D&D (2024) Expert Classes - Feats Discussion

[Ruin Explorer]

I dislike Ritual Caster changes. I LIKED a single class barbarian taking Ritual Caster to be a shaman. Or a rogue with Ritual Caster to help find magic treasure or traps. Or the Fighter, just to irritate the wizard.

This is ....Meh.
No, more blech.

One of my favourite characters to DM for ever was a 4E Fighter who had the 4E Ritual Caster Feat. I agree that this is just dreadful btw, but I do hope they'll listen to feedback on it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is fascinating because it's like they've gone from not wanting you to take Feats to REALLY preferring that you take Feats instead of ASIs, which is, y'know, quite a difference.

Except they haven't quite succeeded in making feats a preferable option. If it were up to me, I would remove ASIs entirely except for half feats.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Except they haven't quite succeeded in making feats a preferable option. If it were up to me, I would remove ASIs entirely except for half feats.

I'm not sure they haven't. The way D&Done works you're always going to start with a 16 or a 17 in your primary stat and if people race to level 3 (as they should) a 17 is preferable. This means that (for a non-monk) your 4th level feat isn't going to be the ASI because a +1 is basically as good as a +2 when your prime stat is 17.

This means that the only real question is whether you're going to get a feat or a full ASI for your second feat. If you take the ASI you spend until your next feat arguably ahead - but are permanently behind from your third feat. For a rogue or a fighter the answer is "Hell no" as you're only there for two levels. For a melee weapon user (barbarian, paladin, or two weapon ranger) I think the answer is also no - there are too many good melee feats.

For a caster I think it depends on game style. Warcaster is the only thing that comes close to being a must-have - or possibly Spell Sniper for a warlock. But Ritual Caster is good and there are plenty of fun feats.

 

[Pedantic]

Yeah, it's definitely better, but really they should just clean up the choice at 8th level. It is really only a problem achieving the first 20, in whatever stat affects accuracy for your class. After that, you're either upping defense (which you could well do with a different Armor Proficiency or Save Proficiency feat) or improving skills. Those are both comparable effects to what you get out of feats, so it's a fairly reasonable exchange.

Just making +1 to your primary attribute a class ability at say 6th level would be perfect.

 

[Minigiant]

The Keen Mind feat lets you quick study.

Does Study even do anything in combat?

Is it supposed to give the user monster stats?

Which stats are you supposed to give out on a high rolls?

Observant let's you Quiick Search. That includes Medicine.

Are you supposed to give out HP info in combat or just generally how wounded the target is wounded?

Does that mean you can't tell how hurt a foe is without taking the Search action?

Oh man. This is a DM Discussion on itself.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Those are all great questions! I'm sure WotC will clear it right up, and won't leave it undefined and up to vastly varying interpretations.

 

[Amrûnril]

I'm actually almost as disappointed by what Ritual Caster gains as by what it loses.

While the Quick Ritual feature may compensate power-wise for the inability to learn new rituals, it really doesn't fit the sort of character I'd want to create with this feat: someone who lacks a spellcasting adventurer's capacity for time-sensitive magic but who can manage a few spells if given time to sit down with a book or pray/meditate. I could imagine this sort of character being common in a lot of settings, but it's not supported rules-wise if learning rituals comes as a package deal with the ability to cast them quickly.

I wonder if the developers' reasoning here is the same as with Healer. Make a feat that gives characters a new ability attractive to characters that already have that ability. As in that case, I think this is a mistake here. Characters learning new ritual magic and characters looking to exhance the ritual portion of their existing magic would both be better served by dedicated feats than by a single feat trying to do two things at once.

I liked the thought of the ritual book where anyone who has the feat can hunt down more rituals to add to it, which it sounds like the oneDND feat gets rid of completely The only change I'd make to the current ritual caster feat is that you can add all rituals rather than just a single class.

That might be a bit much for a single feat, but I'd at least make it repeatable to choose multiple classes.


Some shorter thoughs on other feats:

Keen Mind/Observant: The previous iterations of these feats were niche but they definitely had appeal for some players. The new versions actually seem more DM dependent, in that they codify moving an action to a bonus action, while leaving what that action can actually accomplish undefined.

Lightly Armored: Glad to see this improved. The 2014 armor proficiency feats seemed like a perfect example of the sort of feat chain the developers were trying to move away from. And with the changes to dwarves, it's nice to have an option to add armor proficiencies at level one.

