D&D 5E Any of these Feat changes look too good?

[BlivetWidget]

My only suggestion is that I would suggest you let those who take Ritual Caster just be able to pick any mental ability stat to use for their ritual casting, rather than be forced to use the stat of the spell list they pick.

Does this actually matter? What rituals actually use a stat? I'm not saying there aren't any, but all the rituals I can think of just happen without a check or save.

Yep, but of course not just fire, but whatever damage type you select. Our group actually liked the idea of being able to penetrate the immunity of things like giants, elementals, and dragons. However, they would still be resistant to it-- so it helps if a caster doesn't have other options ready at the time, but hardly solves the immunity issue completely IMO.

The reason they specifically brought up fire as a damage type is that 5e spells are balanced around fire being the most resisted element in the game. So in general, fire spells are more powerful than spells of other damage types to account for this. Elemental Adept (Fire) is already core to certain sorcerer builds. It's tempting for a wizard (what with fire spells being so powerful), but it's a resistible temptation since wizards are often at their best when buffing or using battlefield control spells. Changing immunity to resistance would probably make this mandatory for evokers. Which means it's too good.

I'm not saying I don't like it. I do like it. I just think it's too obviously going to encourage a fire build. I think if you want to work around immunity I would probably make that its own feat with a prerequisite of Elemental Adept. Elemental Master or something. Maybe you even take reduced damage from the element at that point. I haven't thought it out, but you get the idea.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My only suggestion is that I would suggest you let those who take Ritual Caster just be able to pick any mental ability stat to use for their ritual casting, rather than be forced to use the stat of the spell list they pick

Actually, we are keeping the prerequisite of INT or WIS 13, but otherwise the ability score does not matter at all because it is never, ever used in any of the ritual spells. You never make an attack roll or need a spell save DC or anything related to it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

What rituals actually use a stat? I'm not saying there aren't any, but all the rituals I can think of just happen without a check or save.

None that I found. I could have missed some since I don't have all the books, but there are none I know of.

Elemental Adept (Fire) is already core to certain sorcerer builds.

Which builds? I know Sorcerer's have Elemental Affinity for the Draconic Bloodline subclass, but that can be other elemental damage sources, not just fire.

Changing immunity to resistance would probably make this mandatory for evokers. Which means it's too good.

I don't know. It might seem like that but so far we've only had one caster take this feat RAW, and it wasn't until 12th level.

I mean very few creatures really have immunity until higher levels, and frankly every war-type caster we have always has at least two damage sources for spells (fire and lightning, or cold and thunder, or necrotic and acid or whatever) because many creatures do have resistance anyway and it is an easier way to not have to worry about it. Also, why would I do a fire spell for half damage when I could do a lightning spell for full damage? Really, this making immunity into resistance is just allowing you to do half damage-- instead of other options which you could do full.

If we change it and see too many "gotta have it" happening, we'll change it back. Personally, the 1's become 2's is lame IMO also.

 

[Mort]

Well, the title says it all. Do you think any of these adjustments to the feats in the PHB make them too good or powerful?

View attachment 126535
Most of these feats see very little use in our game and many of them seem weak to us, so these are our proposals.

I'm worried a couple might be too strong now. Thoughts?

Little late but here are my thoughts:

Charger: Fine .
Defensive Duelist: Fine and I like it
Dungeon Delver: Fine
Durable: Fine, but very situational except for a Frenzied Barb
Elemental adept: I like it
Heavy Armor Mastery: A necessary change
Inspiring leader: likely fine but the bard in my group has this and gets lots of use out of it. Worry is for classes like bard it becomes a near no brainer.
Keen Mind: Fine, decent flavor - certainly not too strong.
Martial Adept: Decent, better than the original but still not up to the top tiers (which actually may be a good thing)
Mounted Combatant: Not sure - where mounted combat is a thing it may be very strong - especially with a lance. Otherwise who knows.
Ritual Caster: Interesting change, I find ritual caster already worth it in some campaigns this would make it pretty good. Though not over the top.
Savage attacker: Ok - or at least from near useless to possible.
Sharp shooter: Frankly I'd just go with the nerf without the extra ability - the feat is THAT strong. But with the nerf, I don't think the extra ability is way, way too much - just a bit too much.
Weapon Master: Makes this an odd feat - martials may now want to take this after they've maxed out STR or DEX because getting a plus to hit is tough and in some cases this would be equivalent to a +3 to an ability score. That said, weapon master needs something not sure if this is it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

First, thanks for your thoughts.

Mounted Combatant: Not sure - where mounted combat is a thing it may be very strong - especially with a lance. Otherwise who knows.

Because this is limited to only one attack per turn, we haven't seen it being too strong. We've been using it as a general rule for mounted combat, and I thought it might better limited to the feat instead of anyone who is mounted. Also, because mounted combat is not an all-the-time thing I think it should be okay. But, a lot of people are commenting on it so I've noted it for discussion with our group.

Sharp shooter: Frankly I'd just go with the nerf without the extra ability - the feat is THAT strong. But with the nerf, I don't think the extra ability is way, way too much - just a bit too much.

Originally, we didn't have the new benefit until our game yesterday. The player who was play-testing sharp shooter had to make a shot in a windy, raining storm and I told him he would have disadvantage. Since his target was only about 40 feet away, he asked if he could use SS to remove the disadvantage because none of the other benefits applied. We decided to go with it for the time being and I thought I'd add it today for feedback from the community.

