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

[TwoSix]

The feat mergers are sensible. I tried to put them together some different ways, but I think your way makes the most sense. Actor and Keen Mind are both kind of sticking points that don't go together with much else, so putting them together works. HAM and MAM are fine to put together, since you can't use both benefits at the same time anyway. Dungeon Delver makes sense folded into Observant. (The key to being a good dungeon delver IS being observant!)

I agree with [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] that Crossbow Expert should provide an at-will off-hand crossbow attack, so I like the modification.

I tend to think of Healer and Inspiring Leader as being fairly equivalent (Healer heals for more, but preemptive healing is more useful than reactive healing.) I'm honestly not sure if they should be +1 ASI or not. But I do think they should be grouped together.

I'm also probably in the minority in thinking that Magic Initiate is too weak; to my mind, any feat that I could replicate with a one level dip to get something straight up better isn't worth it. I'd prefer to see it with a +1 ASI.

 

[Xeviat]

Awesome work so far. I may steal some of this myself, though I'm partial to making everything a half feat and giving out a feat progression in addition to an ASI progression, since I miss the customization of 3E/4E feats.

One jumped out at me. You put inspiring leader as a half feat. I don't think that's the best place for it. Let's compare Healer and Inspiring Leader:

Healer (a non-caster can act as healer)
When you use a healer’s kit to stabilize a dying creature, that creature also regains 1 hit point. As an action, you can spend one use of a healer’s kit to tend to a creature and restore 1d6 + 4 hit points to it, plus additional hit points equal to the creature’s maximum number of Hit Dice. The creature can’t regain hit points from this feat again until it finishes a short or long rest.

Inspiring Leader Prerequisite: Charisma 13 or higher (a non-caster can aid allies)
Increase your Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions, shoring up their resolve to fight. When you do so, choose up to six friendly creatures (which can include yourself) within 30 feet of you who can see or hear you and who can understand you. Each creature can gain temporary hit points equal to your level + your Charisma modifier. A creature can't gain temporary hit points from this feat again until it has finished a short or long rest.

In a typical party, Healer is going to grant about 30+(level*4) hp to the party per short rest. It's so much healing that I've been trying to make part of it just a way healing kits work. This is a lot of health. It feels necessary for a group to make it through a long day of adventuring. It's more healing than taking Toughness would grant, or magic initiate for cure wounds. It's huge.

Inspiring Leader can grant, with a 4 person party, up to 20+(level*4) temp HP. This is less than Healer, but it has no risk of capping out if someone doesn't quite need 1d6+4+level healing (though if someone doesn't take damage between short rests, then they'll still have their temp HP).

Yes, 20 is less than 30. Inspiring leader takes longer, but it doesn't cost gold. Healer does more stuff, but I don't think it does +1 ability score more stuff.

I think you should have Inspiring Leader be a full feat, maybe up the temp hp somehow, and then add an inspiring ability: better Help action? Persuasion/Intimidation bonus? Group initiative bonus? The extra benefit of Healer is only worth a little more than a cantrip (spare the dying), so it doesn't have to be much.

And this is still ignoring that these feats grant way too much healing compared to other options.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Xeviat]

I'm also probably in the minority in thinking that Magic Initiate is too weak; to my mind, any feat that I could replicate with a one level dip to get something straight up better isn't worth it. I'd prefer to see it with a +1 ASI.

Im more and more with you. Magic initiate's 1st level spell at 1st level is great, but it doesn't scale. Compare magic initiate taking cure wounds to the likes of the Healer or Inspiring Leader feats. The spell slot from Magic Initiate should scale in some way.

Look at it this way: each level of a class is worth an ASI, minus the hp, hit dice, prof bonus, and the like. The full casters typically don't get abilities on their odd levels because they get a new spell level. They also typically get 2 slots for low-level spells, and these quickly jump to 3 slots.

I'd strongly consider having the spell slot refresh on a short rest (so it does benefit spellcasters) and be set at level/4, round up (level 1 from 1-4th, 2nd 5-8th, 3rd 9-12th, 4th 13th-16th, and 5th at 17+). A 5th level spell should deal like 8d10 (44) damage, 55 if it was miss for none. A fighter's full four attacks could easily be 46-53.33, so the limited gain doesn't seem too big to me. It would grant 5d8 extra smite damage per short rest to a paladin, though, which may be problematic.

