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

[Mistwell]

because if you pick a feat just because game blocks you from increasing your primary stat even more, means that it's just a filler.

It really does not mean that. It means it's not AS OPTIMAL as a stat increase some times, but that is not the same as being "just a filler". Can we tone down the hyperbole a tad? There is a range which lies between "meaningless" and "exactly as good as the average use of an ASI in your primary stat or the four best feats in the game." Let's talk about that range as it really exists for most people who play the game rather than treating it as a black and white issue where everything neatly falls on one side of the other.

 

[Ace]

Quite a few can actually. Shadow Monks, 4EM off the top of my head.

They dont do so with the Spellcasting feature though, which I think is the pre-requisite.

Fair point.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's also bad form to reply with the equivalent of "that sucks" and offer no explanation.

As a game designer mentor would tell me over and over: "Don't do it the bad way." What you've described is the bad way.

Every game system with options will always have options that are "more powerful" than others. It's impossible to avoid. But it's clear that the "power" of a once-every-four-level feat has proven incredibly difficult for the designers to balance. I'd argue that of all the feats WotC has created, less than 10% of them even get considered by players.

The solutions I've seen almost always involve a massive overhaul of the feat system, and invariably, the discussion of "half-feats" comes up.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I envision a system where a player feels empowered to take a "fluff" feat that enhances their character concept instead of feeling paralyzed by the decision between an ASI or a "power" feat because of the rarity and importance of the choice.

From first hand experience, using a bonus level 1 feat does that. People take non-combat feats.

And I gave an explanation. Many people avoid systems that require frequent choices between distinct articles that must be examined in order to understand. Turning feats into that makes a lot of people not want to deal with them.

 

[Gadget]

I find the restriction on the Metamagic Adept feat--namely that you could only use the Sorcery Points granted by the feat for metamagic--somewhat cumbersome. Obviously if you have no or only one Sorcerer level, this restriction is meaningless, but now a Sorcerer has to, in effect, keep two pools of Sorcery Points. The unintended consequence of having so many class features key off of the same resource I suppose. It might have been better to let the feat give one free use of the chosen metamagic options per long rest, as long as the cost was 2 SP or less.

I'm thinking of just ignoring that restriction and letting Sorcerers just get a couple of extra SPs from the feat.

 

[NotAYakk]

It really does not mean that. It means it's not AS OPTIMAL as a stat increase some times, but that is not the same as being "just a filler". Can we tone down the hyperbole a tad? There is a range which lies between "meaningless" and "exactly as good as the average use of an ASI in your primary stat or the four best feats in the game." Let's talk about that range as it really exists for most people who play the game rather than treating it as a black and white issue where everything neatly falls on one side of the other.

Sure. Here goes.

I want flavorful feats that are as good or better than a primary stat ASI, because I like flavorful feats, and I don't want them to be trap options.

I don't want them to be trap options, because I have seen what trap options do to gameplay. I play with, and intend to play with, people with a variety of approaches to charop. I don't want people who don't care about, or don't work on charop, to take trap options, and experience the side effects.

Static ATK/Save DC bonuses are deceptively strong in D&D, and what I find in actual play is that when monsters scale with total party competence, players 2 points behind on ATK/Save DCs experience a lot of frustrating wiffs.

Picking flavorful feats ends up being a trap option. Not a huge trap, but it does accumulate.

So I want fun, flavorful feats that compete with a primary stat ASI bump.

This makes taking these feats at level 4, in place of the only ASI you get as s non vhuman in modt campaigns, a character-story boosting moment and one that isn't a trap.

To that extend, I prefer players taking XBE or SS to +2 dex, as it provides more texture to the PCs. I don't want +2 dex to suck compared to them, because it should be preferred by people who want to keep it simple. Or who want a "I am inhumanly dexterous" as their character story, not "maxing dex is a no-brainer, and not doing it requires serious charop to make up for without becoming less competent".

...

