D&D 5E Full feats from Tasha's: are they worth a "full feat slot"?

[EzekielRaiden]

Completely agree with Metamagic Adept having +Proficiency SP (ed: replacing the static +2, I mean). That'd make it a solid, but not no-brainer, choice. You'd never be able to Twin more than a single 6th level spell each day (and that at character level 17), but you'd be able to use the low-cost ones on more than two spells during a day.

It would also make for a great feat if a character blends multiple levels of Sorcerer with some other class--catching up on what you'd missed out on, as it were.

Edit: I could also see having it be +2 SP, or +Proficiency if you have at least 1 level in Sorcerer. Would keep the feat very restrained for those who aren't willing to "invest," as it were, but solid for those who do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The game is balanced around player characters with no feats. Any feat that is significantly better than an ASI breaks the game. All the challenge ratings will be wrong for a start.

Of course, if you are like us and don't really care about balance and optimisation, it doesn't matter.

The Challenge Ratings will all be wrong the second you put a fifth PC on the table. So using "balanced around CR" as the benchmark for whether feats are too good or not good enough is not exactly foolproof.

As always, whether something is "broken" or "overpowered" or whatever will all come down to individual tables and the manners in which they build and play their games. So anyone trying to posit universal truths about certain rules (especially regarding feats, one of the biggest pastimes for posters here on the boards for the past 5 years) is folly in my opinion.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The Challenge Ratings will all be wrong the second you put a fifth PC on the table. So using "balanced around CR" as the benchmark for whether feats are too good or not good enough is not exactly foolproof.

As always, whether something is "broken" or "overpowered" or whatever will all come down to individual tables and the manners in which they build and play their games. So try to make universal truths about certain rules (especially regarding feats, one of the biggest pastimes for posters here on the boards for the past 5 years) is folly in my opinion.

I wouldn't disagree. But the point is, the purpose of feats is to make characters more interesting and varied, not to make them more powerful. WotC clearly made errors with some feats, and they know it. They are not going to compound the error by using the mistakes as the baseline.

If you aren't going to take any of the new feats because they do not make your character more powerful in combat, it doesn't matter. They aren't for you. They are for the kind of player who thinks it would be cool if their character was a famous actor.

 

[TwoSix]

No, there are only ones that are worth to take instead of ASI if you are looking at combat only.

That is one of the very few bad design failures of 5E IMHO.

They put ASI, combat feats and exploration/social feats in the same resource pool.

It's tough to criticize it as a design failure when it was specifically a feature that a large portion of the player base asked for. There was a strong desire stated during the Next playtest to be able to build characters that traded combat ability for enhanced non-combat ability, which necessitates putting mixing combat and non-combat features in the same pool.

 

[Horwath]

It's tough to criticize it as a design failure when it was specifically a feature that a large portion of the player base asked for. There was a strong desire stated during the Next playtest to be able to build characters that traded combat ability for enhanced non-combat ability, which necessitates putting mixing combat and non-combat features in the same pool.

true.

But we could have;
1. Non Combat feats.
2. Combat feats. Tradeable for Non combat feats
3. ASIs. Tradeable for combat and noncombat feats

or the house rule that I like is giving bonus feats at levels 1,5,9,13,17,20 that are pool of non-combat feats and bad combat ones(medium armor mastery)

 

[Guest User]

That is one of the very few bad design failures of 5E IMHO.
They put ASI, combat feats and exploration/social feats in the same resource pool.

The game has always done this. Certain Attributes directly control combat: Str, Dex.
Certain Attributes control Exploration and Cha influences social interaction,

In AD&D, Read Magic was the same spell level as Magic Missile.
There is a provenance for Illusionary Script being equal to Magic Missile, at least in terms of spell level.

I am not a fan of "trap options" or "Timmy cards".
I am, however, supportive of the system mastery needed for a player to navigate the different tiers.

In my own games, a timely use of Illusionary Script to alter the attack orders for a General, made significantly greater impact to the game world narrative than casting Magic Missile ever would have.

Chainmail, (the old Wargame), was devoted to fantasy combat.
D&D has always been about more than combat, (not much more, but some at least).
Horwath, you only value 1/3 of the pillars, no wonder you think many feats are poor options.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In my own games, a timely use of Illusionary Script to alter the attack orders for a General, made significantly greater impact to the game world narrative than casting Magic Missile ever would have.

