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

[Mistwell]

The feat that gives +1 to a stat and a save proficiency fits this bill, imo.

It's boring, but it's important.

What's this feat called?

 

[Tony Vargas]

No, I'm saying that anything is moderation is fine. Cast 8 spells out of 10 each day with fire. But, don't prep 8 spells that you refuse to cast..

It's more likely a matter of known spells. I guess there are two issues the system has often had that have come up:

1) Over-rewarding specialization.

2) Excessive day-to-day versatility.


They're both issues with building to concept. Sometimes, if there's a sub-class, feat, specialist option, or something of that nature, your concept will be heavily rewarded with greater power/competence for doing exactly what you want it to do, and not doing what you didn't want to do with it.

Other times, you can stick to a concept, if you want, but the things that don't fit it are always sitting right there, being optimal.

For instance, if you got it into your head to play a Cleric that didn't heal, you could just never prep a healing spell (OK, except in 4e, where you'd have to outright play an Invoker), but you'd still /know/ all the healing spells, and be /able/ to prep them, so the 'temptation' to violate concept is always there, and failing to do so could cost you or your party dearly.

That's the issue with just willfully ignoring a class option rather than trading it out.

I'm not sure how this got brought up, exactly, and it doesn't really have much to do with 'must have' feats - except as they enable otherwise sub-optimal/non-viable concepts and thus act as a 'tax' on them, I suppose.

I disagree. Remember that by the time you're reaching levels where this is a big deal, fighters get Indomitable, which mitigates the effect of weak saves.

It really doesn't help much for a /weak/ save. A re-roll, like Advantage, is a greater advantage the better the first roll is. If you're trying to hit a DC 19 with a -1 penalty, it's not even quite as good as a simple +1.

Proficiency in that save would be /much/ better, at those levels.

 

[Obryn]

What's this feat called?

Resilient, IIRC; it's been spoiled a few times, including in the thread here.

 

[Dausuul]

I'll disagree with your disagreement.

Indomitable - like advantage - is less useful than static modifiers at the upper end of the RNG. If I need to roll an 18 or 19 on my d20, rolling 2 dice won't cut it.

On the other hand, Indomitable is awesome when paired with proficiency in a save.

I guess we'll have to see what monster save DCs look like in the final version. In the bestiary, I found exactly two monsters with Wisdom save DCs of 18 or higher: Asmodeus and the pit fiend. Everything else was DC 15 or lower. And the fighter could easily have +1 or +2 on Wisdom saves with no feat investment, just from starting stats.

What little data can be gleaned from comparing the bestiary to the Starter Set suggests average save DCs may have risen by 1-2 overall; ghoul save DCs fell by 2, giant spider save DCs rose by 1, wraith save DCs rose by 2, dragon save DCs rose by 2. That still wouldn't put many saves into the 18+ range.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've deleted a few posts for inappropriate language. Please keep it clean guys, eh?

Thanks

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess we'll have to see what monster save DCs look like in the final version. In the bestiary, I found exactly two monsters with Wisdom save DCs of 18 or higher: Asmodeus and the pit fiend. Everything else was DC 15 or lower. And the fighter could easily have +1 or +2 on Wisdom saves with no feat investment, just from starting stats.

Even if he needs a natural 13, at those levels, proficiency would still be superior to Indomitable.

This is one of my personal little crusades, but the fighter really should just have proficiency in all saves. One place where 5e could have done well to harken back /more/ to AD&D than it did.

 

[Obryn]

I guess we'll have to see what monster save DCs look like in the final version. In the bestiary, I found exactly two monsters with Wisdom save DCs of 18 or higher: Asmodeus and the pit fiend. Everything else was DC 15 or lower. And the fighter could easily have +1 or +2 on Wisdom saves with no feat investment, just from starting stats.

Yeah, if the final save DCs are mostly around 13-14, then indomitable is ... mostly sufficient.

If there's quite a few in the 16+ range, I'm afraid I'll have to call it like I see it, especially considering you get a freebie stat bump with your proficiency.

Remember Indomitable is also only usable a few times per day (post-nerf ). And that indomitable + proficiency is still a heck of a lot better.

What little data can be gleaned from comparing the bestiary to the Starter Set suggests average save DCs may have risen by 1-2 overall; ghoul save DCs fell by 2, giant spider save DCs rose by 1, wraith save DCs rose by 2, dragon save DCs rose by 2. That still wouldn't put many saves into the 18+ range.

Monsters are built basically like PCs, per surfarcher's analysis, and so are their Save DCs. They will have identical proficiency bonuses, and their stats can increase all the way to 30 in some cases. I would be completely unsurprised to see 18-19 regularly at high levels.

 

[Dausuul]

Even if he needs a natural 13, at those levels, proficiency would still be superior to Indomitable.

Sure. But worth spending an entire feat on?

 

[SkidAce]

This is a problem that Mike Mearls identified in an interview a while ago: The way resistance and immunity work in D&D, themed casters tend to be weak against the very things they should be strongest against. Fire mages are weak against fire monsters. Cold mages are weak against cold monsters. Necromancers are weak against undead (most necromantic attack spells involve necrotic damage, fear, or life-drain attacks).

I disagree with Mearls. Fire mages should be weak versus fire creatures, they should excel against cold creatures. Etc etc. YMMV, IMHO...

Necromancer one is a good point, I will have to consider on that....

 

[jgsugden]

Resilient is the best example we have?

You're not generally going to take this before you get to 20 on an attribute. The benefits on your attack rolls and on the saves you cause outstrips the defensive benefits. And you certainly won't be taking this feat to get your prime to 20 - as all PCs are already proficient with their prime attribute's saves.

So, let's say that you get your prime to 20 at level 4 or 8 (maybe 6 if you get the extra attribute bonuses). Now you're ready to take this feat - right? At levels 6, 8 or 12? If you take it there, you've already spent a long time without it. However, I don't think you do take it now. Why not? Because that +1 attribute is going to be in the attribute that gets a save bonus. And there will only be 2 abilities tied to saves that happen often enough to be worth while and few classes give you much benefit for raising an additional 'good' stat (con, dex, wis). A few classes (monk for example) do, and some multiclass combos do... but not many. And if the class situation is right, you still only gain a real benefit at that time from the attribute gain if you had an odd attribute. If not, the benefit is delayed at least until you next get a chance to increase attributes or gain a feat....

Further, let's be honest about how useful that save bonus is. In 4E we had feats that gave a huge bonus for one save. And they were rarely taken. And, in 4E, your defenses were targeted more often than you'll make saves in 5E...

And, even if you do want it, it will be competing with other feats that may be better for your build.

There are counter arguments as well, but I am not about to call this a must have feat when I doubt many PCs will get it before 8th level - and often would not be taken until high levels if ever. Your opinion may differ, but I feel pretty solid in dropping the must have label here.