D&D 5E How weak is Athlete Feat?

[Bacon Bits]

The Athlete feat used to be quite powerful, but thanks to tough actin' Tinactin my Athlete feat is totally cured!

 

[DND_Reborn]

I'd sum this up as "it looks strong, and isn't mechanically weak". Which is what I was aiming for.

You are giving a bonus to three saves (up to +3 in tier 4), an extra ASI +1 (whether you believe it is important or not), and +5 speed ON TOP of everything the feat already gives! If you think that just "looks strong" you likely play over-the-top style of games. This variant you've contrived doesn't just "look" strong, it IS strong... way too strong.

I'll agree, I did try to make it attractive and interesting.

LOL you sure did! The bonus to two of the three strong saves (DEX and CON) is worth a half-feat on its own!

Resilient offers +1 ASI and proficiency in one save (max +6 at tier 4), your feat offers +1 ASI and half-proficiency in three saves, so max +9 total bonuses at tier 4! Oh, and you offer a bunch of other stuff to go with that: another +1 ASI, climbing speed, +5 speed, etc.

You realize for the saves, speed boost, and every thing else Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, and Wizards will all love this feat since none of them have proficiency in STR, DEX, or CON saves (avoid knock-down, avoid damage, avoid losing concentration--and much more). If you have an odd DEX score you get a bump to AC and Initiative as well. Better movement is never a bad thing nor is being able to carry more (specifically for groups who use the variant encumbrance rules). Oh, and in many groups IME getting the almighty "20" in your main score just isn't necessary--especially at lower levels. By tier 3 you would like an 18, and maybe bother with the 20 at tier 4--maybe...

Also, since the default method is to roll ability scores, then add in your racial ASIs (which thanks to the new stuff in Tasha's you can always have a +2 ASI in your main score!), you can get a PC where you don't even need to use an ASI to max out at 20.

You haven't given a single example of an actual character where it would be an overpoweringly good choice.

I could give you plenty of examples, but you already touched on the obvious ones (plus my mention of the casters above) should be sufficient. If it isn't, well...

Oh yes: and feel free not to reply if you have nothing to add.

LOL what would I dare ADD!? You have already added way too much for a single feat.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the idea of giving +1 str and dex. Same could work for a feat that gives +1 Int and wis, and maybe even str and int. To be honest, usually splitting your bonuses is not that great overall and if you have 2 attack stats to begin with, you already put yourself at disadvantage.

The rest of the suggestion is quite a bit over the top.

 

[Maxperson]

(Yes, I know all sorts of weak word plays to make on this one.)

I walked in on my Athletic Feat the other day and it was benching 120.

Yeah, I hate the 5e fixed-distance jumping mechanic. "How far, 15? Drat, I can only jump 14." Unbelievable there's no official mechanism for trying to jump more than 14. (That said, I see DM's improvise all the time.)

I was thinking a bonus to jumping distance.

While it's not spelled out exactly what the rule is, jumping farther is covered in the Athletics skill. From the PHB Page 175, "You try to jump an unusually long distance or pull off a stunt midjump."

You'd just have to come up with what that means for your game. For my game, for each 1 over DC 15 you roll, you go an extra foot.

 

[TwoSix]

In short: I get why it looks strong to offer +1 str AND dex, but it is way weaker than it looks. Actual cases where it is strong are a good argument why it is too strong, but "that is better than an ASI" looks mostly like it is falling for the appearance of strength not actual strength. And, in my opinion, encouraging people to have str and dex increased has verisimilitude advantages.

This is probably the key point. You can't evaluate feat strength by simply looking at the features and saying "Oh, this one has more features than that one." You need to look at how the feat option fits into the overall build structure, and at what level it becomes the go-to option over other choices. Nothing in this feat makes me think "Oh boy, I need to take VHuman at level 1 just to get this feat", unlike say PAM. I might take this at 1st level if I was playing a medium armor character who was Str focused, but that's about it. But there at least ARE some concepts where I would consider taking it at level 1, which to me is the sweet spot for feats. Most feats don't come anywhere close to that benchmark.

 

[TwoSix]

You realize for the saves, speed boost, and every thing else Clerics, Druids, Warlocks, and Wizards will all love this feat since none of them have proficiency in STR, DEX, or CON saves (avoid knock-down, avoid damage, avoid losing concentration--and much more). If you have an odd DEX score you get a bump to AC and Initiative as well. Better movement is never a bad thing nor is being able to carry more (specifically for groups who use the variant encumbrance rules).

