D&D 5E 2016 Feats Review

[CapnZapp]

As an optimizer, the Magic Initiate feat has some uses. It can put Shillelagh or Booming Blade onto a Cleric, or put Booming Blade on a Rogue, without multiclassing and as a variant Human at level 1.

True. Note how the feat's total grade is blue+blue+purple equals >black

 

[MonkeyWrench]

I think you should reconsider Spell Sniper's design grade. If ignoring cover for SS is bad for the game, then surely the same can be said for ignoring cover with ranged attack spells. The range boost also works a little too well with the Warlock's Eldritch Blast-boosting invocations.

 

[CapnZapp]

Spell Sniper
double range on attack spells, ignore cover, cantrip
Design: Doubling the range is very generous, but in principle this is better than "negate range penalty" (as for Sharpshooter). Gaining a cantrip is a bit strange - this doesn't benefit those most likely to pick this, since they already have the cantrip they want to use! Not seeing the clear design concept here...
Fun: Okay
Power: Not sure this is good enough. You already have good range on most cantrips, and there simply aren't enough good regular spells with attack rolls. Since none of my players have shown any interest in this, I'm tentatively grading this purple. Feel free to convince me it's better than this, though!

I think you should reconsider Spell Sniper's design grade. If ignoring cover for SS is bad for the game, then surely the same can be said for ignoring cover with ranged attack spells. The range boost also works a little too well with the Warlock's Eldritch Blast-boosting invocations.

I agree cover-negation is bad. But what I perhaps haven't said as many times is that it also kind of doesn't matter. Since 5E allows you to move freely both before and after making an attack, the practical effect is that anything short of total cover plays a rather small role in the game.

Move out of cover, attack, move back into cover (total cover) doesn't cost you more than a few squares of movement. And moving completely out of line of effect is so much more secure - chiefly because it protects you against many more spells than merely ranged spell attacks.

So while I can certainly see exceptions (open grassy fields with just patches of vegetation and low boulders granting half cover), in my experience cover-negation - while bad when it happens - is rathermore a theoretical objection, an objection of principle.

In blunter terms: the cheese of cover-negation is drenched by the cheese of peek-a-boo tactics, I'm afraid.

As for the range: I really have never come across a combat where the 300 feet range of Eldritch Spear hasn't been enough. Sure 600 feet range makes you into a true sniper, but again I haven't had the experience that suggests there's real power in this.

There are plenty of spells that would stand to gain substantially from a doubled range. Alas, almost all of those I can think of are spells with saves rather than ranged attacks...

Feel free to respond if you think I have misunderstood something

 

[MonkeyWrench]

I agree cover-negation is bad. But what I perhaps haven't said as many times is that it also kind of doesn't matter. Since 5E allows you to move freely both before and after making an attack, the practical effect is that anything short of total cover plays a rather small role in the game.

Move out of cover, attack, move back into cover (total cover) doesn't cost you more than a few squares of movement. And moving completely out of line of effect is so much more secure - chiefly because it protects you against many more spells than merely ranged spell attacks.

So while I can certainly see exceptions (open grassy fields with just patches of vegetation and low boulders granting half cover), in my experience cover-negation - while bad when it happens - is rathermore a theoretical objection, an objection of principle.

In blunter terms: the cheese of cover-negation is drenched by the cheese of peek-a-boo tactics, I'm afraid.

As for the range: I really have never come across a combat where the 300 feet range of Eldritch Spear hasn't been enough. Sure 600 feet range makes you into a true sniper, but again I haven't had the experience that suggests there's real power in this.

There are plenty of spells that would stand to gain substantially from a doubled range. Alas, almost all of those I can think of are spells with saves rather than ranged attacks...

Feel free to respond if you think I have misunderstood something

Definitely agree about total cover being the only practical cover needed so long as you can move.

As for Eldritch Spear shenanigans, I've only personally witnessed it a handful of times in my games, but when I did it caught me off guard. First time was when I foolishly had two dragons swoop in on the party from above and the party's Eldritch Spear/Spell Sniper Warlock and Sharpshooting Hunter/Assassin made short work of one dragon from ranges at 600+ feet. I never had a dragon attack after that that didn't have some means of generating its own cover.

