D&D 5E Feats removed from the PHB, for the last Playtest !

[DaveDash]

Sharpshooter OP? Not really. It's not OP for a Rogue. It's not really OP for a Ranger (depending on build and level). If the Ranger has Colussus slayer and/or Hunter's Mark a lower level Ranger is better off just taking the Dex increase.

Comparing taking Sharpshooter vs. Dexterity increase, assuming Ranger takes Archery Fighting Style:
Example Ranger with 1d8 longbow and Level 4. Dexterity increase does more average damage from AC 18-26. (+8 hit, +4 damage vs. +2 hit, +13 damage)
1d8 longbow, 1d6 Hunter's Mark and Level 4. Dexterity increase does more average damage from AC 16-27
1d8 longbow, 1d8 Colossus Slayer and Level 4. Dexterity increase does more damage from AC 15-27
1d8 longbow, 1d8 Colossus Slayer, 1d6 Hunter's Mark and Level 4. Dexterity increase does more damage from AC 13-27

At level 8 the AC range is, for the same examples as above:
AC 19-28
AC 17-29
AC 16-29
AC 14-29

Even at level 12 where the Sharpshooter has a Dexterity of 20 and matches the non-Sharpshooter here are the numbers:
AC 23-29
AC 21-30
AC 21-30
AC 19-30

Using Hunter's Mark and/or Colossus Slayer every round can't be that hard, can it?

Plus, a higher Dexterity grants better saves, better initiative, and better Dexterity ability checks. So, basically, Sharpshooter is good after your Dexterity is already 20, assuming you have nothing else you can do.

Rogue Level 4, shortbow. Dex increase is better at:
AC 12-25

Level 8:
AC 10-27

Level 12:
AC 11-28

Ouch!!! Sharpshooter actually gets worse!!! There are some benefits as a Rogue can ignore disadvantage at long range. So, if hidden he gains advantage and therefore can sneak attack with a longbow (assuming he can use one) from 600'.

From actual playtests, I can tell you Sharpshooter is ridiculously OP. Maybe not by itself, but when combined with Archery Style, Bless, etc, it's basically a +10 boost to damage. You have an effective +4.5 to hit over the norm - which basically counters the -5, and you never have to worry about cover, so there goes any tactical limitations, as you're now effectively armed with a lazer accurate machine gun that can shoot across any classic D&D encounter map.
In all cases (longbow, hand crossbow, etc) the damage bonus from sharpshooter becomes your primary damage output.
Then once you hit level 17, any sort of fighter type with sharpshooter + foresight basically wins D&D. The expected value of damage for a level 20 Fighter using sharpshooter & Foresight is about 150 damage. Twice per short rest, 8 hours per day.
Also as a Fighter its pretty easy to max out Dex AND pick up sharpshooter, so it's not a choice of one vs the other.

I've also ran the numbers through a spreadsheet, and it's almost always worth using the -5 +10, with some exceptions. It should be -5 +5 at best. And it definitely should not ignore cover.

This edition was meant to be about NOT adding + combat bonuses and allowing for stupid damage combos.... at least I thought.

 

[the Jester]

Sharpshooter may or may not be overpowered, but it's damned good. The ranger in my campaign is a slaying machine with that feat.

 

[CapnZapp]

The only feats in this list that are not represented in the play test are these:
Magic Adept, Improved Magic Adept (sic), Superior Magic Adept (sic). I would suggest that they were removed because with the heavy feat cost, it is more natural for a fighter (the only class who can reasonably get the feats required to pursue this) there exists Eldritch Knight (or multiclassing).

I'd have no problems if a player wanted these; they seemed particularly weak to me in the play test, but perhaps they have appeal to some players, and now with the variant human, a fighter could have a fourth-level spell by Fighter 8 (cf. Wizard 7).

Hope this helps.

For posterity these feats were a feat chain each giving out a spell of increasing level.

That is, Magic Adept required what is now Magic Initiate and gave you a 2nd level spell from your chosen spellcasting class. You learnt the spell and could cast it 1/day. Improved Magic Adept required Magic Adept and gave you a 3rd level spell from your chosen spellcasting class. You learnt the spell and could cast it 1/day. Superior Magic Adept required Improved Magic Adept and gave you a 4th level spell from your chosen spellcasting class. You learnt the spell and could cast it 1/day.

Reading this I fully understand why these feats were removed. The whole "feat chain" thinking simply has no place in 5th edition; having to take more than one feat to get what you want has a prohibitive cost.

A much better solution would be something like this:

Inherently Magical
Prerequisite: character level 6 or higher
For some reason you have spontaneously developed a magic talent. Choose a class: bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard. Then choose one 2nd-level spell from that list. You learn that spell and may cast it without using any spell slot. Once you cast it in this manner, you must finish a long rest before you can cast it without using a spell slot again.

The power of this talent depends on your character level:

When you reach level 12, you may cast the spell you chose for this feat as a 3rd-level spell (as if you were using a 3rd-level spell slot). If you are 12th level or higher when you take this feat, you may choose a 2nd-level or 3rd-level spell from your chosen list.

When you reach level 19, you may cast the spell you chose for this feat as a 4th-level spell (as if you were using a 4th-level spell slot). If you are 19th level or higher when you take this feat, you may choose a 2nd-level, 3rd-level or 4th-level spell from your chosen list.​

Note how this feat has no feat prerequisite. Also, the intention is that you fully learn the spell (and can use any spell slots you have to cast it in addition to the free once/day). Finally and most importantly: the way one feat covers all of the playtest ones, giving you more power the higher character level you are when you pick it.

 

[Evenglare]

I just want to go on record that Necro threads are REALLY annoying. That is all.

 

[IlstrawberrySeed]

I'm trying to find all the old playtest material, but I'm having no luck. Can someone point me to it?

 

[CapnZapp]

I just want to go on record that Necro threads are REALLY annoying. That is all.

Whoa! I almost believed this post was the necroing post (it wasn't).

It if had been that would have been the greatest necro of all time

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm trying to find all the old playtest material, but I'm having no luck. Can someone point me to it?

WotC managed to clean up the internet pretty well once the final PHB was released. Not sure you can find it except in dank dark corners of the net...

 

[turnip_farmer]

WotC managed to clean up the internet pretty well once the final PHB was released. Not sure you can find it except in dank dark corners of the net...

Most of the playtest packets can be easily obtained from your friendly neighborhood torrent search engine in a torrent called Next.Dnd. This is probably illegal in most jurisdictions, but it's not like anything you'd be stealing is available for purchase.

And it's probably worth taking into advisement that torrent search sites are often full of malware.

 

[Charlaquin]

WotC managed to clean up the internet pretty well once the final PHB was released. Not sure you can find it except in dank dark corners of the net...

Yeah, I’m not really sure about the legality of sharing it…

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I'm trying to find all the old playtest material, but I'm having no luck. Can someone point me to it?

I can't speak for other iterations of the playtest, but when I did a simple google search the other day for "D&D Next final playtest packet pdf" the first hit was what I was looking for (and seems to match what is being referenced in this thread).