D&D 5E Feat Workshop

[Blue]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] - I think this is a really interesting thread and wanted to comment on them trying to keep them separate as you asked at one point but I realized it could come across as spamming the thread or disapproving. I like the discussion and what you are doing, just adding a few cents.

 

[Blue]

I'd just straight up fold Athlete into Mobile.

I don't think people consider Mobile to be underpowered to need more, and I can see plenty of strong, slow people who are exceptional athletes - it wouldn't make sense to give them the mobile feat, and would definitely dilute what the athletic feat would give them.

 

[CapnZapp]

1. Before it was on a per-attack and now it's until-end-of-round. Why the change? Especially considering that you could attack, move, bonus action, and then attack an entirely different opponent if you have extra attack so it doesn't really fit the in-game narrative.

2. I like how you opened up weapons. This works on versatile in two hands as well as bows and the light and heavy crossbows. (That it works on ranged is intentional, correct?)

3. If you already have disadvantage, you will always use this since there is no penalty.

1. Please see the discussion I've been having with Guachi lately. In short: I thought the extension was needed to keep the feat in check, Guachi thinks it's fine on a per-attack basis. You agree?
2. All versions of the feat we're discussing still specify a melee attack.
3. I recognize your concern as valid; it's just that I see it as more of a world-building issue, one of verisimilitude. Is this really a huge problem in practical play? I don't see it, but I am prepared to be convinced otherwise. (The main impetus for my review and workshop is to make the feats work in the hands of powergamers. Powergamers don't stack disadvantage. They avoid it)

If we do end up agreeing this can wreck game balance, the solution seems straight-forward: you can't choose to take disadvantage (from any game feature) if you already have disadvantage.

Meaning that if you shoot from lying down, say, or you're inconvenienced by a spell (all granting disadvantage) you can't choose to take disadvantage (from this feat or any other source).

That would ideally be a general rule, not something we add to each feat or other individual source.

 

[CapnZapp]

I know you mentioned wanting a real climb or swim speed, but really I don't see Athlete as allowing things like ignoring disadvantage during underwater combat, which a real swim speed would give you.

Noted.

I look forward to when you reach the part of the thread where I radically burst all the limits on Athletics. What do you think about Swash Speed and Real Leap?

I do like the suggestion that Athletes gain the ability to remove a level of exhaustion. It really is a niggle how expensive this is otherwise (a level 5 spell that removes only a single level of exhaustion?).

The cost in Hit Dice should probably remain significant throughout the Athlete's career. How about "if you spend half your maximum number of HD (round down), you can remove one level of exhaustion"?

 

[CapnZapp]

A wizard can spend one feat and not have to worry about Dex or mage armor ever again? No, that's too much.

A rogue wants to pick up a thematic weapon (or to use that Oathbow they just found) and needs to learn two other completely unused choices? That's too little, back to the original trap feats.

I don't have a good suggestion, but feats are supposed to balance ASIs. Taking one feat for medium armor and shield and +1 to Dex will grant you a lot more AC than +2 to Dex from an ASI.

Part of me wants to move proficiency training to the same downtime activity as tool training. Of course, I think that's a crazy amount of downtime for some campaigns but that's a different story.

The problem is that just one level of fighter gives you more than all these four feats.

And even if you don't use multiclassing, or if you feel delaying your spells by even one level is unacceptable, you can still fix this much cheaper than the RAW feats: just play a Mountain Dwarf!

You see my point?

I can't have feats that exist in isolation. I understand that the design process of D&D has been iterative. I can easily see how the game first created one choice (a feat, say) that on some level seems like a fair deal, but then independently offered a second choice (a race, say) that also, on some level, seems like a fair deal - without drawing enough conclusions from this.

All I'm doing is recognizing that the proficiency feats are crazily expensive compared to other options.

Now, had those other options been deemed overpowered or unbalancing, it would have been a different story. But they aren't. I consider the multiclassing rules to be generally a success. Nobody thinks the Mountain Dwarf is the only choice for a Wizard.

Therefore I conclude the cost of an armor proficiency is vastly inflated by the feat. I conclude it is the feats that are expensive rather than the other way round.

My Martial Training feat might be radical, but I don't see how a powergamer will ever pick up proficiencies through a feat otherwise.

Had I thought two feats were more in line with multiclassing or choosing the "wrong race", I would have designed my feat(s) that way, but I don't. My hunch is that if the Wizard must pay more than one feat he'll simply take a level of fighter or dwarf instead.

