OneDnD Expert Classes - Feats Discussion

I guess I'm thinking about this from the perspective of wanting heavy armor training to be reasonably accessible, to give more characters the option of prioritizing strength over dexterity. Spellcasters are probably the more common use case, though.

As I think more about this, maybe it's actually the higher levels of armor training that should be easier to get, since light armor is a +2 AC boost to anyone, while medium and heavy armor combined only add 1 AC over what a dexterity-based attacker can get "for free". I do wonder if it's really necessary for heavier armors to have both strength requirements and additional training requirements. Perhaps these could be re-written as alternatives. Plate armor for instance, might have a requirement of "Heavy Armor Training OR any Armor Training with 17 or higher strength".

I think it is a mistake to think of heavy armor is only 1 more AC than light armor.

Yes, it starts like this and ends like this. But there are quite a few levels where you are 2 or even 3 points ahead. At level 5 or 6 you can probably afford full plate. If you and the dex character wants a feat, this puts you 3 AC ahead. If the dex character starts out with 17 dex, which is possible, you are only 2 points ahead, but that leaves the dex character with only a 15 top in their secondary stat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Pauln6

Adventurer
Ritual Caster is the only significant disappointment. I have seen a couple of characters take this feat. One was a high level fighter, low level bard who was obsessed with prophecy and learned all the clerical divination rituals, the other was a tome warlock who just wanted to know more spells to add more utility. Nobody was crying that the feat made these characters too powerful or too versatile. Neither player was clamouring for faster rituals, although I'm sure they would not object. The changes feel unnecessarily harsh to fix a problem that is only a problem on paper and risks impacting niche builds for groups that don't want combat magic to be a focus of their campaign. Even if the number of rituals known at higher levels were to be capped e.g. at X character level, learn another ritual of X level or lower, it would just about fulfil its old purpose
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
Still having a browse. What's the deal with Tavern Brawler? The nerf certainly does what it says on the tin but it's so horribly specific it feels like they are stomping on people's fun. No skillet wielding Tika Waylan? No Bullseye using razor edged playing cards? No classic monks using chopsticks or food bowls as weapons. No smashing flagon of ale on people's heads. Legs of lamb? Apples? Goats? Wtf?
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
Ritual Caster is the only significant disappointment. I have seen a couple of characters take this feat. One was a high level fighter, low level bard who was obsessed with prophecy and learned all the clerical divination rituals, the other was a tome warlock who just wanted to know more spells to add more utility. Nobody was crying that the feat made these characters too powerful or too versatile. Neither player was clamouring for faster rituals, although I'm sure they would not object. The changes feel unnecessarily harsh to fix a problem that is only a problem on paper and risks impacting niche builds for groups that don't want combat magic to be a focus of their campaign. Even if the number of rituals known at higher levels were to be capped e.g. at X character level, learn another ritual of X level or lower, it would just about fulfil its old purpose
I suspect the goal of ritual caster is to make it easier for characters to perform rituals. So anyone who can cast spells can therefore perform rituals. Then the namesake Ritual Magic feat was repurposed for something different. The intention is to make the feat useful to both casters and noncasters.

The caster benefit is effectively two more prepared 1st-slot spells to use slots for. Albeit they must be rituals which tend to lack synergy with spell slots. The Quick Ritual benefit can be used for any slot levels, but only a few specific spells would benefit significantly.

Perhaps a nonprep caster might benefit by picking up two rituals, that otherwise would be impracticable because the limited number of known spells fiercely reduced which spells are worthwhile to cast.

The noncaster benefit is picking up two specific 1st-slot rituals. And thats it. Noncasters cant waste a feat on two minor rituals, when other feats are nicer.

Overall, while the feat feels adequate, there is nothing impressive about it, and I suspect players will rarely waste a feat on it when better feats are available − which is a problem the designers are trying to fix.



But the main problem is deeper. Inherently, spell-slot spells and rituals dont work well together and need separate design spaces. Spells that take an action cast versus spells that take minutes cast are for completely different situations and different purposes. To some degree, slot spells tend to be for combat when the time pressure is extreme, and rituals tend to be for exploration when the timing is liesurely, but the differences are bigger than that.