Leaving all that there on the whiteboard for thinking. Aside from smite, this is still just a first level spell for noncasters. Let's say cure wounds was chosen. It would be like 5d8+2 to 5 for a typical noncaster grabbing it. That's 24.5-27.5 hp per short, or 75 or so per day at 20th. Healer is healing 50 per short rest, or 150 per day, so that's not a big deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CapnZapp]

[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?

Technically, you don't *have* a bonus action. Meaning they want to steer you away from the thinking that "your bonus action goes unused if you don't use it".

(Obviously that fools no powergamer!

You're right in that you can move in-between actions and even individual attacks.

You don't need any feats to dual wield two melee weapons. There's a weapon style to get your ability bonus to damage on the off-hand (bonus action) extra attack, and the Dual Wield feat allows you slightly bigger weapons.

With the hand crossbow, however, you take Crossbow Expert, and gain the same benefits as dual-wielding AND the weapon style = the feat gives you the right to use your bonus action to make an extra attack, AND it's phrased so you get your ability modifier to damage.

(on top of making the hand crossbow into a semi-automatic gun = getting rid of loading AND allowing you to shoot freely in melee)

This is seriously unbalanced, especially since this way of fighting can then be combined with Sharpshooter for the range, anticover and, of course, +10 to damage.

But even minmaxing aside, the feat is bad. Many gamers immediate reaction is to think the feat enables you to fight with a melee weapon in one hand and the hand crossbow in the other, or even two hand crossbows.

But upon closer examination it turns out the ammunition rules prevent those cool archetypes, because you must have one hand free to load your hand crossbow.

(At least if you want to sustain your chosen way of fighting for multiple rounds. I'm not taking about shooting your crossbow once, at the start of each fight)

And when you realize the feat's language does not prevent you from using one and the SAME weapon for both your action's attack(s) and your bonus action attack, the conclusion becomes clear:

The feat allows only one configuration: using a single hand crossbow, and no melee weapons.

It does exactly what Sage said it didn't do: it turns the hand crossbow into a semi-automatic weapon (a high level fighter shoots nine bolts in six seconds even before magic buffs)

It seriously undermines the viability of melee combat, since disadvantage when in melee was one of the last significant checks on ranged supremacy.

In the end analysis, the feat is actively bad for the game, does not do what people think it does, does do what the Sage thinks it doesn't do, and I cannot recommend its complete removal from the game enough.

Cheers ☺



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[clearstream]

With the hand crossbow, however, you take Crossbow Expert, and gain the same benefits as dual-wielding AND the weapon style = the feat gives you the right to use your bonus action to make an extra attack, AND it's phrased so you get your ability modifier to damage.

(on top of making the hand crossbow into a semi-automatic gun = getting rid of loading AND allowing you to shoot freely in melee)

This is seriously unbalanced, especially since this way of fighting can then be combined with Sharpshooter for the range, anticover and, of course, +10 to damage.

But even minmaxing aside, the feat is bad. Many gamers immediate reaction is to think the feat enables you to fight with a melee weapon in one hand and the hand crossbow in the other, or even two hand crossbows.

But upon closer examination it turns out the ammunition rules prevent those cool archetypes, because you must have one hand free to load your hand crossbow.

(At least if you want to sustain your chosen way of fighting for multiple rounds. I'm not taking about shooting your crossbow once, at the start of each fight)

And when you realize the feat's language does not prevent you from using one and the SAME weapon for both your action's attack(s) and your bonus action attack, the conclusion becomes clear:

The feat allows only one configuration: using a single hand crossbow, and no melee weapons.

It does exactly what Sage said it didn't do: it turns the hand crossbow into a semi-automatic weapon (a high level fighter shoots nine bolts in six seconds even before magic buffs)

It seriously undermines the viability of melee combat, since disadvantage when in melee was one of the last significant checks on ranged supremacy.

In the end analysis, the feat is actively bad for the game, does not do what people think it does, does do what the Sage thinks it doesn't do, and I cannot recommend its complete removal from the game enough.

I agree with your criticisms. The feat should do what people think it should do. And CE and SS together should not overshadow other feats so greatly, nor warp the narrative around themselves. Ranged shouldn't overshadow melee. Still, I can't agree with your conclusion that CE should be cut.

1) Longbow - if we cut CE we push ranged fighters back onto bow, and bow does benefit from extra attacks (up to nine arrows in six seconds before magic)
2) Archetype - the sword+hand-crossbow archetype is a good one and should be supported
3) Casters - our analysis of martial options doesn't exist in a vacuum: we need to include casters in our context

So I'm more of a mind to tweak than excise. I believe my changes to CE and SS answer each one of your criticisms completely. Mainly because they are based on things you pointed out, or proposed

 

[clearstream]

Im more and more with you. Magic initiate's 1st level spell at 1st level is great, but it doesn't scale. Compare magic initiate taking cure wounds to the likes of the Healer or Inspiring Leader feats. The spell slot from Magic Initiate should scale in some way.

