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

[doctorbadwolf]

Fighting Initiate is a curious feat. I wouldn't use it very often but used correctly it isn't too bad a feat.

Its undoubtedly better with UA fighting styles like Mariner but it does have some uses. taking Defense style with a heavy armor/full plate character is pretty good since its an all the time +1 AC and I could see Dual Wielder + Two Weapon Fighting Rogues or Thrown Weapon Variant Human Paladins (axe for the win) or Rogues as well.

On the whole though, sans multiclassing 5E is less optimizable than you might think.

Two ASI's almost always go into the primary stat and that keeps you busy till 12th level which is where a fair number of games end.

Now if you are using rolled stats and get good rolls feats can be better of course.

Not Tasha's feats here but I had a Barbarian with rather high physical stats and taking Resilient /Dexterity and Shield Mastery made him quite tanky even at low levels.

A high roll might free up an ASI otherwise used for Con or something else.

On the whole though outside of niche/RP builds and a few optimizations like War Caster or the like and of course the stuff I mentioned above, charterers are so feat starved that most feats simply aren't worth it.

The general game assumption that you'll max you main stat, the reality is you have 3 ASI for twenty levels, maybe 2 if you boost CON as many do to increase durability. That isn't much really.

Now this isn't a bleat for "more feats." or something, 5E is good as is but its just being realistic . You are probably going to take one feat, maybe two if variant human in most games so choose wisely.

IME most groups use a bonus level 1 feat houserule, or the Theros equivalent optional rule.

But yeah 5e just isn’t that breakable.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

5E is great but the feat system needs a complete overhaul. It's one system that 4E did better in most cases.

I disagree. I love 4e, but too many feats and too many of them were static math patch feats, which shouldn’t ever exist.

5e just needs to alleviate the issue of fear availability and the reasons to skip a feat.

Sadly, you can’t convince people that they don’t actually need maxed out stats, ever, even though it’s quite true.

Which is why they should make the Theros level one boon or feat a standard thing in every new book, and why I just let people add +1 to any one star when they take a feat from their class (so, not with the level 1 bonus feat or a race-feat).

 

[NotAYakk]

Outside of Weapon Master, when one looks holistically at the game it is difficult to say that the Actor Feat is clearly worse than GWM, or any other feat.

I've seen a Barbarian, use the Actor feat to accomplish a jail break, that they never would have accomplished if the player had selected GWM.

GWM is certainly a better option for combat, when compared to the Actor feat.
The Actor feat, though, really does significantly improve your social skills...(and mimicry in the hands of a clever player, can be a game changer).

A character that is narrowly focused on one thing is fated to share the doom of the Bismarck and Battleships in general.

Sure! But in my opinion Actor doesn't do enough. I mean, why not go all the way to Inspiring Actor, which is Actor + Inspiring Leader fused.

With Actor, in many D&D games you'll be like "well that was a waste". Meanwhile, you'll use "Inspiring Actor" in every D&D game. Inspiring Actor is still not commensurable with +2 to an attack stat.

One of the original core plans of 5e was that feats would be bigger and meatier. Actor is relatively narrow in my estimation. In the area where it applies, it has a bit of mechanical heft. The last point of Actor honestly sucks; to me, it reads like a classic "nerf by making a feature cost something".

Barring Actor, anyone could mimic the speech or sounds of another creature. And if you did that, you'd be using your ability to talk to decieve someone; so you'd be making a Charisma(Deception) check. You'd be opposed by ... a Wisdom(Insight) check (or maybe (Perception)).

The mechanics it describes match what you might do if you didn't have the feat at all. All the feat does is say how a typical DM might adjudicate it, and by existing, says that people who don't have this feat should be worse at this task than someone who has this feat.

If the feat said "you can flawlessly mimic the voice and sounds of creatures you have the anatomy to duplicate; managing the volume of a dragon roar would be beyond most humanoid lungs." then at least it wouldn't be "give permission for what you could do anyway".

Inspiring Performer

You have mastered mimicry, dramatics and inspiring speeches.

• Increase your Charisma score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• You have an advantage on Charisma (Deception) and Charisma (Performance) checks when trying to pass yourself off as a different person.
• You can mimic the speech sounds of another person or the sounds made by other creatures flawlessly, up to the limits of your biology; mimicking the volume of a dragon roar is beyond most humanoid lungs.
• You can spend 10 minutes inspiring your companions. Any friendly creature who listens to you over this 10 minutes gains temporary HP equal to your charisma bonus plus your level. A creature cannot gain temporary HP this way again until they complete a short or long rest.