The game becomes more useful when there is one list for spells and a separate list for rituals. Rituals dont use spell slots. There can be a different way to determine the success of a ritual, such as a relevant skill check.

Personally, I use Nature for checks relating to elemental magic − earth, water, air, and fire/sunlight. I use Survival for animal life and plant life. I use Religion for planar magic, and Arcana for magical energy and force effects.

The point is, skill checks. Each ritual has a built-in level prerequisite in the form of corresponding slot level. But it is possible to allow noncasters who invest in a skill to find and use instructions for how to perform a particular ritual, and if they are high enough a level, make a skill check to determine if they perform it well.
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
I think 4e did rituals well, conceptually. They seem almost pointless and poorly thought out in 5e. Some spells like circle of protection seem really clunky, falling between the cracks for no obvious reason.
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
I think 4e did rituals well, conceptually. They seem almost pointless and poorly thought out in 5e. Some spells like circle of protection seem really clunky, falling between the cracks for no obvious reason.
They're clunky from a narrative point of view, as many spells that narratively should be rituals (Animate Dead, for example) aren't for no reason beyond game balance.
 

Pauln6

Adventurer
They're clunky from a narrative point of view, as many spells that narratively should be rituals (Animate Dead, for example) aren't for no reason beyond game balance.
I think Animate Dead would work fine as a ritual if the undead from a ritual were tied to the location where they were animated and the numbers were limited by level.
 

ehren37

Legend
Which would you use if a character is trying to win over a crowd with their performance of a classic tale/song/poem?
Make a tool proficiency check. Performance is the odd man out in skills as it is far too niche. The stakes are almost always minimal compared to a Stealth, Athletics, Deception, etc check. Meanwhile Thieves tools is the king of tools compared to bagpipes or whatever. Every published adventure will see multiple meaningful opportunities for thieves tools checks and very few for brewers tools.

We should just bring back secondary skills from 2E for the mostly fluff stuff. That way we can dispense with the weirdness of being proficient in mason's tools and just have masonry be a secondary skill. Throw singing, fishing, cooking, farming and the other stuff that's rarely worth a "real" skill pick in there. Upgrade thievery to a standard skill, to allow expertise without a weird rogue specific rule.
 

Yaarel

Mind Mage
For a music performance to wow a crowd:

Instrument tool proficiency + Persuasion skill proficiency = Advantage



Musical instrument proficiencies are much like language proficiencies. Unfortunately, they are mechanically less useful − and should be for free but gated thematically.
 
Last edited:

Branduil

Hero
Make a tool proficiency check. Performance is the odd man out in skills as it is far too niche. The stakes are almost always minimal compared to a Stealth, Athletics, Deception, etc check. Meanwhile Thieves tools is the king of tools compared to bagpipes or whatever. Every published adventure will see multiple meaningful opportunities for thieves tools checks and very few for brewers tools.

We should just bring back secondary skills from 2E for the mostly fluff stuff. That way we can dispense with the weirdness of being proficient in mason's tools and just have masonry be a secondary skill. Throw singing, fishing, cooking, farming and the other stuff that's rarely worth a "real" skill pick in there. Upgrade thievery to a standard skill, to allow expertise without a weird rogue specific rule.
I've been toying with a similar idea. I think it would work much better if D&D had two different skill spaces, "Adventuring skills" and "Roleplaying skills." I've never seen anyone want to waste their skill slots on things like an instrument, even if it would make their character more interesting, because skills are just too scarce and valuable. Give every character like 4 or 5 roleplaying skills, including things like additional languages and esoteric knowledge skills.
 

Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
I've been toying with a similar idea. I think it would work much better if D&D had two different skill spaces, "Adventuring skills" and "Roleplaying skills." I've never seen anyone want to waste their skill slots on things like an instrument, even if it would make their character more interesting, because skills are just too scarce and valuable. Give every character like 4 or 5 roleplaying skills, including things like additional languages and esoteric knowledge skills.
In some ways this mirrors the problem with ASIs/Feats. Most people take the +2, and those who choose feats pick one that boost their combat.

Yeah…it would be interesting if combat and non-combat choices were separated.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top