all is not explicitly allowed in the first place. Feats are an option that the DM can invoke, just like the DM is free to say that some feats are allowed or changed or whatever. Once you've taken the first step into allowing feats at all, it's not much further to start making up your own feats or changing the literal wording of the feat into something that makes more sense at your table.

Sorry, but this feats or no feats discussion is not what I came here for.

 

[mellored]

It looks like you have all of these choices, because you have a fighting style and all of these ability boosts to select, but realistically that's all locked into place as soon as you decide which weapon to use. If you choose to use a greatsword, then you no longer really have a choice of fighting style or which ability score to increase or which feats to take, because there are obvious correct choices which help you toward your goal of swinging a greatsword. At most, you might have a choice between two things, or you could choose which order to take the obvious feats, but it's still going to come out virtually identical to anyone else of the same class and concept.

Greatsword would defiantly want 20 Str, but there's still plenty of other choices, like 20 Con, great weapon master, heavy armor mastery, lucky, resilient, alert, mobile, sentinel, skilled, mage slayer, or even ritual caster.

So... about 25% the feats are available to you. (and about 10% that no one should take).


Now, if you want to deal the most damage, yea, you've already made your choice.

 

[mellored]

Sorry, but this feats or no feats discussion is not what I came here for.

Back on topic, it isn't a problem to have resilient multiple times. It get's less powerful each time you take it.

You take the best one first, then the second best one.

 

[CapnZapp]

Back on topic, it isn't a problem to have resilient multiple times. It get's less powerful each time you take it.

You take the best one first, then the second best one.

Okay.

If you need my opinion, it's just a few posts back.