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

[Horwath]

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.

Yes, they can.
But I do not see any scenario where my rogue/bladesinger will take a fighting style(archery/dueling/TWF) before having 20 dex.
Then the bladesinger has Resilient:Con to take then you need intelligence. So, no room in 20 levels for this feat.
As a rogue, you could get it at 10th level if you want to delay some better feat for it.

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.

there is none directly. But this style is a clearly different than any other.
and you can have it better with a see invisibility spell/potion.
at low levels, there is not many invisible threats and at higher levels there is many ways to counter it.

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.

TWF can be OK for a paladin. great weapon style is soo bad that I would not take it even as a 3rd style option. while using 2Handed weapon always.

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.

problem is, that is at least 5 better feats that you would take for any character at 1st level instead of extra fighting style.

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.

And that is a main problem here:

If you are designing a combat oriented feat, and it does not compete with GWM, SS, CE, PAM, Lucky, do not bother to design it as a full feat.

 

[Eubani]

The problem with Poisoner feat is that many are immune to poison no just resistant.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The books I used yesterday said "Dungeons and Dragons". I'd like to think of myself and friends as "people". Our character sheets indicate we are 16th level.......
........so your statement must be false.

Why do people continually feel the need to make false statements, that are obviously untrue?

It's called hyperbole. Look it up.

 

[Don Durito]

If you are designing a combat oriented feat, and it does not compete with GWM, SS, CE, PAM, Lucky, do not bother to design it as a full feat.

We saw the same under 4E though. They released things early that they clearly decided were above their intended baseline, and then, rather then doing anything to adjust that just spent years releasing material to what they decided was the appropriate baseline that was usually ignored.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you are designing a combat oriented feat, and it does not compete with GWM, SS, CE, PAM, Lucky, do not bother to design it as a full feat.

Feats are an optional rule. Ergo feats need to be EQUAL TO and ASI. For example, there is no adjustment made to challenge rating for monsters depending on if the party does or does not have feats.

Now, most of those feats you list are clearly better than an ASI.

THOSE ARE THE BROKEN ONES.

If balance is important to you those feats need to be adjusted.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Artificer Adept is probably great on an Artificer.

Not so much (probably better off with Wizard Adept). It's great for arcane tricksters though. Or you could use it to pick up proficiency in thieves tools if the party was lacking in the rogue department. Wizards might like it to add Cure Wounds to their spell list.

 

[Flamestrike]

Feats are an optional rule. Ergo feats need to be EQUAL TO and ASI. For example, there is no adjustment made to challenge rating for monsters depending on if the party does or does not have feats.

Now, most of those feats you list are clearly better than an ASI.

THOSE ARE THE BROKEN ONES.

If balance is important to you those feats need to be adjusted.

They're really not broken.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

They're really not broken.

The game is balanced around player characters with no feats. Any feat that is significantly better than an ASI breaks the game. All the challenge ratings will be wrong for a start.

Of course, if you are like us and don't really care about balance and optimisation, it doesn't matter.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

It's worth noting that Magic Initiate can only be taken once. By taking Artificer Initiate you can get almost the same benefits a second time. While not quite as good as Magic Initiatie, it could be quite useful for someone trying to supplement their spellcasting (or add spellcasting).

 

[Horwath]

Feats are an optional rule. Ergo feats need to be EQUAL TO and ASI. For example, there is no adjustment made to challenge rating for monsters depending on if the party does or does not have feats.

Now, most of those feats you list are clearly better than an ASI.

THOSE ARE THE BROKEN ONES.

If balance is important to you those feats need to be adjusted.

No, there are only ones that are worth to take instead of ASI if you are looking at combat only.

That is one of the very few bad design failures of 5E IMHO.

They put ASI, combat feats and exploration/social feats in the same resource pool.

and most of the time, people take combat boosters as social/exploration can better/easier be "McGyvered" especially when you have a large party (5+ PCs)