Unearthed Arcana 16 New UA Feats: THE POLL!

Which of the new UA Feats do you like?


Undrave

Hero
I wonder why they didn't offer a "channel divinity" flavored feat? Or a "sneak attack" flavored feat?

Channel Divinity would have been cool, especially if it was an option not covered by existing Channel Divinity, like how in 4e you had Channel Divinity feats matching the various gods. I think they didn't want to write a huge chunk of text to explain how Channel Divinity works with other Channel Divinity features?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Channel Divinity would have been cool, especially if it was an option not covered by existing Channel Divinity, like how in 4e you had Channel Divinity feats matching the various gods. I think they didn't want to write a huge chunk of text to explain how Channel Divinity works with other Channel Divinity features?
It wouldn't be too difficult to avoid a massive lest. Do it similar to gaining access to spells.

Divine Blessing

Pick a Oath or Domain and the God, Religion, or Philosophy associated with it. You now have one use of Channel Divinity from the two options that Oath/Domain have. You regain on a short rest.

Make the words match 5e linguistically
 

Undrave

Hero
It wouldn't be too difficult to avoid a massive lest. Do it similar to gaining access to spells.

Divine Blessing

Pick a Oath or Domain and the God, Religion, or Philosophy associated with it. You now have one use of Channel Divinity from the two options that Oath/Domain have. You regain on a short rest.

Make the words match 5e linguistically

I think it should just be a generic option instead so you can stack it with your Paladin or Cleric Channel Divinity without having to be of two different philosophy and stuff.
 

I think it should just be a generic option instead so you can stack it with your Paladin or Cleric Channel Divinity without having to be of two different philosophy and stuff.
For, sure there needs to a be a line regarding a Cleric or Paladin that just wants the extra Divinity within their current Oath/Faith.

personally, I would enjoy having a Cleric with multiple Gods powering their Divinity.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I think it would be interesting from a roleplaying perspective, too. You could play a religious barbarian, bard, monk, fighter...basically any character class that isn't a cleric or paladin...and have that character's faith and devotion conveyed in a meaningful way.
 

I've already made my opinion known on Shield Training in another thread where I think it is outright obsurd that it is the only way to make taking off or putting on one's shield an object interaction and despite this be so heavily only useful to spellcasters as a feat. We should not be in a situation where a wizard with a few weeks of training weilds a shield better than a fighter with a life long commitment to martial training because they (rightly) did not want to spend an entire ASI just to take their shield off quicker.

I LOVE CHEF. Even if it does sort of severely undercut a certain popular 3rd party Chef class I like. I wish it could give expertise to those with the proficiency already though.

I also feel like the martial training one is a tad weak. Fighting styles are nice and all, but even that classes that get them all get another feature at that level. It should be a fighting style and then +1 to str, dex, or con.

What I've homebrewed (and will still be using) in the past is to combine all the weapon/armor proficiency feats and give the player two of four options:
1) All weapon proficiencies
2) All armor and shield proficiencies
3) +1 to strength, dexterity, or constitution
4) A fighting style.

I go back and forth on the warlock invocation feat simply because I think 1 invocation is definitely too weak, and 2 invocations might be too much. Maybe tack on another +1 to a mental stat?

My main issue with the metamagic feat isn't the feat itself. It is nice. It is that it is yet one more thing taken from sorcerers and effectively given to wizards or other casters. But that is a discussion well commented on and is a larger issue than simply adding the feat itself.

Poisoner is a feat that I love as well, particularly because the resistance ignoring effect as written also applies to spells. Yes, it could already be gotten by elemental adept, but this feat I feel is so much more flavorful if one wants to play say a crazy poison obsessed swamp witch.

The final feat that is a tad frustrating for me is the Tandem Tactician feat. It is a great feat that I think is long overdue to exist. The frustrating rub for me is that it is not only outright as good or better than the Mastermind Rogue's primary subclass ability, it doesn't work with it either. This is perhaps more a critique of the mastermind rogue being a seriously flawed subclass in general (despite being such a core sort of rogue in fiction), though at least before this feat one could make the arguement that their higher level abilities being kind of "meh" was at least outweighed by having lower level awesomeness. Not so any more after this feat, pretty much take assassin or swashbuckler and this feat + actor and you're basically better than the Mastermind at...masterminding. Wizards really needs to reevaluate their stance on doing additional rebalancing passes on their already published content. sigh
 


It wouldn't be too difficult to avoid a massive lest. Do it similar to gaining access to spells.

Divine Blessing

Pick a Oath or Domain and the God, Religion, or Philosophy associated with it. You now have one use of Channel Divinity from the two options that Oath/Domain have. You regain on a short rest.


Make the words match 5e linguistically
I think it should just be a generic option instead so you can stack it with your Paladin or Cleric Channel Divinity without having to be of two different philosophy and stuff.