Look at it this way: each level of a class is worth an ASI, minus the hp, hit dice, prof bonus, and the like. The full casters typically don't get abilities on their odd levels because they get a new spell level. They also typically get 2 slots for low-level spells, and these quickly jump to 3 slots.

I'd strongly consider having the spell slot refresh on a short rest (so it does benefit spellcasters) and be set at level/4, round up (level 1 from 1-4th, 2nd 5-8th, 3rd 9-12th, 4th 13th-16th, and 5th at 17+). A 5th level spell should deal like 8d10 (44) damage, 55 if it was miss for none. A fighter's full four attacks could easily be 46-53.33, so the limited gain doesn't seem too big to me. It would grant 5d8 extra smite damage per short rest to a paladin, though, which may be problematic.

Leaving all that there on the whiteboard for thinking. Aside from smite, this is still just a first level spell for noncasters. Let's say cure wounds was chosen. It would be like 5d8+2 to 5 for a typical noncaster grabbing it. That's 24.5-27.5 hp per short, or 75 or so per day at 20th. Healer is healing 50 per short rest, or 150 per day, so that's not a big deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You and @TwoSix make some great points. I'll give more thought to Magic Initiate, Healer and Inspiring Leader. It's possible that the issue with Healer is really the price of Healing Kits (versus say, Healing Potions). Magic Initiate doesn't fare well compared against Healer, for healing, that's true. Yet I feel the feat shines most when it's used for things like Bless or Shield. Or Healing Word for getting people back in the fight, from range without using an action.

 

[Xeviat]

You and @TwoSix make some great points. I'll give more thought to Magic Initiate, Healer and Inspiring Leader. It's possible that the issue with Healer is really the price of Healing Kits (versus say, Healing Potions). Magic Initiate doesn't fare well compared against Healer, for healing, that's true. Yet I feel the feat shines most when it's used for things like Bless or Shield. Or Healing Word for getting people back in the fight, from range without using an action.

Magic Initiate for shield ... compare that to a high Dex character taking Agile Duelist. Sure, shield lasts an entire round, but Agile Duelist is at-will. And Agile Duelist is considered a weak feat. Every comparable comparison shows Magic Initiate to be weak past the early levels.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ilbranteloth]

To be even more specific, I believe the Errata and Sage Advice might have intentionally shifted what is possible. Are they saying that you need a hand free for ammo whether or not a crossbow is loaded? Or only that if it's not loaded, you always need a hand free?

Scenario 1) a loaded crossbow doesn't need a hand free for ammo
T1: attack (swish, swish), bonus (crossbow is loaded, twang)
T2: attack (swish, swish), free (stow sword), bonus (hand free for ammo, twang)
T3: free (draw sword), attack (swish, swish), no bonus (no hand free, crossbow isn't loaded)
T4: attack (swish, swish), free (stow sword), bonus (hand free for ammo, twang)
T5: free (draw sword), attack (swish, swish), no bonus (no hand free, crossbow isn't loaded)
etc 5/2 except for T1

Scenario 2) even a loaded crossbow needs a hand free for ammo
T1: attack (swish, swish), free (stow sword), bonus (hand free for ammo, twang)
T2: free (draw sword), attack (swish, swish), no bonus (no hand free, crossbow isn't loaded)
T3: attack (swish, swish), free (stow sword), bonus (hand free for ammo, twang)
T4: free (draw sword), attack (swish, swish), no bonus (no hand free, crossbow isn't loaded)
etc 5/2 flat

Scenario 3) as 2) but you can take your bonus action before your action
T1: attack (swish, swish), free (stow sword), bonus (hand free for ammo, twang)
T2: bonus (hand free for ammo, twang), free (draw sword), attack (swish, swish)
T3: attack (swish, swish), free (stow sword), bonus (hand free for ammo, twang)
T2: bonus (hand free for ammo, twang), free (draw sword), attack (swish, swish)
etc 3/1

Of course all this sheathing and drawing swords is nonsense, but we can picture it as a practiced martial executing a well-oiled routine that lets their guard briefly down while they reload. (They can't make opportunity attacks with their sword in those intervals where they are manipulating ammo, as between T1 and T2 in the second scenario.)

Summary - I could be mistaken. If the bonus action can be used before the attack action, then 3/1 is possible. Do you think that is a problem?