Heavily Armored: But then this stays exactly the same, despite a +1 ASI becoming a default part of feats, rather than a balancing mechanism for weaker ones.

Resilient: I feel like this should be repeatable for different saves.

Spell Sniper/Sharpshooter: If the developers want feats to support ranged attacks in melee combat, they should design feats around that focus, not tack an ability onto feats focused on long range combat.

Weapon Training: The improvement from four weapon types to all martial weapons is welcome, though it does create an amusing scenario where a wizard who takes it can proficiently use any martial weapon but is still limited to a subset of simple ones.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Lightly Armored: Glad to see this improved. The 2014 armor proficiency feats seemed like a perfect example of the sort of feat chain the developers were trying to move away from. And with the changes to dwarves, it's nice to have an option to add armor proficiencies at level one.

Heavily Armored: But then this stays exactly the same, despite a +1 ASI becoming a default part of feats, rather than a balancing mechanism for weaker ones.

Resilient: I feel like this should be repeatable for different saves.

Spell Sniper/Sharpshooter: If the developers want feats to support ranged attacks in melee combat, they should design feats around that focus, not tack an ability onto feats focused on long range combat.

Weapon Training: The improvement from four weapon types to all martial weapons is welcome, though it does create an amusing scenario where a wizard who takes it can proficiently use any martial weapon but is still limited to a subset of simple ones.

I think, I'd prefer militia training that gives light armor and all simple weapons (and a little extra). Medium armor + shield for armored mages is quite a lot for a level 1 feat and probably noone else really neads this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm actually almost as disappointed by what Ritual Caster gains as by what it loses.

While the Quick Ritual feature may compensate power-wise for the inability to learn new rituals, it really doesn't fit the sort of character I'd want to create with this feat: someone who lacks a spellcasting adventurer's capacity for time-sensitive magic but who can manage a few spells if given time to sit down with a book or pray/meditate. I could imagine this sort of character being common in a lot of settings, but it's not supported rules-wise if learning rituals comes as a package deal with the ability to cast them quickly.

I wonder if the developers' reasoning here is the same as with Healer. Make a feat that gives characters a new ability attractive to characters that already have that ability. As in that case, I think this is a mistake here. Characters learning new ritual magic and characters looking to exhance the ritual portion of their existing magic would both be better served by dedicated feats than by a single feat trying to do two things at once.


That might be a bit much for a single feat, but I'd at least make it repeatable to choose multiple classes.


Some shorter thoughs on other feats:

Keen Mind/Observant: The previous iterations of these feats were niche but they definitely had appeal for some players. The new versions actually seem more DM dependent, in that they codify moving an action to a bonus action, while leaving what that action can actually accomplish undefined.

Lightly Armored: Glad to see this improved. The 2014 armor proficiency feats seemed like a perfect example of the sort of feat chain the developers were trying to move away from. And with the changes to dwarves, it's nice to have an option to add armor proficiencies at level one.

Heavily Armored: But then this stays exactly the same, despite a +1 ASI becoming a default part of feats, rather than a balancing mechanism for weaker ones.

Resilient: I feel like this should be repeatable for different saves.

Spell Sniper/Sharpshooter: If the developers want feats to support ranged attacks in melee combat, they should design feats around that focus, not tack an ability onto feats focused on long range combat.

Weapon Training: The improvement from four weapon types to all martial weapons is welcome, though it does create an amusing scenario where a wizard who takes it can proficiently use any martial weapon but is still limited to a subset of simple ones.

Yes. To me, the whole point of ritual casting is to represent the kind of character you're describing.

 

[Amrûnril]

I think, I'd prefer militia training that gives light armor and all simple weapons (and a little extra). Medium armor + shield for armored mages is quite a lot for a level 1 feat and probably noone else really neads this.

I guess I'm thinking about this from the perspective of wanting heavy armor training to be reasonably accessible, to give more characters the option of prioritizing strength over dexterity. Spellcasters are probably the more common use case, though.

As I think more about this, maybe it's actually the higher levels of armor training that should be easier to get, since light armor is a +2 AC boost to anyone, while medium and heavy armor combined only add 1 AC over what a dexterity-based attacker can get "for free". I do wonder if it's really necessary for heavier armors to have both strength requirements and additional training requirements. Perhaps these could be re-written as alternatives. Plate armor for instance, might have a requirement of "Heavy Armor Training OR any Armor Training with 17 or higher strength".