Unearthed Arcana 16 New UA Feats: THE POLL!

Which of the new UA Feats do you like?


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.
The proficiency part of the feat may be wasted, but it does allow a character without martial weapons proficiency to become proficient in Firearms if they are martial weapons for example.

The ignore loading effect is a bit boring, but it does address the main issue that a martial-type character would have with firearms, as with crossbows.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hussar

Legend
Chef seems to be the only shoo in right now.

The rest seem to be hovering around the 50-65 mark with a couple of exceptions. Poisoner seems to be not so good, although, I imagine it's for the same reason Gunner isn't getting vote - most games don't use guns or poison.
 

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.
Magic Initiate (Warlock) already does that.

This ability can grant infinite castings of some first level spells, or an effect more powerful than any 1st level spell.
 

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!
It kinda does though. It means you have to spend an extra 10 minutes in session zero explaining to players why you campaign setting has no guns, or cope with an angry player who has chosen the Gunner feat and can't find a gun to use it with.
 

Bagpuss

Hero
I worry about how easy Tandem Tactician has made it to get advantage. So as a bonus action you can give advantage on attack rolls to two PCs within 15ft.
 


Undrave

Hero
It kinda does though. It means you have to spend an extra 10 minutes in session zero explaining to players why you campaign setting has no guns, or cope with an angry player who has chosen the Gunner feat and can't find a gun to use it with.

Oh wow... a WHOLE ten minutes?! :rolleyes: Poor little you... just going "No feats/guns/Artificer" totally takes ten minutes. Yeah that's totally worth ruining the fun of people who want more feats...That's not going to ruin your game or make it less fun.

I worry about how easy Tandem Tactician has made it to get advantage. So as a bonus action you can give advantage on attack rolls to two PCs within 15ft.

Heh... Advantage is already cheap. It's worth an ASI on a class with no good bonus action abilities.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
I try to impose Disadvantage as often as I grant Advantage...I find the game runs a little more balanced. I give enemy spellcasters the Frostbite cantrip, for example, and make heavy use of things like cover, exhaustion, blindness, poison, and so forth. It's not so much for giving Disadvantage; I'm more interested in removing Advantage and restoring the balance. (And I think it's more interesting than just trying to inflict damage every round.)
 

I try to impose Disadvantage as often as I grant Advantage...I find the game runs a little more balanced. I give enemy spellcasters the Frostbite cantrip, for example, and make heavy use of things like cover, exhaustion, blindness, poison, and so forth. It's not so much for giving Disadvantage; I'm more interested in removing Advantage and restoring the balance. (And I think it's more interesting than just trying to inflict damage every round.)

I think this is one of those things you balance group to group. My players are less hellbent on exploiting the system for near perma-advantage, so I feel it would be punishing them unduly if I were so zealous to all but require them to optimize their tactics or suffer disadvantage.

It certainly is a great equalizer, though, and it's why as much as it can be frustrating that they don't have stacking advantage mechanics to prevent one disadvantage from cancelling like 3 or 4 advantages, sometimes it can also be good at times for the sake of balance that all one has to do is seek a single disadvantage to equalize the field.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
It kinda does though. It means you have to spend an extra 10 minutes in session zero explaining to players why you campaign setting has no guns, or cope with an angry player who has chosen the Gunner feat and can't find a gun to use it with.
Does that not already happen, with firearms being in the DMG, mentioned in the Artificer class, and the Gunslinger (Matt Mercer's subclass)?

If none of that has effected your games, and you're willing to get rid of something someone else finds fun just to get rid of 10 minutes of explaining your world to players, I guess that just seems a bit selfish to me.
 

Does that not already happen, with firearms being in the DMG, mentioned in the Artificer class, and the Gunslinger (Matt Mercer's subclass)?

If none of that has effected your games, and you're willing to get rid of something someone else finds fun just to get rid of 10 minutes of explaining your world to players, I guess that just seems a bit selfish to me.