This is why I want every single feat to be something you can hang a character concept on, both thematically and mechanically. I also want them to be flavorful.

So, take Keen Mind and Linguist. Add them together. Call it "Savant". Add in the ability to read spell scrolls outside of your class with an Intelligence check (DC 10+Spell level).

That feat is getting mechanically sizable, which is annoying. But a character who takes that can hang a character off that, both mechanically and thematically. They have 3 extra languages (sometimes useful), a bunch of ways they can demand info from the DM (perfect memory, direction, time), and can collect scrolls to have a bag full of interesting tricks at their disposal. (I'd honestly cut the cipher rules, because that is the kind of thing you should be able to do without a feat)

...

Is that feat as "good as crossbow expert"? I'd argue you really cannot compare one against the other.

But a rogue with Crossbow Expert and a rogue with that combined "Savant" feat will feel different at a table, which is what I want, and each will be significantly better at their area of expertise than the other. The areas of expertise will be significant and should show up in most games as well.

A charop person might be tempted by it instead of XBE. It optimizes for something different.

 

[Mistwell]

Sure. Here goes.

I want flavorful feats that are as good or better than a primary stat AS

Except a feat is not a trap if it simply falls slightly below the level of an ASI, much less a primary stat ASI. First, you only really can get two primary stat ASIs for most PCs and you have the Fighter which has that by level 6 (and might even have a feat already depending on their race, and you might only even get one if you rolled for stats and got a natural 16 and boosted that to 18 at first level). So a primary state ASI is not in fact the baseline. For MOST of the game it won't even be possible for many PCs assuming they go beyond level 8. That's just not where we need to be measuring this.

A secondary stat boost is a more fair line to measure from. Is the feat better than a boost to your Con is a fairer question.

I think this is why you're not seeing much appreciation for your view. You set your baseline higher than where most people will set it.

 

[NotAYakk]

Except a feat is not a trap if it simply falls slightly below the level of an ASI, much less a primary stat ASI. First, you only really can get two primary stat ASIs for most PCs and you have the Fighter which has that by level 6 (and might even have a feat already depending on their race, and you might only even get one if you rolled for stats and got a natural 16 and boosted that to 18 at first level). So a primary state ASI is not in fact the baseline. For MOST of the game it won't even be possible for many PCs assuming they go beyond level 8. That's just not where we need to be measuring this.

A secondary stat boost is a more fair line to measure from. Is the feat better than a boost to your Con is a fairer question.

I think this is why you're not seeing much appreciation for your view. You set your baseline higher than where most people will set it.

No, I want feats to complete at level 4 with ASIs.

I don't want to wait until level 8 (fighters) to 10 (everyone else) for taking character defining non-numeric boosts to be a non-trap outside of charop situations.

I am willing to accept that many games will fall apart before level 8, or players will leave games, and that if someone has to wait until level 8-12 to take a fun character defining feat without falling behind, that sucks.

I have seen the effect of a PC with 16 in an attack stat and no strong feats at level 12, and it really doesn't work well next to players who have 20 in an attack stat and 1-2 strong feats.

If the their ASIs where not trap options, I think the game would be more interesting for them and for the entire party. Sure, if they take 3 non-combat feats, I think they should not be as strong in combat as someone who takes 3 combat feats or ASIs; but, I think they should be simply exploding with useful out of combat utility as a result.

There are already feats that reach the standard of rivaling a +2 to a primary stat; XBE and PAM are two of them, that rival (if not eclipse) +2 to your primary attack stat. I think they are a bit strong at level 1 (where you aren't trading them for +2 to your primary attack stat, but rather +1 or less by taking vhuman), but by level 5 they are just about right (when they go from 2x as many attacks to 1.5x as many attacks). I have shown the math above; a XBE level 5 extra attack(2) character is getting a 5% DPR boost over +2 dex.

On the other hand, at level 1, XBE 16 dex vs heavy crossbow 16 dex is about a 50% boost in damage, which is too much. Part of the problem is that the free choice feat at level 1 is stronger than other racial features by a good measure, and that a 2nd tap is a much larger percent boost than 3rd tap is. Together they give XBE (and PAM) a bad name.

