D&D (2024) How do we feel about 2024 Feats? (Origin vs Others)

[Horwath]

That’s true! I just wish that new DM’s don’t have to learn it the hard way like I did.

we used +1 ASI for SS and GWM instead of -5/+10 for years.
was so happy when that made it as a core rule.

 

[abirdcall]

I like the design concept a lot.

Origin feats are mostly well balanced but Healer is a miss. Hermit is a miss in general as medicine still shouldn't be a skill.

Since crafter is attached to the crafting background I don't see an issue because the player will want that for their Artisan. I like the 20% discount as a simple way to represent buying materials to craft. I think I will change Fast Crafting to be 1/long rest during a short rest so the character can make something during the adventure. Well that and open it up to something similar to the table. I recognize the design difficulty with doing that as a feat.

I think Savage Attacker is fine as an origin feat.

Fighting Style feats are good. I wouldn't take Origin or Fighting Style for regular feats but I like them as feats for organizational purposes.

I like the balance of the 4+ feats overall. They were buffed, many considerably, which makes the +2 ASI not as good in comparison. This means it is important to start with a 17 and possibly another odd stat for level 8 to get a 2nd feat and another mod increase. It makes for a buff to fighters as they can take 3 feats and still have a 20 at level 8. It makes a tough decision for other classes on whether to go for the +2 which is not as good now for the 20 or take another feat at level 8.

My houserules used to be no GWM, SS, or Resilient (Con).

Now that War Caster is buffed I feel okay with allowing Resilient (Con). My previous concern was that constitution saving throws was something special Sorcerers got but all other casters could easily get it. But now they can get War Caster and still get their casting stat increase which still puts them ahead.

GWM I'm fine with.

I'm removing the no disadvantage in melee benefit from SS because it ruins the identity of ranged weapons. They are already ignoring 1/2 and 3/4 cover and now they ignore melee. I'd rather they care about an enemy reaching them and sometimes needing to switch weapons. There are a lot of movement effects now too so I think the party will be able to knock enemies around for the ranged characters.

Overall I think the rebalancing of the feats is a big win for the 2024 version.

 

[Maxperson]

we used +1 ASI for SS and GWM instead of -5/+10 for years.
was so happy when that made it as a core rule.

+1 ASI is almost meaningless in 5e. The way the game is balanced doesn't really care about your stat numbers.

 

[Charlaquin]

What's everybody's feeling on 2024 feats? Do they feel balanced against each other?

For the most part. As always there are stronger and weaker options, but in general the floor is higher and the ceiling is lower, so the degree to which you can hobble yourself with suboptimal choices is more limited. Thats the best one can hope for in any system with variable options.

Are Origin feats "worth as much as" later feats, meaning would you spend a level 4 or higher feat picking up another Origin feat?

Definitely not. Origin feats are really only worth taking from your Origin, but I think that’s fine.

Similarly, do the fighting style feats feel like they're on the same level as actual feats. Would you ever pick up a fighting style feat with one of your ASIs?

I don't think you even can. Having a Fighting Style feature is a prerequisite to taking a Fighting Style feat. I suppose a Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger could theoretically use a feat to pick up a second fighting style, but why would they? I guess maybe you could take one offensive and one defensive style… I definitely think just taking a general feat would be better though. Fighting styles being feats is mostly just an organizational change, not meant to actually put them in competition with general feats for ASI level choices.

In the olden days, +2 damage was a feat, but now a feat is worth +2 to an ability score (typically +1 to hit/damage/dcs, +1 checks, and +1 saves)? +2 Dex is +1 AC for a lot of people, so is Defense Style worth a whole feat?

Defense Style is one of the weaker fighting styles in my opinion. People make a big deal about great weapon fighting being a bad style, but I think it’s actually worth taking over Defense. If you want a defensive fighting style, you’re better off with Protection, in my opinion.

 

[abirdcall]

For the most part. As always there are stronger and weaker options, but in general the floor is higher and the ceiling is lower, so the degree to which you can hobble yourself with suboptimal choices is more limited. Thats the best one can hope for in any system with variable options.