What do you think if we changed it to:
1. It removes disadvantage to attacks made at Long range.
2. Within normal range, you can:
A. ignore half and three-quarter cover, or
B. ignore disadvantage due to an environmental effect, or
C. accept a -5 to attack roll for a +10 to damage

This way, only benefit you can apply to long range is to get rid of the disadvantage. If you are in normal range, you can "aim" or "steady your shot" to gain one of the three benefits (2A-C) to the attack.

It is a minor change, but it prevents you from applying benefits 2A-C to a long range shot (instead of removing the disadvantage).

Weapon Master: Makes this an odd feat - martials may now want to take this after they've maxed out STR or DEX because getting a plus to hit is tough and in some cases this would be equivalent to a +3 to an ability score. That said, weapon master needs something not sure if this is it.

While it might seem odd, something no one as commented on is that although this gives you proficiency with all weapons, that includes improvised weapons, which otherwise Tavern Brawler is your only option. The additional +1 to attack rolls is good, but since it is only with one weapon it isn't too strong I don't think.

One option I was considering is weapon master increases the damage die one stage or maybe allows a crit on 19's? I don't know, the +1 to attack rolls seemed the simplest bump...

 

[Mort]

Because this is limited to only one attack per turn, we haven't seen it being too strong. We've been using it as a general rule for mounted combat, and I thought it might better limited to the feat instead of anyone who is mounted. Also, because mounted combat is not an all-the-time thing I think it should be okay. But, a lot of people are commenting on it so I've noted it for discussion with our group.

I missed the once per turn, that's not so bad. Make sure to enforce the standard weapon only - no sneak attack or holy weapon shenanigans.

Originally, we didn't have the new benefit until our game yesterday. The player who was play-testing sharp shooter had to make a shot in a windy, raining storm and I told him he would have disadvantage. Since his target was only about 40 feet away, he asked if he could use SS to remove the disadvantage because none of the other benefits applied. We decided to go with it for the time being and I thought I'd add it today for feedback from the community.

What do you think if we changed it to:
1. It removes disadvantage to attacks made at Long range.
2. Within normal range, you can:
A. ignore half and three-quarter cover, or
B. ignore disadvantage due to an environmental effect, or
C. accept a -5 to attack roll for a +10 to damage

This way, only benefit you can apply to long range is to get rid of the disadvantage. If you are in normal range, you can "aim" or "steady your shot" to gain one of the three benefits (2A-C) to the attack.

It is a minor change, but it prevents you from applying benefits 2A-C to a long range shot (instead of removing the disadvantage).

I like the change. Still a strong feat, but no longer ridiculous.

While it might seem odd, something no one as commented on is that although this gives you proficiency with all weapons, that includes improvised weapons, which otherwise Tavern Brawler is your only option. The additional +1 to attack rolls is good, but since it is only with one weapon it isn't too strong I don't think.

One option I was considering is weapon master increases the damage die one stage or maybe allows a crit on 19's? I don't know, the +1 to attack rolls seemed the simplest bump...

I actually like the proficiency with improvised weapons - I like seeing more of them in use.

Increasing the weapon die one stage is interesting - though seems adding +1 damage is a little safer. I'm wary of the crit on 19 - encourages crit fishing (my group isn't the type so wouldn't be a problem in mine, but in general).

 

[DND_Reborn]

I missed the once per turn, that's not so bad. Make sure to enforce the standard weapon only - no sneak attack or holy weapon shenanigans.

LOL yeah, just the weapon damage.

I like the change. Still a strong feat, but no longer ridiculous.

Good. I'll add it to the notes.

I actually like the proficiency with improvised weapons - I like seeing more of them in use.

Increasing the weapon die one stage is interesting - though seems adding +1 damage is a little safer. I'm wary of the crit on 19 - encourages crit fishing (my group isn't the type so wouldn't be a problem in mine, but in general).

I like encouraging improvised weapons as well.

For the most part, increasing the damage die has an average benefit of +1 damage, and that might be an easier solution.

I am also weary of crit fishing, which is why this was originally rebuked.

FWIW, we use more of a critical "threat" style rule, that straight up critical hits on 20s. In a nutshell, our house-rule is a natural 20 allows you an additional attack, but no longer doubles damage. With smites and sneak attacks, we see way too many hits for dozens of points of damage--especially in our high-level game. It gets ridiculous sometimes...

 

[Immoralkickass]

I think i can give some feedback on Mounted Combatant, as i am currently playing a paladin that is often mounted on his Find Steed.

The feat feels like a crutch to keep the mount alive, especially from area effect damage. If I weren't a paladin, my mount would have died more often without my aura. The problem is, the mount do not level up or gain stats, so it gets harder to keep it alive as you go to higher level tier. Advantage on creatures smaller than your mount is nice, but it means your party thinks you are delegated to fighting the mooks instead of the big boss. But the same problem applies, as you level up, the enemies you face are bigger and badder, so the feat certainly has a diminishing value.

The few times my mount died, i was just thinking, a GWM guy would never lose his main feat unless he lost his weapon, which was very unlikely. Their feat also get stronger as they gain more Strength, get a better weapon and is more versatile. I'm not saying Mounted Combatant needs to be buffed more, it just needs buffs in the right place.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not saying Mounted Combatant needs to be buffed more, it just needs buffs in the right place.

A lot of our experiences mirror yours.

Do you think the "charging" ability gives a nice enough bump to keep it viable at higher levels? The defensive aspects for the mount are great, but as mounted combat is lack-luster in 5E we feel this helps.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

so, other than confusing me in relation to your dislike of increasing the ability scores of PCs, these all seem fine.