 

[Mistwell]

No, I want feats to complete at level 4 with ASIs.

Yes. I understand that's what you want. Do you understand that doesn't seem to be where most people are at, and that yours is not the only view on this? To have a conversation, we're going to at some point have to get past just your view on what you want, right?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't think chopping feats in half is a good solution. I don't likr feat chains which might

No, I want feats to complete at level 4 with ASIs.

I don't want to wait until level 8 (fighters) to 10 (everyone else) for taking character defining non-numeric boosts to be a non-trap outside of charop situations.

I am willing to accept that many games will fall apart before level 8, or players will leave games, and that if someone has to wait until level 8-12 to take a fun character defining feat without falling behind, that sucks.

I have seen the effect of a PC with 16 in an attack stat and no strong feats at level 12, and it really doesn't work well next to players who have 20 in an attack stat and 1-2 strong feats.

If the their ASIs where not trap options, I think the game would be more interesting for them and for the entire party. Sure, if they take 3 non-combat feats, I think they should not be as strong in combat as someone who takes 3 combat feats or ASIs; but, I think they should be simply exploding with useful out of combat utility as a result.

There are already feats that reach the standard of rivaling a +2 to a primary stat; XBE and PAM are two of them, that rival (if not eclipse) +2 to your primary attack stat. I think they are a bit strong at level 1 (where you aren't trading them for +2 to your primary attack stat, but rather +1 or less by taking vhuman), but by level 5 they are just about right (when they go from 2x as many attacks to 1.5x as many attacks). I have shown the math above; a XBE level 5 extra attack(2) character is getting a 5% DPR boost over +2 dex.

On the other hand, at level 1, XBE 16 dex vs heavy crossbow 16 dex is about a 50% boost in damage, which is too much. Part of the problem is that the free choice feat at level 1 is stronger than other racial features by a good measure, and that a 2nd tap is a much larger percent boost than 3rd tap is. Together they give XBE (and PAM) a bad name.

Do you really think XBE at level 1 is that strong?
A 30ft range weapon where you are easily reached in melee by your opponents? For just 1d6+3 x 2 damage instead of 1d10+3 and a free bonus action and all the stuff you get from a different racial choice?
You could also just use sword and shield and deal 1d8+5 damage and negate the extra bonus to hit from ranged fighting style. You can also make opportunity attacks and Carry heavy armor. In the case of a variant human, Heavy armor mastery negates 3 of both your hits and you deal 2d6 damage per round at most.
It is easy to close the 30ft gap and suddenly you are stuck in melee most probably being chopped down soon after.
1d8+5 with better hit chance is probably better than 2d6 damage.
Conclusion: There are more than a few excellent feat for level 1 chars.

 

[NotAYakk]

Archer 16 dex: 2d6+6 at +7 to hit (fighter xbe), 16 ac (50 gp medium armor)
Duelist longsword 16 dex: 1d8+5 at +5 to hit and 18 ac (75 gp heavy armor+shield)

HAM is also overly strong at level 1; but it decays pretty fast. PAM/XBE doesn't decay as badly.

A XBE hand xbow can dash in/out at 45 feet range. If they are in melee, they are only 2 AC worse off than a duelist at low levels.

Barring HAM, XBE is 13 at +7 vs 9.5 at +5 and +2 AC, and XBE has eorks at 0 to 30 feet range.

Cutting the figbting style out , it is 13 at +5 (0-30 feet) vs 7.5 and +2 AC (0-5 feet). 70% damage boost.

PAM is of course better than XBE at damage at 1 due to duelist spear+shield doing 16 damage at +5 and getting +2 AC and a reaction 8.5 at +5 to an enemy closing the gap.

I consider all 3 to be overly strong at level 1. By level 5 they are about right. By 10 HAM is a mistake, the other two remain solid.