D&D 5E General Feats Discussion

[Joe Liker]

Well yeah, I agree. I said it was a feat that could be helpful in certain conditions, if your campaign includes a -ton of monsters with one particular resistance and your character is for some reason married to one damage type (maybe a sorcerer with his small number of spells known). Other than that, it's way too situational.

You don't have to be married to a damage type for the feat to be useful. When a monster resists 80 percent of the spells you know, you'll be very glad you get to ignore resistance with at least one of them.

Pretty much all demons resist fire AND cold AND lightning and are immune to poison. (TONS of monsters are immune to poison.) Yugoloths have all that, plus they are immune to acid. So you see how the list of damage types you have available is rapidly dwindling? If you aren't using Elemental Adept to bypass their resistances, you don't have a lot of spells left that can touch them. And if you haven't prepared the right ones ... well, I guess you can always fire up the utility spells and buffs.

All feats are situational to some degree. This one is far less situational that you might think, especially at higher levels.

 

[Kristivas]

My opinion may not be the most popular on this matter. Feats were one of my (admittedly few) complaints about 5e.

Unless you roll stupendously (especially folks using the SA), it's going to be some time before you should really be getting feats, in most cases. Getting your main stat to 20 feels pretty mandatory for most classes, doesn't it? I know as any sort of caster, I want to make my DC as high as possible. Weapon users will want the most + to hit they can get. And so forth.

But some of the feats are pretty nice. I didn't care for the way you could do huge combos of overpowered brokenness with certain feat combos in 3.5, but have always liked the way feats were designed. They gave you another cool layer of customization. So, I was pretty bummed when I first read you had to choose between the two. I'd really like to see some options for adding feats to each character as was done in 3.5, but that will have to either wait for the DMG or for the geniuses who craft guides to figure out a way to do it homebrew style in a balanced way.

 

[Moorcrys]

I •would• allow characters who took the elemental adept feat to affect creatures with immunity to their chosen element as if they were resistant to the element instead. I'd also allow them to create minor magical effects related to their chosen element similar to the elemental attunement feature available to four elements monks. I know it's small but there you go.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Getting your main stat to 20 feels pretty mandatory for most classes, doesn't it? I know as any sort of caster, I want to make my DC as high as possible. Weapon users will want the most + to hit they can get. And so forth.

I'm sure this is an assumption that many people will play with. It's not one I share. If I've got a 16 in something, I think I'm fine, and I would rather use a precious advance to take a cool ability that lets my character do something that others can't.

I understand the numbers, but I'm not playing just a numbers game. The time it takes to level four times -- several months of real time, regular play -- is not something I am doing to get a +1 to hit or on a spell DC. I'm certainly not going to go eight levels to get my prime stat to 20 before I take a cool crossbow, sharpshooter, war caster, alertness, resilient, ritual caster, martial adept, sentinel, or shield master feat.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to get a stat to 20. In my experience so far with this edition, though, it's not something *I* want when I am given a choice of so many more interesting things. And I love that the game allows us to have that choice -- you go to 20; I individuate my character. Both are completely awesome and legitimate choices.

 

[Quartz]

I'm sure this is an assumption that many people will play with. It's not one I share. If I've got a 16 in something, I think I'm fine, and I would rather use a precious advance to take a cool ability that lets my character do something that others can't.

I too am interested in this and this thread discusses the idea.

 

[thalmin]

I am currently playing a variant human cleric of light. I took Healer at first level, that has proven to be a lifesaver for our party, repeatedly.
We just made 4th level, and I have been having a hard time deciding between several feats and the stat boost.

• Warcaster: I use a mace and shield so my hands are full. Also I have had to make a number of Concentration saves.
• Magic Initiate: Add 2 cantrips and a first level spell to my daily casting. More spellcasting ability is always a plus.
• Elemental Adept: My domain give me many fire spells always prepared. I need to diversify.
• Heavily Armored: I could use some better protection.
• Resilient: Add a +3 or more (later) to my Constitution (and Concentration) saving throws
• Boost WIS to 18

Actually, I haven't had a hard time deciding, I've decided 3 times since last night, 3 different ways.

 

[Kristivas]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to get a stat to 20. In my experience so far with this edition, though, it's not something *I* want when I am given a choice of so many more interesting things. And I love that the game allows us to have that choice -- you go to 20; I individuate my character. Both are completely awesome and legitimate choices.

I'd much rather have the feat, thus my complaint. I don't like having to choose between the two. The thing I like least, however, is missing an attack roll by 1 or 2 points, and with Bounded Accuracy, there aren't a lot of other ways to raise your hit/DC.