Perhaps it's that experience that colored my reaction.

 

[koga305]

Definitely agree about total cover being the only practical cover needed so long as you can move.

As for Eldritch Spear shenanigans, I've only personally witnessed it a handful of times in my games, but when I did it caught me off guard. First time was when I foolishly had two dragons swoop in on the party from above and the party's Eldritch Spear/Spell Sniper Warlock and Sharpshooting Hunter/Assassin made short work of one dragon from ranges at 600+ feet. I never had a dragon attack after that that didn't have some means of generating its own cover.

aPerhaps it's that experience that colored my reaction.

That totally happened to me the other day! The party (and a legion of allied soldiers) was fighting an army of undead directed by two dragons, watching the battle from above and preparing to intercede in a critical moment. They (and I) thought they'd be reasonably safe at a ~250 ft altitude. But noooooo, our Paladin/Warlock with Eldrich Spear decides to take some potshots. At this point they flew up higher... and he Dimention Doored onto one of their backs. Which was pretty neat, I guess.

 

[Leatherhead]

So while I can certainly see exceptions (open grassy fields with just patches of vegetation and low boulders granting half cover), in my experience cover-negation - while bad when it happens - is rathermore a theoretical objection, an objection of principle.

But you are forgetting other creatures provide cover.

A target with half cover has a +2 bonus to AC and Dexterity saving throws. A target has half cover if an obstacle blocks at least half of its body. The obstacle might be a low wall, a large piece of furniture, a narrow tree trunk, or a creature, whether that creature is an enemy or a friend

This is kind of a big deal, because it helps melee combatants, who aren't nearly as free to move about as ranged combatants are.

 

[CapnZapp]

So here is my 2 cents;

Sorry for not getting back to you on this.

I realize just discussing my own suggestions takes all my time.

Can I suggest you start your own thread to gain the visibility your efforts deserve?

 

[CapnZapp]

But you are forgetting other creatures provide cover.

Sorry I still don't see less-than-total-cover playing a large role. At least not in my campaigns.

If you're ranged, and you somehow haven't taken the feat that negates cover, you'll simply shoot at the one without cover. (No matter how many creatures that are hiding behind someone else, there must be at least one with no cover! )

If you're a spellcaster, you can target creatures with less than total cover just fine. And if they all hide behind the big bad brute, I have two words: area spell.

Total cover, on the other hand, means you're totally safe from everything except Readied actions and large area spells.

The rules of the game have simply changed significantly compared to previous editions.

This is kind of a big deal, because it helps melee combatants, who aren't nearly as free to move about as ranged combatants are.

Not sure how you mean.

Savvy players certainly don't allow enemy melee monsters to remain in cover? Sure they can take cover, but then they're normally not in melee?

Perhaps I have missed something, but from play over fifteen levels and three DMs I can't remember anyone both getting to do make melee attacks and still enjoy cover bonuses...

 

[guachi]

I assume the cover while in melee would be from the other creatures.

So three creatures - A, B, C in a line like this:
A.........................BC

A wants to shoot C and B (A's ally, probably) is providing half cover for C. I don't have my books handy, but I think this is the way the game describes other creatures providing cover.

In this example, C is in melee with B and receiving half-cover while being shot at by A.

 

[smbakeresq]

Definitely agree about total cover being the only practical cover needed so long as you can move.

As for Eldritch Spear shenanigans, I've only personally witnessed it a handful of times in my games, but when I did it caught me off guard. First time was when I foolishly had two dragons swoop in on the party from above and the party's Eldritch Spear/Spell Sniper Warlock and Sharpshooting Hunter/Assassin made short work of one dragon from ranges at 600+ feet. I never had a dragon attack after that that didn't have some means of generating its own cover.

Perhaps it's that experience that colored my reaction.

Have them make a saving throw to avoid being crushed by the dragons falling body. d12 x age category seems right for 600' fall, fail mean pinned under the body. Players will like it as being thematic.