So, before we discuss whether "just one feat to never have to worry about dex and mage armor ever again" is too good, we must first consider the alternatives. We must first discuss: how many feats do you think a player (conscious of making an effective build) will take before she starts to look at other options?

I realistically don't see any answer larger than one. How about you? Would you ever take more than one feat to gain armor proficiencies?

Now: what you could answer is: okay so two feats is too expensive, but one is still too cheap.

In other words, it would be fine for us to agree powergamers get their proficiencies from other sources than the feat subsystem

But now I've talked so much I'll leave that for later...

---

Your Oathbow example: I don't have a good answer for you. Feats are certainly far too "big chunks" for one to be a good way to pick up something as small as a single weapon proficiency. I'm afraid D&D isn't really the game for "precision tweaks" like that.

I know - I have played many fantasy rpgs that are skill based (such as Basic Role-Playing). That level of granularity (a single skill, a single proficiency) is probably best handled by a background in 5th edition.

So, actually I do have a good answer for you Design a background around the concept of getting a single weapon proficiency!

 

[CapnZapp]

My first though is seems like a feat-tax for ranged rogues to always get sneak attack. But really, it's a corner case that you won't have an ally adjacent so it's not that good.

Second thought was that it talks about ranged attacks and not ranged weapon attacks. Is the intent you can use this with spells? I'd say no since that brings up that spells don't have defined range categories.

From a design viewpoint, I don't like half-feats as combat feats. Maybe that they become too easy a choice at 4th level. (Or that optimizing for a +2 prime ability race get a lot more (max starting 17 point buy) than a +1 race so it encourages more twinking.) That may be just me.

Different classes have different bonus-action economy. This fits some classes a lot better than others, something I'm not too thrilled about.

Bows have a looong short range compared to movement. I'd prefer if ranged attackers want to get more bonuses that they are within range that they can be rushed.

I do like a feat to enable "the Legolas maneuver" of shooting close-up that used to be part of Crossbow expert. Actually, I would like if crossbows are useful for those with extra attack and don't mind overloading.

How about this to incorporate my thoughts above:

• You can take careful aim, even in a battle. If no opponents are adjacent to you, when you take the Attack action you gain advantage on ranged attacks within 30' until the end of the turn. [More powerful that it doesn't take a bonus action, less powerful that it drastically reduces range down to single move to engage. Triggers off Attack action in case there are things like the SCAG cantrips in future products, or if there is some way to get a ranged attack of opportunity]
• If you are adjacent to an opponent you do not suffer disadvantage on ranged attack rolls. [Note you don't have advantage because of the no-foes-adjacent of the first part]
• As long as you don't move during the turn you may ignore the loading property. [Giving some love to the crossbow for giving up movement. Though this weakens the first since you can't close with a foe to get within 30' for the first ability.]

Without the +1 half-feat, I don't think this is too powerful. Yes, you can get advantage IF you go to get-engaged-in-melee range.

Thank you. Very good comments.

Your first thought is something I too anticipated. Powergamers will gain advantage, that's a fact. The beauty of this is that once they have advantage, there's nowhere to go. Meaning you can use the feat but not abuse it. (That's the theory at least)

I'll admit I haven't been too precise in the difference between attacks and weapon attacks. I guess I still resent the errata introducing the difference! My first thought is: if you can include cantrips without wrecking balance, why not do it? (My first thought here would be: can you combine sharpshooter and spell sniper?) In other words, I'm fully prepared to specify weapon attacks, but I'd like to have a bigger reason than "just because this is about weapons".

Excellent point about combat half-feats! If we can design a Sharpshooter feat that doesn't hand out a +1 Dex I'll gladly do it.

"Different classes have different bonus-action economy. This fits some classes a lot better than others, something I'm not too thrilled about."
I would be interested to hear more.

In my view, one of the main ways an effective build distinguishes itself from a less-effective build is in always utilizing the bonus action (and preferably reaction too). I can guess you're thinking of how a ranged rogue, say, isn't as dependant on her bonus action, than, say a dual-wielder or polearm master. But I'm convinced of the opposite. A build that's considered good already without its bonus action can always become better with its bonus action. Thus I'd argue using up your bonus action is a great way of restricting how you can combine one feature with the rest of the options.

