Unearthed Arcana 16 New UA Feats: THE POLL!

[MostlyHarmless42]

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]

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.

 

[MostlyHarmless42]

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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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]

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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And in 90%+ maxing your primary stat goes before any feats in power level.

People say this a lot, but it isn't true.

 

[CleverNickName]

People say this a lot, but it isn't true.

It's not that it's untrue, it's just that the statement is incomplete. It's missing the prefix, "In the games I've played in, ..."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not that it's untrue, it's just that the statement is incomplete. It's missing the prefix, "In the games I've played in, ..."

Well, they're speaking to the power level of the option, which puts the context outside just their games.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

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.

 

[bedir than]

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