No, I definitely don't think Sage Advice/Errata shifted what was possible. Scenario 1 is what the original rules allowed, and what Sage Advice clarified. You have to have a hand free to load ammunition.

Part of the problem in my opinion was to use the term "loading." What they were really trying to say is that a crossbow requires preparation that takes a lot longer than say, a bow. Consider the two weapons.

To shoot a bow you must draw an arrow (ammunition property), draw the bow, and release.
To shoot a crossbow you must draw the crossbow, draw a bolt, and release.

The steps are the same, just in a different order. But the crossbow takes longer to draw because of the way it functions. It's just slower to use. Using a crossbow other than a hand crossbow is also a two-handed weapon. If you have a hand crossbow and it's already drawn and loaded you don't need a hand free. The reality is, the crossbow should take at least an Action to load, and really it should be a full-round thing. You can't load most crossbows in 6 seconds, and certainly not of the type that was available in the medieval era.

I know people complain about the sheathing and drawing swords as "nonsense" but the reality is, the whole fabricated scenario is nonsense. In real battles with real weapons of these types, once you closed for melee, then you just drop the crossbow, draw your sword and fight. Hopefully before your opponent is within reach to use their melee weapon. If you're in melee and decided to try to put your sword back in your sheath, you'd simply be killed. No matter how much you practiced it. Even trying to draw a sword when somebody is within reach with theirs drawn would get you killed. That's why disarming somebody is so effective - it's much faster to stab them or swing at them than it is for them to draw another weapon. So you try to dodge and knock away their weapon with your (hopefully armored) arm, so you can get to your weapon. That, to me, sounds like the Dodge action while you draw a weapon.

In any event, it's obvious that I disagree with this addition: "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."

Maximum cheese and absurdity.

--

As for the thread itself, I completely disagree with combat being the "central pillar" of D&D, although I totally understand that a lot of people play it that way. Having said that, by designing the strength of feats around that concept helps balance them in a way that the optimization/combat-focused crowd will be happy too!

I would also make a note that the Taxed Feats could also be Half-ASI feats for folks not concerned about "protecting core-class benefits."




Alert: I don't care for abilities that guarantee success. I would prefer advantage on Initiative and Surprise checks, or allowing a Perception check, possibly with advantage, when surprise is a possibility, etc.

Great Weapon Shooter I thought one of the main complaints was the -5/+10 is overpowered.

Sharpshooter In addition to questioning the -5/+10, I would remove the "eliminates disadvantage for long range" part. Shooting an arrow at long range is vastly different from a rifle with a sight which is what the "sharpshooter" name makes me think of. Personally, I think reducing the value of cover, combined with a greater critical threshold (18 or 19) would be on target for how archery really works. That is, you have better aim, so you are better at hitting something behind cover, or making a deadlier shot.

Armorer Seems like it should be a full ASI. You're gaining a tool proficiency and improving your AC or gaining resistance. Note that I think it should be a full ASI without the tool proficiency too. Actually, I don't see why everybody who is trained in getting the most out of their armor would also be good at making/repairing it. But I certainly don't think they should increase a +1 to an ability either, so if I had to choose one it would be the tool.

Actually, a lot of the half-ASI ones feel that way for me. Perhaps I need to understand your math a bit better, though. I'll keep looking through them to see how they compare, though. Very interesting thread.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

You and @TwoSix make some great points. I'll give more thought to Magic Initiate, Healer and Inspiring Leader. It's possible that the issue with Healer is really the price of Healing Kits (versus say, Healing Potions). Magic Initiate doesn't fare well compared against Healer, for healing, that's true. Yet I feel the feat shines most when it's used for things like Bless or Shield. Or Healing Word for getting people back in the fight, from range without using an action.

Magic initiate isn't generally taken for raw combat power. While picking up a 1/day combat spell like Absorb Elements can be an extremely effective boost, in general the power of the feat is in the other two pillars. Likewise the two cantrips, which are the main benefit of the feat could be ones that a character's combat strategy is built around, like Shillelagh, or Booming Blade. However cantrips that grant abilities outside of combat such as Minor Illusion, Light, Mold Earth are where the feat really shines.

 

[Blue]

I'm going through bit by bit. I have a concern about Elemental Adept in that it's giving away one of the biggest differentiator of sorcerers. Martial adept is not similar - it gives away the differentiator of a subclass, not the base class. Like if you could take a feat for Extra Attack and if you already had that it would go up to 3 attacks like Fighters get at 11th.