Definitely not. Origin feats are really only worth taking from your Origin, but I think that’s fine.

I don't think you even can. Having a Fighting Style feature is a prerequisite to taking a Fighting Style feat. I suppose a Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger could theoretically use a feat to pick up a second fighting style, but why would they? I guess maybe you could take one offensive and one defensive style… I definitely think just taking a general feat would be better though. Fighting styles being feats is mostly just an organizational change, not meant to actually put them in competition with general feats for ASI level choices.

Defense Style is one of the weaker fighting styles in my opinion. People make a big deal about great weapon fighting being a bad style, but I think it’s actually worth taking over Defense. If you want a defensive fighting style, you’re better off with Protection, in my opinion.

Yeah Defense is actually quite weak.

People like high numbers and defense lets you push your AC really high but in the game that doesn't do a lot for you.

You are probably already going to be the last party member standing and then you won't last very much longer even with a +1.

Interception or Protection are much better on a champion who gets 2 fighting styles.

 

[Gorck]

There are better and worse, but they all are viable, except (in my opinion) Savage Attacker, which I don't see ever taking.

I do not know how to salvage Savage attacker so it does not get overpowered in the process.
+1 damage to all attacks, +2 with heavy weapons?

I was wondering this myself. I really like the concept of Savage Attacker, but everyone says it's trash (I don't think it's that bad and my daughter has used it effectively in our old campaign). How would people change it to make it a more respectable pick?

 

[Xeviat]

I was wondering this myself. I really like the concept of Savage Attacker, but everyone says it's trash (I don't think it's that bad and my daughter has used it effectively in our old campaign). How would people change it to make it a more respectable pick?

I've been fiddling with if thr Baldur's Gate 3 version is balanced: it's basically advantage on weapon damage dice, it doesn't have the 1/round limit. But it's hard to say really, since the other Origin feats don't boost damage (unless you count shillelagh or true strike from the magic adept feats). It's just that Savage Attacker doesn't "feel" good, regardless of if it's actually balanced.

Shillelagh turns a club from a 1d4 weapon to a 1d8 weapon. Savage Attacker let's you roll 1 weapon damage roll with advantage. 1d4 to 1d8 is +2 damage, which is comparable to duelist. 1d12 to 1d12 with advantage is 6.5 to 8.5. So, maybe it is balanced? But shillelagh is only part of the feat, half or one quarter depending on what you value more (personally, 1 1st level spell 1/day doesn't seem valuable to me, but people rank the magic adept feats high). Shillelagh also scales with level and with extra attack, while Savage Attacker doesn't.

Last, I think part of the "feels bad, man" feeling of Savage Attacker is knowing that once you get extra attack, you aren't going to be able to choose which damage roll to reroll because it's not a reroll. You could roll twice on your first attack and get 2 8s, then roll a 1 on your second attack.

If it was something simple like crit on a 19, it might feel better, even though that might also be weak.

 

[Minigiant]

A simple fix would be to just remove the fighting style requirement in your game.

Or give a +1 if you take feat outside the Fighting Style feature.

 

[Horwath]

I was wondering this myself. I really like the concept of Savage Attacker, but everyone says it's trash (I don't think it's that bad and my daughter has used it effectively in our old campaign). How would people change it to make it a more respectable pick?

it is that bad.
In best case scenario it will give you almost +2 damage, with 60% hit rate, that is +1,2 damage per round.
and maybe that looks good at 1st level, but it's only once per turn.
so no Extra attack usage, no bonus action attack usage. not with action surge or haste.
maybe you will get an reaction here and there.

except tavern brawler, every origin feat scales with level in some way.
here, you get extra attacks and still can use it once per round.

this should be scrapped and just have feat that gives Fighting style instead.

 

[Minigiant]

I still wish there was a feat category between Epic Boon and General

Epic (level 19)
Specialization (level 12)
General (level 4)
Origin (level 1)