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

[NotAYakk]

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

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.

It doesn't have to be at the top.

A feat that makes, say, greatswords not as good but still closer to polearms, doesn't have to be as good as PAM.

Of course, if it is way worse, it ends up closing off that design direction. If it is only a bit worse, it becomes a viable alternative. If it is usually worse, but sometimes better, it doesn't generate significant power creep and isn't a trap option.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

No, actually, it isn't, not strictly. If you're a 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.

yes, you are partially right. While every known spellcaster can always use the new spell with their own spells slots, a wizard who needs to prepare spells can´t. Good catch.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

No, they shouldn't. That sounds awful. More people would refrain from using feats if they were built that way.

 

[Mistwell]

archery is +2 attack vs. +1 attack, +1 damage, +1 AC, +1 init, +1 dex save, +1 for 3 skills.

dueling is the same except when it's for STR and that gives it's own sets of bonuses for higher STR.

two handed style is horrible, and you better take Magic initiate(not a strong feat in the 1st place) instead of 2 extra cantrips as a style. At least you get extra 1st level spell cast per day.

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

When you max out your Dex, which WILL happen if you are an archer, the archery style is far and away better than +2 to an ability score. Same for Str.

I found these feats to be well within the range of decent feats. I don't agree with your assessment that those four top feats are the baseline. I've only ever chosen one of those feats. The -5/+10 feats are just way too boring for me. And we've actually gotten more use out of the Actor feat than one of those feats, just due to creative uses for that feat from our bard that totally alters entire challenges and even entire campaigns.

 

[GlassJaw]

No, they shouldn't. That sounds awful. More people would refrain from using feats if they were built that way.

People would be less inclined to use them because they would get more cool stuff for their character? Your logic is flawed.

 

[Horwath]

When you max out your Dex, which WILL happen if you are an archer, the archery style is far and away better than +2 to an ability score. Same for Str.

again, it's irrelevant.

Feat must be considered as a viable option at level 4 vs raising your primary from 16/17 to 18/19.
if your dex was not capped, at 12th level you would not raise secondary stat by +2 or take the fighting style.

I found these feats to be well within the range of decent feats. I don't agree with your assessment that those four top feats are the baseline. I've only ever chosen one of those feats. The -5/+10 feats are just way too boring for me. And we've actually gotten more use out of the Actor feat than one of those feats, just due to creative uses for that feat from our bard that totally alters entire challenges and even entire campaigns.

yeah, I agree that -5/+10 feats are boring and simplistic. But they do the work intended and compete for a feat vs +2 to an ability at lvls 4/8.
But, I would rather have them lose the -5/+10 and give +1 str/dex(or respective fighting style).

 

[Mistwell]

again, it's irrelevant.

Feat must be considered as a viable option at level 4

Why? Why can't a feat be best for mid to higher levels, particularly 6 years into an edition?

Not to mention "viable" is not the same as "the same or better than an asi". Lots of things can be both viable and not optimal.

 

[Don Durito]

I actually think there's a lot of decent feats. Sentinel is bloody good even without pole-arm master. Shield Master is great and if you play with a grid and if you can't make great use out of the push part of the shove then something has gone badly wrong (and when you can't proning someone for the rest of the party to gain advantage is not to be sneezed at.) At a certain point I'd want resilient(wis) on any Fighter I played and if Dex based would also be looking at Resilient (Dex). Skilled Expert improves greatly on Prodigy and is extremely useful for enabling character concepts. Magic Initiate looks weak until you realise it can net you a familiar.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

People would be less inclined to use them because they would get more cool stuff for their character? Your logic is flawed.

It’s generally considered bad form to ascribe logic that isn’t being used, and then criticism that false logic.

What I’m saying is that people would opt out of feats even more if they involved more individual choices, for less benefit, in a much more granular system.

Not to mention that one of the major problems with feats in 4e and 5e, that some are just clearly more powerful than others, would be worsened by (at least) doubling the number of them. And they would more than double, in a system where you get more of them per character and the designers what every character to have plenty to chose from every time.

No thank you. I’d rather stick with the system where optimizers don’t look at feats until their third opportunity to take one because they can’t pass up +2 in their main stat, but a sizable minority use them eagerly and enjoy them as they are.

 

[Horwath]

Why? Why can't a feat be best for mid to higher levels, particularly 6 years into an edition?

Not to mention "viable" is not the same as "the same or better than an asi". Lots of things can be both viable and not optimal.

because if you pick a feat just because game blocks you from increasing your primary stat even more, means that it's just a filler.
This primary goes for combat feats. that more or less just increase your DPR.

And as I mentioned, I am really sorry that we do not have separate pools for adventure/social feats and combat feats.

Most non-combat feats give some extra dimension to your character, rather than ASI that just improves existing so they can't compare head to head directly.
Skilled feat that you take for 3 charisma skills is clearly better for skill usage than +2 to CHA.
But if your class depends heavy on CHA stat, you might be better getting +1 to all charisma skills instead of whole PB as +2 to charisma will power your strong class abilities(I.E. paladin).