This again gets back to the core problem I have with the feat in the first place: any setting involving firearms is by design going to require a conversation with the DM in the first place. It granting proficiency as part of the feat is basically just wasted ink because any DM who wants guns will likely grant said proficiencies or allow characters to train in them without feat investments, and any DM who doesn't want them will just outright ban the feat screaming "NOOO!!!" from the rafters. I don't actually begrudge the feat for granting the proficiency, but I want it treated as a thing that isn't a balancing factor of the feat itself, which I get sounds a bit odd in concept.

And again, I get why something like the crossbow expert feat granting a bonus action attack is way too powerful for the DMG firearms, but that's really the problem: I don't like the DMG firearm rules. Without wanting to hijack the thread by getting into the whole typical "how strong are guns compared to a longbow, crossbow, or taking a sword in the chest?" debate, I am firmly in the camp that thinks that flintlock weaponry should NOT be stronger than the PHB weapons. As such the DMG rules in effect forcing the gunner feat to be "boring, yet functional" is ...frustrating to me. I do want the feat to exist and thus do not begrudge it, but I kind of wish they would differentiate firearms from crossbows and bows not by eliminating the loading feature, but somehow do some other mechanics, like failure chances, being too loud (maybe letting the feat grant the ability to silence them slightly? or repair them quicker if they jam, etc.).

I myself as a DM will still likely just either:
a) Treat guns like magic items in rarity and ban the feat except for maybe artificers/gunslingers (I use it as a rogue, not a fighter subclass),
b) Let the player reskin crossbows as firearms and thus not really need the feat to exist, or
c) Homebrew some sort of firearm rules if the setting itself is commonplace enough for them to exist, and then just treat pistols/"weaker" guns as simple weapons and stronger rifles/firearms as martial weapons. If their class has proficiency they have it.
 

Levistus's_Leviathan

5e Freelancer
This again gets back to the core problem I have with the feat in the first place: any setting involving firearms is by design going to require a conversation with the DM in the first place. It granting proficiency as part of the feat is basically just wasted ink because any DM who wants guns will likely grant said proficiencies or allow characters to train in them without feat investments, and any DM who doesn't want them will just outright ban the feat screaming "NOOO!!!" from the rafters. I don't actually begrudge the feat for granting the proficiency, but I want it treated as a thing that isn't a balancing factor of the feat itself, which I get sounds a bit odd in concept.
I personally allow firearms, but don't automatically grant proficiency with them to anyone except Artificers and Gunslingers. It wouldn't be wasted ink for me, but I can't speak for other people.
And again, I get why something like the crossbow expert feat granting a bonus action attack is way too powerful for the DMG firearms, but that's really the problem: I don't like the DMG firearm rules. Without wanting to hijack the thread by getting into the whole typical "how strong are guns compared to a longbow, crossbow, or taking a sword in the chest?" debate, I am firmly in the camp that thinks that flintlock weaponry should NOT be stronger than the PHB weapons. As such the DMG rules in effect forcing the gunner feat to be "boring, yet functional" is ...frustrating to me. I do want the feat to exist and thus do not begrudge it, but I kind of wish they would differentiate firearms from crossbows and bows not by eliminating the loading feature, but somehow do some other mechanics, like failure chances, being too loud (maybe letting the feat grant the ability to silence them slightly? or repair them quicker if they jam, etc.).
It's too powerful for DMG firearms to have a bonus action attack for free. I think it would be okay if it had some requirement like Great Weapon Master, where if you score a critical hit or kill a creature with a firearm, you get a bonus action attack for some reason. Maybe someone should start a thread on the firearm problem, unless there are already some that wouldn't mind being necroed. I personally think firearms should be more powerful than crossbows, but discussing that here would be a bad idea.
a) Treat guns like magic items in rarity and ban the feat except for maybe artificers/gunslingers (I use it as a rogue, not a fighter subclass),
I do treat them as magic items in rarity.
 