I'd probably go with

'You get one use of Channel Divinity, or one additional use if you already have it. You can select one of the two options below, or an option from an existing domain/oath if the dm allows:

*Turn/Rebuke Undead (basic, classic)
*bonus to you next spell (attack or effect) roll'

Even if the pc finds the new options redundant, it's +1 use
 


Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
I think the Channel Divinity feat as a possibility would be cool, but I wouldn't be surprised if for simplicity they limited it to people who already have Channel Divinity, and simply gave them another use of it.

I'm sad to see Gunner and Artificer Initiate score so low, those were 2 of my favorites from this. I understand not everyone allows guns or artificers in their games, but I hope they don't vote against the feat in the official poll when it comes out, as those features do exist in the game, and need more support.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
The Warlock invocation not giving a warlock cantrip is lame.
All other spell-granting feats either give two spells or a spell and 1-2 cantrips.
Gosh, which cantrip would you choose? The Warlock's list spans everything from Eldritch Blast to Eldritch blast, and everything in between. So many good cantrip to choose from. ;-)

I agree, it's pretty lame that it doesn't give a cantrip. But I feel like it would be very overpowered if it did.
 



CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I'm sad to see Gunner and Artificer Initiate score so low, those were 2 of my favorites from this. I understand not everyone allows guns or artificers in their games, but I hope they don't vote against the feat in the official poll when it comes out, as those features do exist in the game, and need more support.
That's a good point...this isn't the official survey, and I certainly hope it doesn't have any bearing on it when the time comes! I just intended for this to be a conversation tool, that's all. I should add a note to the original post.

Gunner and Artificer Initiate are going to be a hard sell in a popularity-based poll, because gunslingers and artificers aren't all that common compared to other classes. If the WotC survey relies on popularity to pass muster, then these two options will be at an unfair disadvantage. Hopefully they phrase the survey accordingly.
 


There is no feat that allows an at-will 1st level spell for good reason - it would be way too powerful.
I'd say that depends on the spell, which is why ypou're limited to the ones that are allowed by invocations.

But the comment I was responding to was stating that an at-will 1st level spell was too weak as a benefit for a feat, which I feel you would disagree with?
 

Undrave

Hero
Seriously tho: If you don't use feats, or artificer, or guns... Don't go about downvoting this UA into the ground when the stuff in there would have no impact on your game! Let people who actually USE that stuff judge it! Let the folks who like that stuff have fun!

That's a good point...this isn't the official survey, and I certainly hope it doesn't have any bearing on it when the time comes! I just intended for this to be a conversation tool, that's all. I should add a note to the original post.

Gunner and Artificer Initiate are going to be a hard sell in a popularity-based poll, because gunslingers and artificers aren't all that common compared to other classes. If the WotC survey relies on popularity to pass muster, then these two options will be at an unfair disadvantage. Hopefully they phrase the survey accordingly.

I think Gunner is kinda boring. It's just Crossbow Expert but GUNS. I will give the feedback that it's boring but guns need the support.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
Seriously tho: If you don't use feats, or artificer, or guns... Don't go about downvoting this UA into the ground when the stuff in there would have no impact on your game! Let people who actually USE that stuff judge it! Let the folks who like that stuff have fun!
I think Gunner is kinda boring. It's just Crossbow Expert but GUNS. I will give the feedback that it's boring but guns need the support.
I agree. Gunner is kind of boring, but I feel that's kind of the point.
 

I agree. Gunner is kind of boring, but I feel that's kind of the point.

My biggest issue with it is that in any campaign where the DM is comfortable with guns (specifically those in the DM guide), I'd imagine them to be prevalent enough that the DM will likely just grant proficiency in them to anyone who would be likely to actually use them and loading is such a nonissue when one has to homebrew magic items for them anyway for higher levels. And while the feat is certainly balanced around guns having a higher damage die than hand crossbows/crossbows (hence why something like an extra attack on a bonus action would be outright silly), it still feels VERY boring to not have any active ability at all on the feat. Something just feels...missing.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
My biggest issue with it is that in any campaign where the DM is comfortable with guns (specifically those in the DM guide), I'd imagine them to be prevalent enough that the DM will likely just grant proficiency in them to anyone who would be likely to actually use them and loading is such a nonissue when one has to homebrew magic items for them anyway for higher levels. And while the feat is certainly balanced around guns having a higher damage die than hand crossbows/crossbows (hence why something like an extra attack on a bonus action would be outright silly), it still feels VERY boring to not have any active ability at all on the feat. Something just feels...missing.
I agree. It is also a problem that games with guns should probably award proficiency to people with martial weapon proficiency, but that's not how the game works so far. There also should probably be some active ability in the feat, but I think it works okay as is.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top