D&D 5E Does Magic Initiate need changing?

[DND_Reborn]

Power creep is always a problem, but so is imbalance in original release.

I disagree about imbalance in the original release being a problem, but to each, their own.

The reason I disagree is that feats are not designed to be balanced against each other or against the ASI +2, they are designed for impact, flavor, and other considerations. Otherwise, most of the feats would need changing IMO.

But, any feat is compared to +2 to primary ability. If a feat does not compete to +2 to primary ability at levels 4 or 8, there is something wrong with that feat.

Again, this is where we will simply have to disagree. I don't put nearly any stock in increasing my primary ability by +2. If I have a 16, I am set for the game really. I might favor two half feats which grant a +1 ASI to a primary, so by level 8 I'd have an 18, but that is even hardly consistent. Your experiences probably vary of course since you seem to put such a store on the ASI +2.

And MI is in that area. It does not IMHO, feel worth +2 in ability, and yet, giving it +1 ASI would make is little too good.

I think it is definitely worth an ASI +2 IF having the magic of MI favors the build I am playing. If it doesn't, then of course there are other feats I would probably prefer...

it seems like 3/4 of a feat. Something like that. So either give it a little boost(extra cantrip or extra 1st level spell, or extra utility), or a little nerf: remove 1 cantrip or remove 1st level spell and make it "half-feat".

Sure. As I said, there are plenty of reasonable ways of improving MI if you feel it needs it. I don't really think it does, but I prefer lower-power games and as such most of Tasha's is very OP to me by comparison and I don't allow much of it in my games.

 

[Horwath]

@DND_Reborn I agree with you 99%.
If flavor is all you worry about, then balance is an non issue,
I just like that flavorful feats are in line with "combat" feats. They might not be combat bonuses directly, but overall should increase effectiveness of a character about the same, when we take combat, social and exploration part of the game.

and yes, you do not need more than 16 in your primary ability for most if not all of the game, but you need to know that your trade-off was worth it. Both in flavor and mechanics.

And I believe with small tweaks to (most) feats, we could get best of both worlds.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@DND_Reborn I agree with you 99%.
If flavor is all you worry about, then balance is an non issue,
I just like that flavorful feats are in line with "combat" feats. They might not be combat bonuses directly, but overall should increase effectiveness of a character about the same, when we take combat, social and exploration part of the game.

and yes, you do not need more than 16 in your primary ability for most if not all of the game, but you need to know that your trade-off was worth it. Both in flavor and mechanics.

And I believe with small tweaks to (most) feats, we could get best of both worlds.

Yeah, D&D is primarily a combat-oriented game for most tables IME, so choosing "sub-optimal" feats which emphasize other pillars is a hard choice for many players simply because they want to be as effective in combat as possible.

This is perfectly understandable, of course!

Frankly, I wish all feats were half feats and the "stronger" feats were toned down to make them half feats. "Weaker" feats could then be given an ASI +1 and you wouldn't have as many issues.

But again, this is where I differ from many players and DMs (which I understand), I would rather make the strong feats less powerful than add more features/power or small tweaks to all the rest of the feats. That will have to be the 1% we disagree on.

 

[Horwath]

Yeah, D&D is primarily a combat-oriented game for most tables IME, so choosing "sub-optimal" feats which emphasize other pillars is a hard choice for many players simply because they want to be as effective in combat as possible.

This is perfectly understandable, of course!

Frankly, I wish all feats were half feats and the "stronger" feats were toned down to make them half feats. "Weaker" feats could then be given an ASI +1 and you wouldn't have as many issues.

But again, this is where I differ from many players and DMs (which I understand), I would rather make the strong feats less powerful than add more features/power or small tweaks to all the rest of the feats. That will have to be the 1% we disagree on.

yeah, I like GWM and SS have +1 ASI instead of -5/+10 part.

 

[DND_Reborn]

yeah, I like GWM and SS have +1 ASI instead of -5/+10 part.

Yep, that is a perfect example of how I would change feats.

Feats to me are for flavor and options, and if you take them should support a related ability. It would be ideal of each feat allowed a choice of two or even three abilities. For example, Athlete is STR or DEX, but why not CON? Isn't developing endurance and general health a side-effect of most people who are more natural athletes?

It would an interesting design experiment, adapting all the feats to my "weaker with ASI" version and your "tweaking the weaker feats" version. If you have any interest and time, let me know and we can work it.

 

[ECMO3]

who doesn't read an optimizing guide to learn which handful of spells might make sense if you can only ever cast them once a day (and to eventually just decide to take Find Familiar or Hex).

Certainly Hex is a solid spell for a non-caster and usable by any class because you can combine it with Warlock Cantrips that don't use Charisma as well.

I guess find familiar is ok, but I dont see myself getting a feat for that. If that is the spell I pick I am probably getting the feat for the cantrip and the spell is just an added boost.

However I think silvery barbs, shield and absorb elements are all solid picks usable throughout the game on virtually any class.

 

[ECMO3]

and yes, you do not need more than 16 in your primary ability for most if not all of the game, but you need to know that your trade-off was worth it. Both in flavor and mechanics.

Agree. In many games I play with Rogues who end up maxing Intelligence or less often Charisma while still sporting a 16 dex because they took a bunch of half feats (and most of the good half feats boost these two scores).

 

[Horwath]

Yep, that is a perfect example of how I would change feats.

Feats to me are for flavor and options, and if you take them should support a related ability. It would be ideal of each feat allowed a choice of two or even three abilities. For example, Athlete is STR or DEX, but why not CON? Isn't developing endurance and general health a side-effect of most people who are more natural athletes?

It would an interesting design experiment, adapting all the feats to my "weaker with ASI" version and your "tweaking the weaker feats" version. If you have any interest and time, let me know and we can work it.

IMHO, all half feats should have floating +1 ASI.
or even an option that you can take two half feats without any ASIs when you get to your ASI class level

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Certainly Hex is a solid spell for a non-caster and usable by any class because you can combine it with Warlock Cantrips that don't use Charisma as well.

I guess find familiar is ok, but I do see myself getting a feat for that. If that is the spell I pick I am probably getting the feat for the cantrip and the spell is just an added boost.

However I think silvery barbs, shield and absorb elements are all solid picks usuable throughout the game on virtually any class.

Well whatever, personally I've only ever taken it to get both find familiar and booming blade and have only further considered it for the Hex and Eldritch blast combo or as just a learn an extra Sorcerer spell option for a Sorcerer, but reasonable minds may differ as to what makes sense. My point was simply that the way it is written now heavily favors either (from my school of thought) a very few high mileage spells, or (from what seems to be your school of thought) a very few critically effective in a single clutch moment spells, but that letting players also use their normal spell slots would open up all worthwhile first level spells as reasonable choices for caster characters and make proper selections for the spell less of an esoteric art where this one feat gets whole strategy guides.

 

[DND_Reborn]

IMHO, all half feats should have floating +1 ASI.
or even an option that you can take two half feats without any ASIs when you get to your ASI class level

LOL I guess we have to reduce our percentage to 97% then.

I am not a fan of floating ASI. ASI (IMO) should make sense to whatever is granting it that supports it. But, I think most (if not all) feats could have 2-3 abilities that make sense easily enough.

Two half-feats would provide too many "new features" for the ASI award IMO.

But, of course whatever you want for your own game is fine, just not what I would want personally.