D&D 5E Is it just me or does it look like we are getting the "must have feats" once again?

[The Black Ranger]

Maybe it's just me, but when taking a glance at the feats it looks as if we are getting those "must have" feats that were rampant in 3rd and 4th edition. I was really hoping 5th edition could have been different but it likes like I may be wrong.

 

[Tormyr]

Such as?

 

[Paraxis]

As long as there is combat effectiveness built into feats, this will happen. At least unlike 3e you don't have to take a bunch of feats to be alright at something, like archery. The archery feats make you a true archer, so if that is how you define your character you will take it, if not you are still a pretty decent archer without it. I hated having to take point blank shot and precise shot in 3e/Pathfinder just to be not a complete gimp when it comes to archery.

 

[yakuba]

Maybe it's just me, but when taking a glance at the feats it looks as if we are getting those "must have" feats that were rampant in 3rd and 4th edition. I was really hoping 5th edition could have been different but it likes like I may be wrong.

There are definitely feats which are very strong for particular build, i.e. GWF for a GW Champion Fighter or Elemental Adept for a single element focused Evoker Wizard. I'm fine with that. What I don't want to see (in less than 48 hours!!!) is a high percentage a feats which are not strong for SOME build, or feats that are very strong for all builds.

 

[KarinsDad]

or Elemental Adept for a single element focused Evoker Wizard.

Actually, this is a crappy feat.

On a 12D6 attack, it average 44 damage instead of 42.

And it should rarely overcome the resist of a monster (how many monsters have resist for the given elemental type? 5%? 10%?). A wizard could just as easily bypass most monster resist by switching the type of elemental spell thrown, especially if he gets some type of knowledge check to know monster capabilities (or the DM lets the player know that the monster resisted his last attack).

 

[yakuba]

Actually, this is a crappy feat.

On a 12D6 attack, it average 44 damage instead of 42.

Emphasis on 'single element'. If you're Evoker spreads damage around the elements it won't be worthwhile, but if you're building a focused pyromancer, this is a very good feat. For that build it's effectively double damage 5%-10% of the time, using your initial guesses. That was exactly my point, it's good for a particular build, but it's not great for most builds, even most Evoker builds.

 

[greymarch]

Agreed

I am definitely spotting some must-have feats. Alertness: +5 to initiative. Wow! Even better than Improved Initiative from D&D 3.0/3.5 In a turn-based game, the person who goes first has a big advantage. After all, your opponent cannot attack you if you have already killed them.

 

[keterys]

You're still better off taking +2 to Int a couple times before Elemental Adept. And if they have any other generic spellcasting feat, probably that beforehand too. And maybe even +2 Dex or +2 Con beforehand.

It's nice to have, but it's hardly must have. Or even all that good.

 

[Jeph]

I see a lot of "really good choice, once you've maxed out your primary stat" feats. Not quite the same as must-have.

 

[Boarstorm]

I don't think I've seen even one feat that I'd classify as a "must-have." Several that would be really nice for certain builds, but nothing absolutely necessary.