D&D 5E Complete Revision of PHB Feats (wiki thread)

[clearstream]

I asked you a really easy question, vonklaude.

Do you believe your feat allows 3 attacks in round one, 3 attacks in round two, 3 attacks in round three and so on.

Yes or no?

I think (post-Errata and SA*) that the bonus action can legally be taken before the attack action, and therefore it ends up being 3 attacks per round. You owe me an answer, too

*The question you ask is really not an easy one, because we have to make some guesses about what the designers intended.

Making those 3 attacks consumes your free interaction every round, and every other round you can't make opportunity attacks with your sword. That feels annoying for a DM to manage, so the feat should simplify the book-keeping somehow. My first-pass thought for managing it is based on Warcaster (ninja edit incoming)...

Crossbow Expert (pays off a lighter crossbow with a bonus attack)
You ignore the loading quality of crossbows with which you are proficient. When you use the Attack action and attack with a one-handed weapon, you can use a bonus action to attack with a hand crossbow you are holding and you can supply ammunition for that attack even when your other hand isn't free. Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on that ranged attack roll.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think (post-Errata and SA*) that the bonus action can legally be taken before the attack action, and therefore it ends up being 3 attacks per round.

Sorry, with all those qualifications I'll take that as a no.

The reason I'm asking is that my own interests lie in a feat that enables characters to use the attack routine you expected the feat to enable, but didn't: use your attack action to swing your sword, and your bonus action to shoot your hand crossbow. Each round, every round. No ifs, no buts.

Since your interests appear to lie elsewhere I will respectfully bow out of the thread. Good luck with your feat!



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

Sorry, with all those qualifications I'll take that as a no.

The reason I'm asking is that my own interests lie in a feat that enables characters to use the attack routine you expected the feat to enable, but didn't: use your attack action to swing your sword, and your bonus action to shoot your hand crossbow. Each round, every round. No ifs, no buts.

Since your interests appear to lie elsewhere I will respectfully bow out of the thread. Good luck with your feat!

Well, I've edited the feat so that it now clearly does give three attacks per round, whether or not you can take your bonus action first.

And you've repaid me with nothing but grief

 

[clearstream]

Made this a wiki thread. Feel free to edit.

 

[Coroc]

[MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION] [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] As far as I understand raw is you have an action a bonus action and a movement during your turn and you can use these in any order you like to, and you can even divide your movement into several parts.

But still, on your crossbow / scimitar warrior, you need dual wielder and crossbow expert for that right?

 

[DeJoker]

Okay I have reviewed the suggested changes -- first off we are looking at replacing a +2 bonus to an Attribute and the biggest glaring issue (which seems to be perpetuated throughout) is that you have overpowered the Feat Tough. The benefit from Tough should be comparable to gaining a +2 to Constitution which would give you a +1 to Hit Points per Level (retroactive) and +1 to your Constitution saving throws --- which arguably is equivalent to +2 To Hit Points per level (retroactive) because you get an additional +1 to Hit Points per Level (retroactive) and you do not have to be concerned about exceeding the Max 20 Constitution restriction the latter is fairly minor I grant you that but I would argue that a +1 to Hit Points per level (retroactive) is basically equivalent to a +1 to Constitution saving throw. Now if I missed something within that due to perhaps not knowing the full ramifications of increasing your Constitution by 2 points -- please point them out. For I see no "balancing agents" to account for the 2 additional benefits you are giving Tough (1) When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier (minimum of 2) and (2) Can gain Advantage on one death saving throw. Once this ability is used, cannot be use it again until a long rest is finished. Now I grant you these 2 by themselves are fairly weak but combined I would argue that they are at least equivalent to a +1 Constitution saving throw. So your Tough equals the equivalent to +3 Hit Points per level which is 150% better than a +2 to ones Constitution.

And as stated I see this overpowering perpetuated throughout many of your suggestions -- the worst offender by far is Magic Initiate as this is actually a Feat that I would strongly argue is already overpowered. From what I can see 2 Cantrips (of your choosing within a list) at will is definitely equivalent to a +2 to a single Attribute and I am strongly considering toning Magic Initiate back to just those 2 Cantrips alone.

Thus in a nutshell I would be much more interested in seeing a more equally powered set of Feats than a bunch of obviously overpowered set of Feats or are you wanting to push 5e to be more like the overpowered Pathfinder version of this game rather than the more toned down balanced game it seems have been meant to be. Not saying that it is perfect because I have found issues with it but cranking up the power level is not the best answer -- making it balanced evenly with itself is in my opinion the most important thing to strive for.

 

[clearstream]

Okay I have reviewed the suggested changes -- first off we are looking at replacing a +2 bonus to an Attribute and the biggest glaring issue (which seems to be perpetuated throughout) is that you have overpowered the Feat Tough. The benefit from Tough should be comparable to gaining a +2 to Constitution which would give you a +1 to Hit Points per Level (retroactive) and +1 to your Constitution saving throws --- which arguably is equivalent to +2 To Hit Points per level (retroactive) because you get an additional +1 to Hit Points per Level (retroactive) and you do not have to be concerned about exceeding the Max 20 Constitution restriction the latter is fairly minor I grant you that but I would argue that a +1 to Hit Points per level (retroactive) is basically equivalent to a +1 to Constitution saving throw. Now if I missed something within that due to perhaps not knowing the full ramifications of increasing your Constitution by 2 points -- please point them out. For I see no "balancing agents" to account for the 2 additional benefits you are giving Tough (1) When you roll a Hit Die to regain hit points, the minimum number of hit points you regain from the roll equals twice your Constitution modifier (minimum of 2) and (2) Can gain Advantage on one death saving throw. Once this ability is used, cannot be use it again until a long rest is finished. Now I grant you these 2 by themselves are fairly weak but combined I would argue that they are at least equivalent to a +1 Constitution saving throw. So your Tough equals the equivalent to +3 Hit Points per level which is 150% better than a +2 to ones Constitution.