Maybe tune down the temporary HP slightly, but not much; compare with the "Chef" feat.

 

[GlassJaw]

I disagree. I love 4e, but too many feats and too many of them were static math patch feats, which shouldn’t ever exist.

5e just needs to alleviate the issue of fear availability and the reasons to skip a feat.

Sadly, you can’t convince people that they don’t actually need maxed out stats, ever, even though it’s quite true.

Which is why they should make the Theros level one boon or feat a standard thing in every new book, and why I just let people add +1 to any one star when they take a feat from their class (so, not with the level 1 bonus feat or a race-feat).

Re: 4E - Hence why I said "most cases".

I agree that 4E had too many "numeric feats", but the feat system itself was much more sound (a feat every other level). The reason why most of the feats in 5E don't get taken is because they simply aren't good enough. The designers designed themselves into a corner. They wanted to reduce the frequency of choice but by doing so, created a system in which they had to pack a bunch of ribbon abilities to make them worthwhile.

They've proven it's just not viable.

All feats should be "chopped" in half. Remove all ASIs from feats. Grant feats every other level. Basically each feat is equal to a +1 ASI instead of +2. You have much more "cost" granularity and they become much easier to design and balance.

 

[Xeviat]

Most of the skill feats are really bad. They give you new things to do with skills, and that makes it seem like you couldn't do those things without taking the feat. A broader skill system with example abilities and checks, and then a simple skill fest for getting expertise, would have been far simpler and more balanced.

I think Artificer Initiate is fine. I don't think the invocation, fighting style, or sorcery point feats are enough for a feat.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I think Artificer Initiate is fine as currently written, it may be a bit too powerful in comparison to Magic Initiate. The Invocation and Sorcery points feats should be a +1 to Charisma/Intelligence/Wisdom (your choice) and the Fighting style feat should be a +1 to Strength/Dexterity/Constitution (your choice), though (IMHO).

 

[GlassJaw]

Most of the skill feats are really bad. They give you new things to do with skills, and that makes it seem like you couldn't do those things without taking the feat. A broader skill system with example abilities and checks, and then a simple skill fest for getting expertise, would have been far simpler and more balanced.

Again, another system that 4E did better in concept (but the execution was over-designed).

 

[Blue]

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.

Do you feel that a single MAD multiclassed character with a single person deciding what they want is representive of all characters?

This and your other responses are narrow. "I would not do it, so it is not worthy". Dismissing things because that's not how you would build it - you are not the only target audience for the feats in the book, so we need to look at them in a wider context than that.

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.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.

Sorry, just because a feat is not at the absolute top of the power curve does not mean that it is worthless unless made a half feat. Since you don't even attempt to address how with adding a half feat these can be more powerful then the top row, it really feels like you are just trying to prove your point, not to actually discuss.

 

[see]

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.

While thieves' tools are tools, they aren't artisan's tools (see PHB p.154), so you can't pick up thieves' tools with Artificer Initiate.

The artificer on is weird. It is strictly worse to magic initiate.

No, actually, it isn't, not strictly. If you're a prepared spellcaster, you can't use the Magic Initiate 1st level spell with your class's spell slots unless you picked your own class (usually). On the other hand, Artificer Initiate explicitly allows you to also cast with any spell slots you have.

Accordingly, a 1st-level out-of-class spell picked up with Magic Initiate is simply a once-a-day 1st level spell. A 1st-level out-of-class spell picked up with Artificer Initiate is effectively an addition to your class spell list. The "obvious" example here is a wizard picking up cure wounds; with Magic Initiate and picking it from the bard, cleric, or druid list she can cast it once/day as a 1st level spell. With Artificer Initiate she can also cast it with any of her wizard spell slots of any level.

 

[Horwath]

Do you feel that a single MAD multiclassed character with a single person deciding what they want is representive of all characters?

well, I can only speak from my point of view. I am not in anybody else's head.

This and your other responses are narrow. "I would not do it, so it is not worthy". Dismissing things because that's not how you would build it - you are not the only target audience for the feats in the book, so we need to look at them in a wider context than that.


Sorry, just because a feat is not at the absolute top of the power curve does not mean that it is worthless unless made a half feat. Since you don't even attempt to address how with adding a half feat these can be more powerful then the top row, it really feels like you are just trying to prove your point, not to actually discuss.

problem is, that if you do not make new feats at the top of the power curve, they will be glanced over and ignored by 90% of the players.
And if you are designing a feat for 10% of the player base, you are wasting your time.