D&D 5E Full feats from Tasha's: are they worth a "full feat slot"?

[Benjamin Olson]

Most these feats seem balanced to charge you a premium for getting sought after features you would have to multiclass into another class for for 1-3 levels to get, or to make a member of that class take an otherwise impossibly large number of the class' options. They will be plenty popular without being half-feats (in fact I can't imagine rolling a Sorcerer and not taking Metamagic Adept sooner or later).

 

[Argyle King]

Do you feel that using one of the few feat slots available (to a character) for these feats is better than dipping into a class which gives fuller and better versions of what many of the feats do?

 

[Weiley31]

While I know class abilities and stuff are probably usually better, a number of said feats are nice add-ons to a number of class's main gimmicks.

Metamagic Adept would be a choice for Sorcerers.
Eldritch Adept allows Warlocks to have a total of TEN invocations.
Fighting Initiate allows a Battlemaster to get more Superiority Die
Artificer Adept is probably great on an Artificer.

Some of them can offer classes some nice things too. A Monk or Rogue with an Invocation is pretty cool.

 

[Ace]

Fighting Initiate is also nice because it can allow some classes, like the Barbarian, gain a fighting style that they normally wouldn't be able to get.

True but mostly variant humans benefit from this since Barbarians are multi ability dependent needing strength, constitution and dexterity if you want a good AC and are going unarmored.

 

[Ace]

Do you feel that using one of the few feat slots available (to a character) for these feats is better than dipping into a class which gives fuller and better versions of what many of the feats do?

It depends on the class, how long your game runs and whether you want certain levels or capstones.

Generally a one level dip can be good for some classes who want an extra skill. martial weapons or say medium armor depending on class if you are going high and don't mind losing a capstone.

 

[Ace]

While I know class abilities and stuff are probably usually better, a number of said feats are nice add-ons to a number of class's main gimmicks.

Metamagic Adept would be a choice for Sorcerers.
Eldritch Adept allows Warlocks to have a total of TEN invocations.
Fighting Initiate allows a Battlemaster to get more Superiority Die
Artificer Adept is probably great on an Artificer.

Some of them can offer classes some nice things too. A Monk or Rogue with an Invocation is pretty cool.

Monks don't cast spells and can't qualify as far as I know though Eldritch Adept isn't bad for Eldritch Knights and Arcane Tricksters both of whom have more than the usual ASI's

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would like to play a champion with duelling style, two weapon fighting style and thrown weapon fighting style. That is 4 daggers at level 11 with 1d4 + 9 damage and crit on 19 - 20.
Not unbalanced but sounds fun.

A different option would be battlemaster with quick toss instead of twf fightung style.

Another possibility would be battlemaster with darts, quick toss ad ranged figgting style... And sharp shooter. With darts that deal 1d4 + 19 damage.
As an alternate possibility you can be a hunter ranger with hunter's mark, ranged style and throwing weapons style... and 1d8 per round to make them really hurtfull.
Definitely a full feat.

The artificer on is weird. It is strictly worse to magic initiate. Although you could argue that being able to use a tool for spellcasting could allow you to disguise your spell so the enemy caster needs to cast counterspell blindly.

 

[Flamestrike]

martial adept feats(again not a great one) is better than superior technique style.

You cant swap out the manouvers known with Martial adept like you can with Fighting Style (or indeed swap out a totally different fighting style).

I can certainly see some Vuman and Clineage Monks taking Fighting Style feat at 1st level for Unarmed fighting style, and then swapping it out for a different F/S when their unarmed damage becomes 1d8 naturally.

 

[Flamestrike]

Monks don't cast spells

Quite a few can actually. Shadow Monks, 4EM off the top of my head.

They dont do so with the Spellcasting feature though, which I think is the pre-requisite.

 

[Blue]

Fighting initiate:
This is plain half feat.
Almost in every single situation +2 to your attack ability is clearly better than a fighting style. By a lot.
And there is no sense in having this feat as a secondary option at 12th level when your attack stat is already maxed and 90% of campaigns are over.

If you don't have a fighting style, the right style for you can be a bigger bonus than a +1 to hit/damage. TWF rogues who now can add +DEX to their offhand attack. Any ranged weapon attacker could want Archery. And so on, especially with all the new Tasha's options.

Then you have cases like you find yourself at higher levels fighting lots of invisible foes and want to get Blindfighting. Where it's orthononal to your ability score.

Also this grants ones the Fighter class can get. Sometimes you have concepts like the TWF paladin or the great weapon ranger that need a different fighting style than is available for the class.

Also classes like fighter and rogue get extra feats - this is a great feat to take once you have your 20. And that's well before the campaign ends. Campaigns that roll ability scores will also have people in the same boat. Or maybe you're playign a vHuman and need a feat - taking an ASI isn't an option.

Each of these is a marginal case, but taken together it is a feat that is a solid add - there are enough different circumstances that can come up that it's the right move. It doesn't have to be "better than an ASI for everyone" to qualify as a good feat - those are usually considered overpowered.

And finally, work this backwards - this plus a half feat gives too much. And that's just as easy to plan around an odd number just like casters taking an odd CON and going for Resilient.