D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: 16 New Feats

I like a few of them, but I'm not overly fond of duplicating class features in a feat. About as close to that as I'd like is Magic Initiate.

jmartkdr2 said:

They're definitely less good if you only use random magic items, but I'm not sure that's even common let alone the basis for design. After all, nearly every feat that applied to weapons already only works with some weapons.

Click to expand...

Yes. I'm not really a fan of those feats, either, but at least they align with fighting "styles". That is, as a paladin or fighter or ranger you're already making an investment in 1H or 2H or dual-wield, so doubling down with a feat makes some sense. There are very few examples in the game (maybe a few specific monsters with immunities/vulnerabilities) where Piercing vs. Bludgeoning vs. Slashing is even used. Now suddenly you're being asked to pick one. So as, say, a fighter with dueling you not only hope (need?) to find a 1H weapon, now it has to be a 1H slashing weapon.

I mean, it's not the worst thing to happen to the game, but I just don't love it. I'd rather see more feats like Chef, which are more broadly applicable, don't box you in, and add genuine flavor instead of just another mathematical bonus.

What a mess.

Chef
:...These special treats last 8 hours after being made." Why do they spoil to fast?
"...eat one of those treats to gain temporary hit points equal to your proficiency bonus." Why temp hit points?

Fighting Initiate
"Whenever you gain a level, you can replace this feat’s fighting style with another one from the fighter class that you don’t have." Goldfish memory.

Metamagic Adept
"Whenever you gain a level, you can replace one of your Metamagic options with another one from the sorcerer class." Magic Goldfish memory.

Poisoner
No poisons the don't rely on weapon venom? Lame. Poisoned food and drink is much more flavorful.

Practiced Expert
Power creep from XgtE

Shield Training
"If you have the Spellcasting or Pact Magic feature, you can use a shield as a spellcasting focus." I cast my spell with a subtle flick of my . . . tower shield?
"In combat, you can don or doff a shield as the free object interaction on your turn." I've got no strings to hold me down because I wished upon a star and now my shield's a real boy.

Tracker
"You learn the hunter’s mark spell." The only real trackers are magic-trackers.
"...hunting creatures and honed your skills..." makes you a magic man.

NotAYakk said:

The thing with "weapon type" specific feats is that they restrict item choice with little balance reason.

Watch:
Medici Schooled
You have learned the Medici School of combat.

• Increase your Strength or Dexterity by 1
• Once per turn when you hit a creature with a melee weapon, you gain one of the following benefits
  • If the weapon is piercing, you can reroll one damage die
  • If the weapon is slashing, you can reduce the creature's speed by 10
  • If the weapon is bludgeoning, you can move the creature 5', unless it is more than 1 size larger than you
• When you score a critical hit with a melee weapon, you gain one of the following effects:
  • If the weapon is piercing, roll an additional die of piercing damage
  • If the weapon is bludgeoning, attacks on the creature have advantage until the start of your next turn.
  • If the weapon is slashing, the creature's attacks have disadvantage until the start of your next turn.

Now, this is a bit of a mouth-full text wise, but balance-wise it isn't going to be very different than the existing feats they presented.

You are only holding 1 weapon at a time, and the above restricts you to one benefit at a time anyhow.

And, as a bonus, it is now compatible with random or story-assigned treasure. Maybe you prefer the hammer benefit, but you aren't dead-weight lost if you get a magic rapier.

Click to expand...

Except, IMO that is too broad for a feat. To me, it makes sense you would need to train differently for different weapon types and this need to train multiple times to learn those skills.

Micah Sweet said:

They remind me a bit of the "math fix" feats of fourth ed, although of course that's not a perfect parallel.

Click to expand...

These are really more half-feats for those you like that sort of thing

Weiley31 said:

I like the implication that a Fighter could potentially have TWO fighting styles. Or that a Warlock can have ten Invocations. They get up to 9 max I believe right?

Click to expand...

Champions can get 3 fighting styles now.

Inchoroi said:

I like a few of them, but I'm not overly fond of duplicating class features in a feat. About as close to that as I'd like is Magic Initiate.

Click to expand...

That is one of my favorite aspect of feats. I would prefer there was no-multiclassing (we don't use it) and just feats that replicate part of a class. These types of feats + the variant class features UA are right up my alley. More please!

reelo said:

As someone who really hates multiclassing dips, I think these are great. Pick up a knack or two from a different class while staying true to your chosen class.
A Ranger picking up Two-handed fighting style? Boom: instant Aragorn.

Click to expand...

This is what I love about these feats most of all. Alongside the Variant Class features and the new spells we saw recently, this really looks like it'll be the book that will open up the game dials so that we can narrow in on specific characters we want to make rather than jumping through convoluted hoops.

Best thing about new feats is that they play nice with folks that don't want the complexity either: if that's the case, just take the ASI and you're no worse for the wear. No need to get caught in the options paralysis of CharOp when you're just as competent (or more so) with an ASI. But the feats offer new storytelling avenues and slightly-situational benefits without sacrificing too much of the power of an ASI.

They also play REALLY well with Theros' Supernatural Gifts. Remember that instead of one of the SGs offered in that book, you can take a bonus feat instead to represent your SG. This makes a LOT of sense with feats like Lucky from the core rules, but it also provides a really reasonable pathway for stories like Fey Touched or Eldritch Adept: many of these feats can just as easily be described as a superheroic background element to your character. And if you're a Variant Human, you don't need to be playing on the high-powered level of Theros to use the feat in that particular way. This is important because while there's great story telling potential in gaining a feat like Fey Touched after a 3rd-level adventure sends you on a sojourn to the Feywild (you come back to home base at 4th level with this feat instead of an ASI), a LOT of stories with such protagonists have elements like that in your backstory.

Heck, just thinking of it - we just got the Tuathan theme from 4e's Heroes of the Feywild in feat form! But alternatively, you could be a High Elf who has visited Evermeet and come back a bit more like one of your Eladrin distant relations!

AcererakTriple6 said:

Champions can get 3 fighting styles now.

Click to expand...

And as somebody who never played the Champion, I didn't realize that until you mentioned that. Champion with dueling, a Battle Master Manuever via Superior Technique, and whatever else style wanted.

Then said champion takes the Martial Adept feat for TWO MORE maneuvers.

dave2008 said:

Except, IMO that is too broad for a feat. To me, it makes sense you would need to train differently for different weapon types and this need to train multiple times to learn those skills.

Click to expand...

I get the fluff reasoning. Balance wise, that is utter crap. Reality wise, also.

It is far easier to learn a 2nd martial art after mastering a 1st, than it was to learn the 1st. Same for a combat technique.

Meanwhile, the you are charging the character the same price for the 2nd technique as the first.

What more, in reality, learning rival techniques makes you better at your primary one.

So I get the fluff, but it isn't (a) realistic that the cost is linear, nor (b) balanced that you'd pay full price for 2 abilities, and only be able to use one, and (c) it leads to a poor in-game experience.

Now, I agree that the combo-feat is way too big. I do, however, find that feat to be mechanically more balanced and I expect would lead to better at-table experience.

Already, PAM/XBE/SS/GWM are pretty bad at locking players into one combat technique in order to be effective.