Level Up (A5E) Feats, Feats, & More Feats!

[Timespike]

So technically you can get both feats by 8th.

the first at 7th, when you hit 4th level fighter or wizard.

the second at 8th, if you go 4th level in the one you didn’t pick at 7th.

the 3rd at 10th, when you hit 6th level fighter (I don’t remember if the LU fighter gets a feat then or if that’s just the O5e one)

Yep! This is correct. And then if you focus on one class, you can get the third feat in the chain at level 12 when that one ticks over to 8 levels. As to exceptions to that rule? I will defer to what Morrus wants to roll out rather than confirming or denying which ones (if any) exist.

 

[tetrasodium]

Not really: a Monk 1/Bard 1/Fighter1 has better saves than any 3rd level pure class, no penalty on exp and does not require any specific race, just as a quick example.

I agree that in 5e they're pointless for a single class, but still half of the basic scores do not allow you to multiclass

Spoiler: uneven levels, races & multiclass xp

Uneven Levels: If any two of your multiclass character’s classes
are two or more levels apart, the strain of developing and
maintaining different skills at different levels takes its toll. Your
multiclass character suffers a –20% penalty to XP for each class that
is not within one level of his or her highest-level class. These
penalties apply from the moment the character adds a class or raises
a class’s level too high. For instance, a 4th-level wizard/3rd-level
rogue gets no penalty, but if that character raises his wizard level to
5th, then he takes the –20% penalty from that point on until his
levels were nearly even again.
Races and Multiclass XP: A favored class (see the individual
race entries in Chapter 2: Races) does not count against the char-
acter for purposes of the –20% penalty to XP. In such cases, calculate
the XP penalty as if the character did not have that class. For
instance, Bergwin is an 11th-level gnome character (a 9th-level
rogue/2nd-level bard). He takes no penalty to his XP because he has
only one nonfavored class. (Bard is favored for gnomes.) Suppose he
then attains 12th level and adds 1st level as fighter to his classes,
becoming a 9th-level rogue/2nd-level illusionist/1st-level fighter.
He then takes a –20% XP penalty on future XP he earns because his
fighter level is so much lower than his rogue level. Were he awarded
1,200 XP for an adventure, he would receive only 80% of that
amount, or 960 XP. If he thereafter rose to 13th level and picked up
a fourth class (by adding 1st-level cleric, for example), he would take
a –40% XP penalty from then on.
As a second example, consider a dwarf 7th-level fighter/2nd-level
cleric. This character takes no penalty because his fighter class is
favored for dwarves and thus not counted when determining
whether his classes are even. Nor does he take any penalty for
adding 1st-level rogue to the mix, since his cleric and rogue classes
are only one level apart. In this case, cleric counts as the character’s
highest class.
A human’s or half-elf’s highest-level class is always considered his
or her favored class.

Keeping all three within 2 levels is going to result in a far from optimal character as levels progress unless they can hop into PrCs to avoid it, those three don't exactly have great synergy

 

[niklinna]

Multiclass feats is an interesting way to handle this. I was kind of expecting something more like multiclass archetypes (subclasses), where you don't choose a regular class archetype until you have 1 level in each of two classes, then you just have one archetype that blends things at the sum of the two classes' levels (or retrain from any existing archetypes as described in one of the O5e supplements). This approachs adds on to your two archetypes at the cost of your ASI/feat slot.

 

[Morrus]

Multiclass feats is an interesting way to handle this. I was kind of expecting something more like multiclass archetypes (subclasses), where you don't choose a regular class archetype until you have 1 level in each of two classes, then you just have one archetype that blends things at the sum of the two classes' levels (or retrain from any existing archetypes as described in one of the O5e supplements). This approachs adds on to your two archetypes at the cost of your ASI/feat slot.

We played with multiclass subclasses for a while. It just didn't work elegantly.

 

[lichmaster]

We played with multiclass subclasses for a while. It just didn't work elegantly.

Yes, I can see why: different classes choose the subclass at different levels, i'd be surprised if multiclass subclasses were even possible without being a crazy mess

 

[niklinna]

We played with multiclass subclasses for a while. It just didn't work elegantly.

I can imagine a couple problems with that approach, yeah. Good that you tried it to see, though!

 

[Gandalf970]

Boy is this a hot topic! Just remember you don't have to use these at all. As I am sure it says somewhere in this game, make this game your own. Use the rules you want and change the ones you don't like and above all else HAVE FUN!

 

[Stalker0]

Just remember you don't have to use these at all.

Well we do have to remember that this is a product people are considering to buy, and I'd say most of the time people want to use the things they buy. So if there is something that people don't like, its fair to have a critique....especially if there is even the slightest chance it might get corrected before the PDFs/books are released.

Now obviously we on Enworld are a small but vocal contingent, and the LU designers may have long closed the book on changes and wouldn't be swayed by a few "fervent" viewpoints...but hey, why not give it a shot?

At the end of the day with so much content, its nigh impossible to create something that everyone likes every single part of. For example, one of mine is the basic manuevers. I really think 5e nailed the opposed athletic rolls and the like, I think the basic maneuvers are a step backwards. Now of course I will just ignore them, and that's fine. That is still my critique, still would have preferred something else, but there is still a lot I like in the books that I wish to acquire them.

So if synergy feats are another person's "basic maneuver", I think its fine to express that, as long as people look at the product as a whole. If you don't like enough about LU to justify the cost....that's fair. If you think 99% of the book is golden, but the 1% is "so bad" it makes you swear of the books with a fiery vengeance. that is a "poor judgement" in my opinion.

 

[Sansang]

So if synergy feats are another person's "basic maneuver", I think its fine to express that, as long as people look at the product as a whole. If you don't like enough about LU to justify the cost....that's fair. If you think 99% of the book is golden, but the 1% is "so bad" it makes you swear of the books with a fiery vengeance. that is a "poor judgement" in my opinion.

I would like to add that, as a curious who haven't played the playtest, I have to imagine the whole product by the bits that are showed, and in my head if they show me a little thing designed in a particular way, then I expect the whole material to be designed in the same way because, obviously, I can't read the whole thing.

Now, before I was saying that I was scared by this thing because it reminded me about tax feats, then I went to give a second look at the Adept, which I found amazing at first glance, and I've noticed that in fact its "Adept Speed" is a tax feat, at least in my eyes. A marginal feature that forces you to sink your "personalization points" to have actually nice features. It's a requisite for a many other Practiced techniques. It's just one, but I don't know what they have done with the other classes. Maybe this is an unfortunate incident, maybe the other classes have even more tax feats.

I will keep on lurking anyways because the idea of a 5e with more depth is much appreciated and this project is huge.

P.s. I agree with You Stalker0 on the position about basic maneuver. It's a huge step back.

 

[VanguardHero]

Adept Speed is just a building block to build towards what you want. Monk became Adept to allow a greater range of playstyles, and not every Adept sees land speed as a defining feature. So it doesn't have to be! Monk has always suffered from being a very specific set of abilities in an all or nothing fashion, Adept fixes that problem wonderfully! There's enough 'Personalization Points', 3 every 2 levels, that requiring one nab of it for abilities that are very much land speed based is perfectly reasonable.

Also I love the Basic Maneuvers, a bit more to do besides "I Attack" even when out of Exertion