D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: 16 New Feats

"Today’s Unearthed Arcana presents a selection of new feats for Dungeons & Dragons. Each feat offers a way to become better at something or to gain a whole new ability."

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

The feats include Artificer Initiate, Chef, Crusher, Eldritch Adept, Fey Touched, Fighting Initiate, Gunner, Metamagic Adept, Poisoner, Piercer, Practiced Expert, Shadow Touched, Shield Training, Slasher, Tandem Tactician, and Tracker.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I can't believe people are still using my phrase "goldfish memory". I think I started something.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Something that was noted on another forum, Shield Training allows EK's to get an Arcane focus.

I'm still not sure it is worth it, because War Caster lets you cast VS spells and actually has better benefits for an AK, but it is an interesting thought if you need that M.

Mostly though, I'm trying to figure out a way to make Shield Training actually worthwhile for Martials without stepping on Shield Master, and I'm not coming up with much

 

[jmartkdr2]

I can't believe people are still using my phrase "goldfish memory". I think I started something.

It's a really good name for the problem - even if you disagree that it's present in a game/rule, it explains the worry perfectly.

Bravo!

 

[jmartkdr2]

Something that was noted on another forum, Shield Training allows EK's to get an Arcane focus.

I'm still not sure it is worth it, because War Caster lets you cast VS spells and actually has better benefits for an AK, but it is an interesting thought if you need that M.

Mostly though, I'm trying to figure out a way to make Shield Training actually worthwhile for Martials without stepping on Shield Master, and I'm not coming up with much

The best I can do is let you make an attack with it (1d4?) as a bonus action - maybe losing the AC bonus, maybe not.

 

[TwoSix]

I can't believe people are still using my phrase "goldfish memory". I think I started something.

Yes, but I can't remember what.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Thoughts on Poisoner and Poison Immunity in general: bring back Positoxins from 3.5's Libris Mortis, and invent special poisons that ignore resistance and immunity on specific creatures (I think 3.5 had an anti-yuan-ti poison called "Skin Shedder").

 

[dalisprime]

Thoughts on Poisoner and Poison Immunity in general: bring back Positoxins from 3.5's Libris Mortis, and invent special poisons that ignore resistance and immunity on specific creatures (I think 3.5 had an anti-yuan-ti poison called "Skin Shedder").

Didn't Libris Mortis also introduce Dread as a concept of fear Paladins weren't immune to and that 20 level Necromancer class that became a lich by lvl 20? That book was whack...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Between this UA, and the UA from the other day when they had additional class feature options, I sure hope they find their way into a book soon. Like, really soon.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So what?!

People are far to hung up on labels.

5e lets you play a sneaky wilderness guy. That's great. What it says in the class box on your character sheet is irrelevant. Call your character Bob the Ranger and you are good to go.

I wasn't complaining, I was just stating a fact. I honestly don't care if rogues are better than rangers because of this, or if WotC designed a feat in this UA called "Screw Rangers" and took the spellcasting progression and spells from the ranger class and gave it to whoever takes this feat.

Play a sneaky wilderness guide with ranger spells, or play one that doesn't have ranger spells and is pretty much better in every way than the real ranger, except for the spells. I don't care. I'm just pointing out a fact about this UA.

 

[Mistwell]

This is what I’m talking about. Active reading requires actually looking at the context of a statement.

In this case, my statement was part of a post that dealt exclusively with your claim that the rogue could be a better ranger than the ranger. Any level of active reading would have told you that any statement regarding the rogue and ranger in that post, would also be in that context, much less a statement immediately following another statement about that comparison and claim, in the same paragraph.

Had mistwell asked for clarification, I’d have simply given it.

I DID ask for a clarification!!!!!! You called my question snarky and doubled down on calling it that and then called me a liar when I again asked for clarification a second time! Are you having a bad week or something?

I STILL HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO. THIS IS NOT SNARK. I AM BEING SERIOUS WITH YOU. THE GUY YOU REPLIED TO ALSO DIDN'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT AND TOLD YOU HE ASSUMED THE SAME THING I ASSUMED. IT'S NOT US MY MAN, IT'S YOU. YOU ARE NOT COMMUNICATING WHAT YOU THINK YOU ARE COMMUNICATING.

You told me to go back through the responses between and I did that and I still have no idea what you are referring to. Mage hand? Disguise Self? What the heck were you talking about and why are you so adamant that we know what you're talking about even after being repeatedly told by multiple people we don't?

[EDIT] OK I see this well after that conversation:

Okay, I'll do it:

Okay, I'm assuming you're referring to Practiced Expert now instead of Tracker, sorry for the misunderstanding, but you were unclear.
(Sorry you have had a bad day)
Yes, they get expertise, in one skill or tool proficiency. Scouts get expertise in Nature and Survival automatically, as well as expertise in 4 other skills/thieves' tools. This feat technically does give them access to one thing that would help rangers be better, but it's nowhere near as big an advantage as to what rogues get from these feats. Scouts get Stealth and Survival, as well as Nature, and 3 other expertise abilities. This in no way allows rangers to "gain the only thing the rogue has that the ranger doesn't".

So apparently you meant Practiced Expert. Which was not, in any way shape or form, obvious. And, as AcerakTriple6 points out, it doesn't make much sense. Which might be why neither of us assumed that. Because it doesn't do the only thing you said it does, which is allow rangers to gain the only thing the rogue has that the ranger doesn't.

I think you owe apologies on this one. You were pretty damn rude for no reason throughout this. I certainly was not lying to you when I said I thought you were talking about sneak attack and I might have missed one of those feats. I said what I meant. I don't know why you read it how you did, but it was rude to jump to that conclusion. Particularly after I told you that's not what I meant.