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

[NotAYakk]

Yes. I understand that's what you want. Do you understand that doesn't seem to be where most people are at, and that yours is not the only view on this? To have a conversation, we're going to at some point have to get past just your view on what you want, right?

Sure, more power to you. I can disagree, as can you.

I'm not holding a giant mute button over your head.

I'd hope to convince people that there is a ridiculous amount of "headroom" for strong feats in 5e as demonstrated by PAM/XBE and similar, and given that headroom making other feats that compete with +2 to your primary attribute won't make the game go pear shaped.

The biggest impact of feats that compete with +2 to your primary stat (power wise) will have is on T3 games; in T1/T2 they swap with +2 to primary attribute, which should be (by design) a change of power direction, not a power increase. But, by T3, you are playing a pretty gonzo game (level 6 opens up otto's, tenser's, forbiddence, true seeing, harm and heal, etc) and the like magic is pretty crazy, and at level 13 you have things like plane shift, etherialness and simulacrum), and the amount of magic items vary enough that the balance impact of a better feats is not going to be the thing that ruins the game's balance (such as it is at that level).

That headroom, to make the flavorful feats much stronger, also reduces the spotlight gap between death-blenders of various sorts and people who think learning more languages is cool, without the DM having to do as much work.

 

[Guest User]

I'd hope to convince people that there is a ridiculous amount of "headroom" for strong feats in 5e

I'm surprised to find myself writing this, as I like my games to "Go to 11".
If every feat is ridiculously strong, then that is all people will take.

Prior editions of D&D focused too much on Feats to define characters.
In 5e feats enhance characters, but I wouldn't say Feats define characters.

Feats add flavor, but adding too many flavors can spoil a dish.
Having all Feats "go to 11", would spoil the flavor of 5e.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes. I understand that's what you want. Do you understand that doesn't seem to be where most people are at, and that yours is not the only view on this? To have a conversation, we're going to at some point have to get past just your view on what you want, right?

More than that, it's a position that WotC CANNOT TAKE, because they have flagged feats as optional, and therefore ASI-only characters cannot be disadvantaged, especially at those early levels where most D&D is played.

 

[NotAYakk]

More than that, it's a position that WotC CANNOT TAKE, because they have flagged feats as optional, and therefore ASI-only characters cannot be disadvantaged, especially at those early levels where most D&D is played.

Except I'm not saying that feats are better, I'm saying they should all compete with primary ASI boosts.

At level 5, PAM/XBE isn't better than +2 to your attack stat, but it competes with it. +2 to your attack stat is sometimes better, sometimes worse, than PAM/XBE. I'm saying this is a good level of power to aim for for a feat; roughly as good as PAM/XBE at level 5.

Most feats, like "savage attacker", are (mechanically) garbage compared to a +2 bonus to your attack stat. It is a feat that does little except make you do more damage, and +2 to your attack stat does that job better and does other things. All you get out of "savage attacker" is the fun of rolling more dice at the (subsitution) cost of being worse at hurting things with weapons.

And I get it. Rolling more dice is fun.

But 2d12 drop lowest has an average of 8.5, so about +2 damage. And +2 to primary attack stat is +1 to hit +1 to damage; trading 1 point of damage for 1 point of to-hit is pretty much never a good idea. The +2 to primary stat also boosts ability/skill checks, saves, and often other things; savage attacker doesn't do anything else.

If you get elven accuracy, 19-20 crit range, auto-advantage, and an extra crit die your crits go from +19.5 to +25.5 (an extra 6 damage per crit) from the feat, and you have a 27% crit chance, giving you +1.6 extra damage per swing over the above model. That is the amount of "stacking" required to make savage attacker start to compete with a bare +2 to strength or dexterity... Hexblade greataxe elf maybe can pull this off? But I'm not sure how to get the extra crit weapon die without barbarian or orc blood. Aha! Use Tasha's rules to unlock racial feats, half-orc for extra weapon damage die, elven accuracy (from your mother's side) for triple-advantage, hexblade greataxe pact of blade, devil's sight+darkness, champion 3 for expanded crit range? That is a lot of work to make savage attacker not-suck. And it only works at level 8. And it isn't very good at that point, it just starts to compete with simply taking a +2 to an attack stat to a small extent.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I agree that Savage Attacker is garbage, but that does not make "most feats" garbage. Many feats are not intended as direct combat boosts, and so cannot be compared to an ASI at all. And it's already been pointed out that the new feats, such as Fighting Initiate, are pretty much on a par with an ASI when used intelligently (yes, +1 AC is garbage, but no one is making you choose that one).

Using Savage Attacker as your baseline, every single one of the new feats is better.

 

[Mistwell]

Except I'm not saying that feats are better, I'm saying they should all compete with primary ASI boosts.

So we have the data on the feats people choose. And they are not choosing the ones you claim are the only adequate feats in the game. In terms of what is competing, we have an objective measure of what is successfully competing, and it isn't meeting your preferences either. Which is why I said we have to be able to step away from your preferences if we're going to talk about what is genuinely a successful strategy for WOTC to be taking concerning feats. There is a possibility, even if you're not seeing it right now, that these feats in Tasha's are precisely the kinds of feats which have successfully competed with ASI's based on the data we have about which feats people in general (as opposed to you specifically) like for their games.

 

[NotAYakk]

So we have the data on the feats people choose. And they are not choosing the ones you claim are the only adequate feats in the game. In terms of what is competing, we have an objective measure of what is successfully competing, and it isn't meeting your preferences either. Which is why I said we have to be able to step away from your preferences if we're going to talk about what is genuinely a successful strategy for WOTC to be taking concerning feats. There is a possibility, even if you're not seeing it right now, that these feats in Tasha's are precisely the kinds of feats which have successfully competed with ASI's based on the data we have about which feats people in general (as opposed to you specifically) like for their games.

Sure, and I observe that people pick fun and flavorful feats. I want the people who I play with to do that.

My problem is the gameplay experience that results when one person picks fun and flavorful feats, and another picks strong feats and ASIs, at level 4 and 8 (and fighters at 6). By level 10 the gap becomes large enough to make the game less fun in my experience.

I guess punting is always the solution; have the GM give gear suitable for the characters who need a bit more oomph at the table.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Another thing worth keeping in mind about these newer feats, is that there are other ways to get Feats than ASI's.

Yes, I know, I know, GM Fiat. But really Metamagic Adept or Fighting Initiate seem to be wonderful boons to give players via training or blessings.


Also, man I really want to play a Barbarian with Dual-wielded Axes. It is a concept I've wanted to hit the table ever since I saw the Initiate feat. Though now I'm also torn about about doing a Beast Barbarian with Dueling.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm surprised to find myself writing this, as I like my games to "Go to 11".
If every feat is ridiculously strong, then that is all people will take.

Prior editions of D&D focused too much on Feats to define characters.
In 5e feats enhance characters, but I wouldn't say Feats define characters.

Feats add flavor, but adding too many flavors can spoil a dish.
Having all Feats "go to 11", would spoil the flavor of 5e.

I agree. I’m fine with feats not appealing to optimizers and a lot of folks only taking one or two ever, while other groups take nothing but.