If I can get my casters to take an Athlete feat over the same old Resilient(Con) and War Caster, I've already won.

Oh, and in many groups IME getting the almighty "20" in your main score just isn't necessary--especially at lower levels. By tier 3 you would like an 18, and maybe bother with the 20 at tier 4--maybe...

Honestly, I think it's more a personal preference thing than a group thing. I have people who beeline 20s, others who only take feats, and others who just decide on a whim. Personally, I try to have an initial 16, an 18 by level 8, and a 20 by level 12.

 

[NotAYakk]

This is probably the key point. You can't evaluate feat strength by simply looking at the features and saying "Oh, this one has more features than that one." You need to look at how the feat option fits into the overall build structure, and at what level it becomes the go-to option over other choices. Nothing in this feat makes me think "Oh boy, I need to take VHuman at level 1 just to get this feat", unlike say PAM. I might take this at 1st level if I was playing a medium armor character who was Str focused, but that's about it. But there at least ARE some concepts where I would consider taking it at level 1, which to me is the sweet spot for feats. Most feats don't come anywhere close to that benchmark.

In T3/T4, where a caster might want to grab it for concentration saves, Resiliant (Con) is a lot more tempting. Because +4.5 to +6.5 to con saves is a lot better than +2-3.

The bonuses to str/dex saves and dex might be enough to make it tempting. Also the ability to stack it with Resiliant(Wis) if you value that higher.

After Resiliant(Con), it offers an extra +1 to the save, which is non-zero but not something you get a feat for. You might do it if you had an odd dex and want the +1 AC/initiative/etc. But a full ASI in con would give you +1 HP/level and +1 to con saves, and many casters sort of like HP.

At level 12, 12 HP vs (+3.5 str/dex saves, 5' movement, +0.5 AC, +0.5 initiative, fluff) is an interesting choice. Tough is a full feat for +24 HP, but not considered a great feat even on casters. So probably this it is better than +2 con on a caster if they want concentration saves.

The next question: do many casters buy +2 con for concentration saves post-resiliant? I mean, I've seen an archer-bard build that recomments doing it (it has a 14 cha and doesn't even try to boost it).

 

[TwoSix]

In T3/T4, where a caster might want to grab it for concentration saves, Resiliant (Con) is a lot more tempting. Because +4.5 to +6.5 to con saves is a lot better than +2-3.

The bonuses to str/dex saves and dex might be enough to make it tempting. Also the ability to stack it with Resiliant(Wis) if you value that higher.

After Resiliant(Con), it offers an extra +1 to the save, which is non-zero but not something you get a feat for. You might do it if you had an odd dex and want the +1 AC/initiative/etc. But a full ASI in con would give you +1 HP/level and +1 to con saves, and many casters sort of like HP.

At level 12, 12 HP vs (+3.5 str/dex saves, 5' movement, +0.5 AC, +0.5 initiative, fluff) is an interesting choice. Tough is a full feat for +24 HP, but not considered a great feat even on casters.

Agreed on all counts. I really think it's excellent design, and I think I'll use it for my own games.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If I can get my casters to take an Athlete feat over the same old Resilient(Con) and War Caster, I've already won.

Not if it is so tempting they ALL take it. Then it becomes nearly a must-have like the other "strong" feats people (including yourself) talk about being taken all the time.

Honestly, I think it's more a personal preference thing than a group thing. I have people who beeline 20s, others who only take feats, and others who just decide on a whim. Personally, I try to have an initial 16, an 18 by level 8, and a 20 by level 12.

Agreed. It is totally a personal preference thing within the group. We have one player who, like you, likes to beeline it to 20, but even he will get there by taking half feats twice (for +2) and then usually a dedicated +2 ASI once.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that play style--it just isn't my thing at all. shrug

Agreed on all counts. I really think it's excellent design, and I think I'll use it for my own games.

Cool. Glad it works for you and more power to ya! I talked it over with another guy in our group today and he laughed about it, agreeing it is way too OP for our games--we just don't need "super"-feats.

But, to each their own and if @NotAYakk's version works for your game, great!