Feat: Innate Casting - request critique

[The Crimson Binome]

Well, yes. Hunter's Mark (and probably Hex) should have been class features in my opinion.

Agreed.

But that's not the game we have, and adding a feat to a game is less invasive then redesigning a class.

How so? You've already crossed the line into homebrew territory, so it's not like this would change anything from that perspective. A focused change, on the one class that actually needs it, would have far fewer unintended consequences than introducing a new feat for several different classes to take. Given the general opinion of the Ranger class, you could probably just add this benefit for free, and the class would be fine.

 

[Yunru]

Was going to say, Innate Spellcasting and "no concentration" was a bit "bwah?" given that the monster feature doesn't have it.

Soul Spell?

 

[BacchusNL]

Fair enough. Any thoughts? Trying to show that you have internalized a spell enough you don't need to even concentrate or take a slot. Spell Mastery and Signature Spell are already name of a wizard features so I wouldn't want to duplicate.

Spell Savant?

 

[Blue]

How so? You've already crossed the line into homebrew territory, so it's not like this would change anything from that perspective. A focused change, on the one class that actually needs it, would have far fewer unintended consequences than introducing a new feat for several different classes to take. Given the general opinion of the Ranger class, you could probably just add this benefit for free, and the class would be fine.

For my own table, sure. I'm just thinking about more general applicability, which is why I posted it to a public forum.

DMsguild is full of things that add to the game, like a new feat. Plenty from 3rd party publishers.

Replacements for existing classes on the other hand are not as common, either sold or used. With the exception of the revised ranger, and that was from Wizards just UA material, I haven't played at any table that replaced existing classes.