I personally allow firearms, but don't automatically grant proficiency with them to anyone except Artificers and Gunslingers. It wouldn't be wasted ink for me, but I can't speak for other people.

It's too powerful for DMG firearms to have a bonus action attack for free. I think it would be okay if it had some requirement like Great Weapon Master, where if you score a critical hit or kill a creature with a firearm, you get a bonus action attack for some reason. Maybe someone should start a thread on the firearm problem, unless there are already some that wouldn't mind being necroed. I personally think firearms should be more powerful than crossbows, but discussing that here would be a bad idea.

I do treat them as magic items in rarity.

There are a few threads lingering around, in which the usual arguments are over how much damage guns should do, should they require special training, and if so how much, and often if they should ignore armor or dexterity to AC.

The short of it is if one wants a "realistic" approach firearms should do the same damage as crossbows, and NOT ignore armor (as plate was often tested using firearms), unless they are modern weapons using better quality bullets. Whether one has them ignore dexterity is up to the DM. While the "gaming" approach is to either have them do the same damage and ignore armor, or do more damage (what the DMG chose to do) and make them harder to get or give them drawbacks.

Firearms in reality did not just suddenly get invented and magically replace other weapons, it was a gradual process and they were largely more popular because it was easier for people to pick up and use than bows (which took years or even decades to learn) and even crossbows (which were hard to reload without special equipment). With a "realistic" approach to firearms they should require simple weapon proficiency at most.

The problem with the DMG approach of increasing damage and increasing difficulty in obtaining proficiency it is literally the opposite of why guns became so widespread and used. I personally wish they had stuck in some mechanical effects like them being loud to use (and deafening to use in enclosed spaces), having a chance to jam/misfire, or difficulty to use in the rain or if they get wet. At least then the extra damage would be justified (or alternatively give us things to mitigate through feats/features). To me extra cost/scarcity doesn't mean much in the long run.
 

This again gets back to the core problem I have with the feat in the first place: any setting involving firearms is by design going to require a conversation with the DM in the first place.
But, by putting the firearms in a player-facing book it turns the conversation around, with the DM having to justify why a setting does not have firearms when they are quite clearly in the core rules.
 

Horwath

Hero
While most of these feats are great, they do not solve the main problem with 5E.

That we have shared resource pool for ASIs, combat(good) feats and flavor(character) feats. And in 90%+ maxing your primary stat goes before any feats in power level. you can get a half feat inat 4th level if you have a race with +2 bonus to your primary stat.

we should get in 5.5E or what ever, that all feats go to "half-feat" power level and gain;

One flavor/racial/adventuring feat at levels: 1,4,7,10,13,16,19
One combat feat at levels: 2,5,8,11,14,17,20
+1 to any ability at levels: 3,6,9,12,15,18
 




DND_Reborn

The High Aldwin
I cannot believe "Chef" is the most popular UA feat in this poll...

1595012793710.png


It is just yet another way (albeit "flavorful" ;) ) way of boosting healing in 5E...

It would be more interesting IMO if it did something other than boost healing and provide temp HP. Alternatives could have been removing an extra level of exhaustion after a long rest meal, or even allowing the removing of a level of exhaustion during a short rest maybe? Maybe allowing advantage on poison saves? There are all sorts of things that this feat could have done that would have made it interesting for me.
 

I cannot believe "Chef" is the most popular UA feat in this poll...

View attachment 123897

It is just yet another way (albeit "flavorful" ;) ) way of boosting healing in 5E...

It would be more interesting IMO if it did something other than boost healing and provide temp HP. Alternatives could have been removing an extra level of exhaustion after a long rest meal, or even allowing the removing of a level of exhaustion during a short rest maybe? Maybe allowing advantage on poison saves? There are all sorts of things that this feat could have done that would have made it interesting for me.
I love the idea of the HD bonus heal removing a level of exhaustion rather than the healing. I still like the temp HP morsels although I want normal HP there because I still want a non-magic way to go from 0 hp to 1 hp
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top