That's good feedback. +2 Constitution is worth +1 HP/level, +1 on the Con save and via that a +1 improvement in Concentration, an extra day without food, +1 on the roll against thirst, and +1 minute holding breath. +1 on a save is valued at half an ASI via the Resilient feat. The Constitution save is the most often used save (30% of all spell and monster ability saves listed in core rules). So we agree that +2 HP/level = +1 HP/level and +1 save. That leaves over all those other things! So could you agree that means Tough needs some additional (weak) benefits? Maybe merging in Durable (a trap feat) and adding the death save advantage is too much though? As I want to preserve as many of the effects that were in core as possible, it should probably just retain the Durable.

And as stated I see this overpowering perpetuated throughout many of your suggestions -- the worst offender by far is Magic Initiate as this is actually a Feat that I would strongly argue is already overpowered. From what I can see 2 Cantrips (of your choosing within a list) at will is definitely equivalent to a +2 to a single Attribute and I am strongly considering toning Magic Initiate back to just those 2 Cantrips alone.

Also great feedback. I made two changes to Magic Initiate and based on your feedback I can see that perhaps only one is needed. First I merged in Arcanist (non-core) because I felt adding a path to Expertise in Arcana and a free Detect Magic seemed helpful on the explore pillar. Then I realised that the real reason Magic Initiate doesn't quite work is it fails to run the 1st level spell through a spell slot, and instead limits it to casting at its lowest level. Having fixing that, Arcanist should probably be stripped out. What do you think? There are at least two reasons not to cut the level 1 spell. First you can find threads where people talk about all the neat character concepts they can make just by adding one level 1 spell and 2 cantrips. I feel those are worth supporting. Second, Spell Sniper already covers one axis of cantrips for those who want them. For me Magic Initiate is most about flexibly supporting players to develop concept characters, while also allowing a party that is light on casters to cover a few things they might need (e.g. Healing Word!).

Thus in a nutshell I would be much more interested in seeing a more equally powered set of Feats than a bunch of obviously overpowered set of Feats or are you wanting to push 5e to be more like the overpowered Pathfinder version of this game rather than the more toned down balanced game it seems have been meant to be. Not saying that it is perfect because I have found issues with it but cranking up the power level is not the best answer -- making it balanced evenly with itself is in my opinion the most important thing to strive for.

I'm determined not to overpower the feats, but only make them equal to an ASI and all pickable. The feats in RAW are not all pickable and I'm seeing my players home in on the same ones again and again. As you will see, I toned back CE, SS and GWM. And am still thinking about PAM and SM. So thank you for the feedback and hope you have time for more. I'll make the tweaks discussed above.

 

[clearstream]

[MENTION=71699]vonklaude[/MENTION] [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] As far as I understand raw is you have an action a bonus action and a movement during your turn and you can use these in any order you like to, and you can even divide your movement into several parts.

But still, on your crossbow / scimitar warrior, you need dual wielder and crossbow expert for that right?

I agree with you about the RAW even though that will occasionally throw a bit of a poser (bonus action - twang - oops! killed the goblin and having nothing else to attack, ahem... swishy, swishy... waves sword at nothing?)

I believe that as I've written it, dual wielder isn't required. The bonus action isn't created by both weapons being light, it is created by one of them being a hand crossbow and your having Crossbow Expert. My feeling is that making the character take CE and DW would be an unjustified feat tax compared with what else you can do with two feats or ASIs! DW's purpose then is if you want to wield two melee weapons, not melee + hand crossbow. DW is weaker than CE hence gets the half ASI.

 

[TwoSix]

I agree with you about the RAW even though that will occasionally throw a bit of a poser (bonus action - twang - oops! killed the goblin and having nothing else to attack, ahem... swishy, swishy... waves sword at nothing?)

I believe that as I've written it, dual wielder isn't required. The bonus action isn't created by both weapons being light, it is created by one of them being a hand crossbow and your having Crossbow Expert. My feeling is that making the character take CE and DW would be an unjustified feat tax compared with what else you can do with two feats or ASIs! DW's purpose then is if you want to wield two melee weapons, not melee + hand crossbow. DW is weaker than CE hence gets the half ASI.

Yes, you're correct. Two weapon fighting is one way to gain a bonus action attack, with the special rule that the attack does not add your modifier (unlike other attacks). But two-weapon fighting has no rules to restrict any other possible way to gain a bonus action attack, and the gained attack would always gain the stat modifier unless explicitly stated otherwise.

And yes, Dual Wielder becomes much more competitive with a +1 gained. It's a +1 to damage per attack, and a +1 AC, which is certainly less worthwhile than a +2 Str or Dex.

 

[clearstream]

Yes, you're correct. Two weapon fighting is one way to gain a bonus action attack, with the special rule that the attack does not add your modifier (unlike other attacks). But two-weapon fighting has no rules to restrict any other possible way to gain a bonus action attack, and the gained attack would always gain the stat modifier unless explicitly stated otherwise.

And yes, Dual Wielder becomes much more competitive with a +1 gained. It's a +1 to damage per attack, and a +1 AC, which is certainly less worthwhile than a +2 Str or Dex.

So what's your feeling overall? Anything standout for dialling down (or up!) Are the feat mergers sensible?