I completely agree about the range thing (as you probably could imagine from other threads!). A compromise could be "within short range"? (Always 30 feet does away with the different characteristics of different weapons, which is a bit of a shame)

On crossbow expert I would beg to respectfully disagree.

(I'll discuss your proposal in the next post)

 

[CapnZapp]

How about this to incorporate my thoughts above:

• You can take careful aim, even in a battle. If no opponents are adjacent to you, when you take the Attack action you gain advantage on ranged attacks within 30' until the end of the turn. [More powerful that it doesn't take a bonus action, less powerful that it drastically reduces range down to single move to engage. Triggers off Attack action in case there are things like the SCAG cantrips in future products, or if there is some way to get a ranged attack of opportunity]
• If you are adjacent to an opponent you do not suffer disadvantage on ranged attack rolls. [Note you don't have advantage because of the no-foes-adjacent of the first part]
• As long as you don't move during the turn you may ignore the loading property. [Giving some love to the crossbow for giving up movement. Though this weakens the first since you can't close with a foe to get within 30' for the first ability.]

Without the +1 half-feat, I don't think this is too powerful. Yes, you can get advantage IF you go to get-engaged-in-melee range.

I'm thinking "if we remove point 2, we can simplify point 1":

Sharpshooter

• You can take careful aim, even in a battle. When you take the Attack action you gain advantage on ranged weapon attacks within short range until the end of your round.

I didn't say in my previous post, but I am wary of abilities (other than specific "steadfast" abilities) that restrict movement. After all, the way 3rd edition asked you to choose between moving and doing damage was the wrong choice.

I've incorporated weapon attacks as per your (and others) suggestion.

I've restricted the advantage to your round. Not sure if that's what you were concerned about - getting the benefit on a ranged OA?

I've loosened up 30 ft to "short range". But I don't have a strong opinion either way, so consider it merely a talking point.

As I said above, I've noted that by removing point 2, I don't need to specify when you get advantage, since now the core rule kicks in. Sure you get advantage, but you get disadvantage too.

Meaning I'm using a less powerful version of the Legolas thing: you can avoid disadvantage when shooting arrows while an orc tries to chop your head off.

But you will still benefit from getting away from the orc, since then you can gain actual advantage.

This is as far as I'm prepared to go, since one of my main beefs with 5E is the way too many checks and balances that are meant to keep ranged combat from gaining dominance have been unthinkingly removed (but let's discuss that in the Slow Axes with Dwarfs thread).

Hmm... now I suddenly realized something... but I'll start a separate thread for that...

The third bullet point is simply not something I see working. I feel the best I can do is suggest that you keep the Crossbow Expert feat in your game if you're so inclined. I really want to keep Sharpshooter free of that discussion.

So, that leaves me with:

Sharpshooter

• You can take careful aim, even in a battle. When you take the Attack action you gain advantage on ranged weapon attacks within short range until the end of your round.

This is a fair bit removed from the initial proposal (it no longer negates disadvantage from long range etc), it doesn't do is the William Tell thing.

It's back to being a regular combat feat, and not a specialized "one true shot" feat. (Which was where the use-bonus-action thing came from)

But let's stop here and give you (and others) the chance to chime in

 

[Quartz]

Granting permanent advantage seems far too good for me.

 

[guachi]

There are a few reasons I'd allow the Power Attack feature on a per attack basis. First, it's the way the rule is currently written and I don't want to change rules without a good reason.

Second, I don't have a good reason. In all the discussions of the feature I don't recall being able to do it on a per attack basis as being a reason people don't like the feat. I can imagine a two-handed weapon wielder taking a big, but less accurate swing with one attack, switching grip, and then taking a normal, more careful attack, for instance.

As to the extra wording on my revised GWM and specifying the weapon be wielded in two hands and have the two-handed or versatile property - I worded it that way because that's the wording on the GWF style. Why the writers chose to specify both how you wield it and the required properties of the weapon, I don't know. Perhaps for clarity? In any event, by having identical wording it makes it obvious the feat and the style work with the same weapons in the same circumstances.

To me, that's a benefit.

 

[Colder]

Why are all your (plural) Sharpshooter alternatives removing the long-range aspect of the feat completely? It's an integral part of the trope so I think it's wrong to do away with it completely. If you're going to make the feat grant advantage, just don't limit it to only the normal range and you can make long range shots normally while putting a cap on how useful that is.