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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've just made an interesting(?) observation about crusher/piercer/slasher. It just says "attack which does [damage type]". It doesn't specify weapon attack. So you could use these feats with spell attacks that do the appropriate damage type. So far the only spells I have found that benefit from this (that weren't already obvious) are Magic Stone, Ice Knife and Thorn Whip*.

*The "benefit" to Thorn Whip is pretty minimal though.

 

[Li Shenron]

People get SO bent out of shape about retraining and I just don't get it. No one's gonna complain if your game's grand story has a little bit of retconjuration. I once changed my Cleric into a Bard after playing it in one session after not being satisfied with the build's ability to support my allies. There was a few jokes but the show went on.

I explained many times what is my personal gripe: retraining rules make it a player's right.

I have several time encountered a player sincerely saddened or upset by having chosen the wrong thing for whatever reason. I never had a problem letting such player swap it for something equivalent, at whatever point in the campaign we were at the moment.

But actual rules establish exactly what, when and how retraining should happen, and that doesn't suit with me at all, because I am then expected to abide by such rules, and I cannot prevent shenanigans by munchkins who figured out how swapping gives them some advantage.

The particularly nasty ones which allows retraining just at a long rest's notice, might also have the effect of reducing character variety. There is much less difference in the world and the story between an elementalist and a necromancer if it takes 2 weeks to completely replace your set of known spells. They also reduce the importance of good character design, when you can just make rush choices knowing you can always fix them later.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I explained many times what is my personal gripe: retraining rules make it a player's right.

I have several time encountered a player sincerely saddened or upset by having chosen the wrong thing for whatever reason. I never had a problem letting such player swap it for something equivalent, at whatever point in the campaign we were at the moment.

But actual rules establish exactly what, when and how retraining should happen, and that doesn't suit with me at all, because I am then expected to abide by such rules, and I cannot prevent shenanigans by munchkins who figured out how swapping gives them some advantage.

The particularly nasty ones which allows retraining just at a long rest's notice, might also have the effect of reducing character variety. There is much less difference in the world and the story between an elementalist and a necromancer if it takes 2 weeks to completely replace your set of known spells. They also reduce the importance of good character design, when you can just make rush choices knowing you can always fix them later.

I hear you, and feel much the same. However, I have heard enough stories of DMs who won't allow players to reverse choices they are unhappy with to understand why there is a demand for this.

 

[Azzy]

I think history has shown that WotC doesn't take optimization and/or optional rules into account unless specifically brought to their attention. New players care less about such things, and that's where the focus is.

Yep. Im one of the Mike Mearls happy time fun hours (or whatever they were called), he said something to the effect that they don't worry about edge cases, and instead designed with the average player in mind.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I forgot Druids got shields. With a shield in one hand and a focus in the other you kinda run out of hands for your somatic component if the DM is too strict on that part...

Man, the whole armor thing is so weird... Druids get to use scimitars to hurt other but protecting themselves with a material pulled from the earth is somehow taboo?!

It's because they're crescent-shaped, like the moon.

Bows, however, being both crescent-shaped (as much as a scimitar, anyways) AND made of wood were just too much for druids to handle and therefore banned.

 

[Undrave]

I've just made an interesting(?) observation about crusher/piercer/slasher. It just says "attack which does [damage type]". It doesn't specify weapon attack. So you could use these feats with spell attacks that do the appropriate damage type. So far the only spells I have found that benefit from this (that weren't already obvious) are Magic Stone, Ice Knife and Thorn Whip*.

*The "benefit" to Thorn Whip is pretty minimal though.

ooh! How about a Moon Druid with one of those? Claws inflict slashing damage and bites piercing!

 

[jmartkdr2]

A spellcaster must have a hand free to [] hold a spellcasting focus - but it can be the same hand he/she uses to perform somatic components

-PHB

RAW a druid can have a staff in one hand and a shield in the other and freely cast spells or whack someone with Shillelagh.

That's under the section for material components, though and so only applies to spells with material components. Here's the "official" ruling: The Rules of Spellcasting | Dungeons & Dragons Relevant text:

WHAT’S THE AMOUNT OF INTERACTION NEEDED TO USE A SPELLCASTING FOCUS? DOES IT HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SOMATIC COMPONENT?

If a spell has a material component, you need to handle that component when you cast the spell (see page 203 in the Player’s Handbook). The same rule applies if you’re using a spellcasting focus as the material component.

If a spell has a somatic component, you can use the hand that performs the somatic component to also handle the material component. For example, a wizard who uses an orb as a spellcasting focus could hold a quarterstaff in one hand and the orb in the other, and he could cast lightning bolt by using the orb as the spell’s material component and the orb hand to perform the spell’s somatic component.

Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.

If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.

Emphasis mine.

Now, if you think that's a stupid rule, I agree. If you houserule it to what you said before, that makes sense and is something I do when I dm. But it is a houserule, so I don't assume it will be true for any game I'm playing in until the dm says it is.

 

[Minigiant]

Kensei monks with duelling (and in another thread we discuss how any monk could take advantage of the change your style on level up feature), hexblades with GWF, etc...

The issue is that Fighting styles are basically half a feat.
Defensive Duelist is arguably better than Dueling. It's defensive over offensive though.
Hexblades arguably get more from the Great Weapon Master feat.

So unless you roll godly stats and hit your ability maximum, only fighters, Dual Wielders, and GW rangers and barbarians really benefit from Fighting Initiate.

And with a deap dive into the accompanying class feature variants UA even more exotic possibilities occur, such as face characters with Superior Technique: Silver Tongue.

Martial Adept is offers 2 maneuvers where Fighting Initiate (Superior Technique) offers 1 swappable maneuver.

So it is arguably not that useful.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The issue is that Fighting styles are basically half a feat.
Defensive Duelist is arguably better than Dueling. It's defensive over offensive though.

Apples and oranges. You want a max DPS Kensei Duelling is definitely better.

Hexblades arguably get more from the Great Weapon Master feat.

Very arguably. Hexblades are good at crit fishing, and critical hits double the effect of GWF. But why not have both? A vuman hexblade is SAD, so they will be looking to pick up a second feat by level 12.
And with Fighting Adept, if they find a really good one handed weapon they can change to duelling. Can't do that with GWM.

Martial Adept is offers 2 maneuvers where Fighting Initiate (Superior Technique) offers 1 swappable manoeuvre.

So it is arguably not that useful.

If you only want the one manoeuvre, who cares? But chances are the pseudo-battlemaster face bard will pick up both feats.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's because they're crescent-shaped, like the moon.

Bows, however, being both crescent-shaped (as much as a scimitar, anyways) AND made of wood were just too much for druids to handle and therefore banned.

Druids aren't banned from using bows.