Cool. This is what makes an awesome game of D&D, not repeatedly hitting a sack of hp over the head with a two handed sword.

 

[NotAYakk]

Feats are an optional rule. Ergo feats need to be EQUAL TO and ASI. For example, there is no adjustment made to challenge rating for monsters depending on if the party does or does not have feats.

Now, most of those feats you list are clearly better than an ASI.

GWM, PAM, SS, XBE, Warcaster, Lucky are feats that complete with an ASI.

None of them are clearly better than an ASI.

Rather, I'd say that if a feat is clearly worse than an ASI, then it is a trap feat. Most D&D is played in the 1-7 range where players have either 0 or 1 feat (or 2 if vhuman), and even if they roll stats will have "room" to get boost to their "primary" stat.

A level 5 "extra attack" character with 18 dex, archery style, and a longbow against AC 18 does 11.65 DPR and has a bonus action free.

A level 5 XBE character with 16 dex and a hand crossbow against 18 AC does 12.225 DPR and uses their bonus action.

At level 5 SS character with 16 dex and using -5/+10 ability does 10.95 DPR against that same target, and significant damage boosts against lower-AC and when you have advantage.

Both SS and XBE cost you +1 initiative (in a 3 round fight, that is 0.05 extra turns, so 1.7% DPR), +1 AC if they wear light armor, and +1 to a bunch of skills. SS gives you ignore-cover and range, and XBE gives you shoot-in-melee. XBE costs you the ability to use bows.

To me, those are competitive choices. Neither feat is "clearly better" than the +2 dex choice.

Now, when you have 20 dex, archery style, SS, XBE, a source of reliable advantage, you end up putting out a lot more damage than someone who just has 20 in an attack stat and has otherwise not invested in combat.

And the variant human trick, where you can have 16 dex (the same attack bonus) while also grabbing XBE is really strong at level 1; here, you aren't trading +2 to dex for an ASI, you are trading racial features for XBE, which is a very different trade. Or, if you fight a lot of low-AC foes, SS shines.

But most "maximize DPR" builds still work on ASIs and often maximize their attack stat before they invest in both XBE and SS.

 

[Guest User]

Rather, I'd say that if a feat is clearly worse than an ASI, then it is a trap feat

Outside of Weapon Master, when one looks holistically at the game it is difficult to say that the Actor Feat is clearly worse than GWM, or any other feat.

I've seen a Barbarian, use the Actor feat to accomplish a jail break, that they never would have accomplished if the player had selected GWM.

GWM is certainly a better option for combat, when compared to the Actor feat.
The Actor feat, though, really does significantly improve your social skills...(and mimicry in the hands of a clever player, can be a game changer).

A character that is narrowly focused on one thing is fated to share the doom of the Bismarck and Battleships in general.

 

[GlassJaw]

No, there are only ones that are worth to take instead of ASI if you are looking at combat only.

That is one of the very few bad design failures of 5E IMHO.

They put ASI, combat feats and exploration/social feats in the same resource pool.

and most of the time, people take combat boosters as social/exploration can better/easier be "McGyvered" especially when you have a large party (5+ PCs)

This. A thousand times this.

The 5E feat system is broken, or more accurately, a wasted system. There are a ton you can choose from but the vast majority of feats will not only ever be taken, but not even considered. It's an illusion of choice and wasted design.

The feat system has multiple flaws:

1. They compete with ASIs
2. There are too few feat "slots"
3. A small number massively outshine the rest

Most campaigns go to what, levels 10-12ish, maybe 15? A player most likely will only have 3 ASI/feats, maybe 4. I'd be willing to bet at least one is going to be an ASI, and most likely the first. So maybe a player will have 1-2 ASI slots where they will start to consider a feat.

But that choice is now SO important because it's every 4 levels and there are so few of them. You don't want to make the "wrong choice". By making each feat chock full of abilities to make them worthwhile but at the same time making them rare, the designers have made the choice so imperative. It's a hard decision for casual players. And those that have a level of system mastery are going to ignore the vast majority of them because they are useless.

5E is great but the feat system needs a complete overhaul. It's one system that 4E did better in most cases.