D&D 5E Legends & Lore 7/21/14

[Alessandro Guarita]

About the Arcane Archer

Ok, since the feat isn't there (like most, I looked for it on the list) who knows that maybe it can be a subclass? After all, it was a Prestige Class like Eldrtich Knight and Arcane Trickster.

If it's the case witch class it'll belong? Fighter? Ranger? Bard? Sorcerer?

Oh, damn! So many speculations... I wanna my PHB

 

[MoutonRustique]

I think Battle Caster is designed for Clerics that wade into combat and the fighter mage type. I think the average fireball throwing wizard would choose a different route.

I can definitely see a front line caster wanting... *snip* ...other "spell caster" feats are far more tempting for a character that doesnt fit this type..

I understand the goal of the feat, and I agree to whom it will be of most appeal and benefit.

However (and this is always dependent on your play style), the "default" playstyle, as provided by official modules and such does mean that all casters are "front-line casters". By this I do not mean that they will go and jump into melee every chance they get; but it has been my experience that casters will find themselves the target of attacks in every single combat encounter. This is not a "safe lobbing distance" from my perspective.

It's just a matter of "mechanical-fluff" that is a bit jarring to me - that's all.

Also, what is funny to me is that, "warcaster" brings to my mind exactly the fireball lobbing wizard - which is the kind of caster that will gain the least from this feat! As opposed to illusionists, enchanter and buffing-type casters (at least two of which do not invoke "warcaster" to me as a default )

On another topic :
I imagine that knowing the length of the campaign will have a huge impact on the choice of Feat Vs Ability Boost. The longer the campaign, the more that +1 to many things will have played a role. On the other hand, for shorter games, that +1 is unlikely to come into actual play and those cool abilities WILL allow for more options/better chances at x/or whatever else these feats provide.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Grappler

This one scares me... too many flashbacks to 3e. I would have prefered a sidebar in one of the books talking about how adventures have sweaty hands and therefore are unsuited to ever try a grapple check.

5E's grappling rules are pretty painless (no pun intended!), so you should be okay!

 

[Branduil]

Maybe Warcaster has a strength prereq? If not, that would be an easy houserule.

 

[Remathilis]

On another topic :
I imagine that knowing the length of the campaign will have a huge impact on the choice of Feat Vs Ability Boost. The longer the campaign, the more that +1 to many things will have played a role. On the other hand, for shorter games, that +1 is unlikely to come into actual play and those cool abilities WILL allow for more options/better chances at x/or whatever else these feats provide.

I think you're going to see an even split honestly.

Most characters are going to bump their primary stat(s) up, but then pick a few cool feats to augment or expand your character. The only time I see this breaking is if people use rolled stats and have an 18 already: 1 bump and the rest feats. Since +1 isn't easy to come by, I think ability bumps will still remain popular.

 

[trentonjoe]

It comes down to +6 with cool options or +7 always.

 

[TwoSix]

I think you're going to see an even split honestly.

Most characters are going to bump their primary stat(s) up, but then pick a few cool feats to augment or expand your character. The only time I see this breaking is if people use rolled stats and have an 18 already: 1 bump and the rest feats. Since +1 isn't easy to come by, I think ability bumps will still remain popular.

Battle Caster is a great feat, but it's going to be awfully tough to justify versus a +2 in your main stat.

I have to admit, the interplay between the limited point buy, the extremely useful feats, and a stat bump is really growing on me. It makes for some damn difficult decision making. I really think I kind of love it.

 

[lkj]

Question about the the actual effectiveness of Combat Casting giving Advantage on Concentration checks: Am I right that this will be a bigger advantage at lower rather than higher levels? My recollection of the Basic rules is that the DC for the check is half the damage you take or DC 10, whichever is bigger. As levels increase, so does the average damage you might take from a hit. I seem to recall that the 'effective bonus' you get from Advantage declines as you move away from the middle of the DC range (i.e., goes from +5 in the mid DC range down to something much smaller for a high DC).

That said, I don't really know what the damage scaling is across levels. So, it could be that you will only rarely be taking more than 20 pts of damage on a hit even at higher levels.

Just curious if anyone has done the math. If they designed the feat well, it would be a meaningful but not overwhelming advantage across levels for most casters-- while being a large advantage for those who wade into melee (which is dangerous enough for most casters even with advantage on concentration).

Either way, being only able to have one concentration spell at a time solves most of my buff spell problems from 3e. "Hey, we're going into a big combat. Let's spend the next hour distributing buff spells while the DM goes to sleep and prays that he has still designed an appropriate challenge for his PC's"

Whether it turns into a feat tax is another question entirely.

AD

 

[Plaguescarred]

I like the direction of the feats for 5E, both as optional and stronger defining aspect of PC.

 

[GrumpyGamer]

Re: Combat Casting as a feat tax

I don't think it will be a feat tax in the traditional sense as it will not be needed to fix the math in the game, or be a mandatory pick up if you avoid the front ranks of combat. What it does do is open a playstyle that may prove to be very popular.

For me that seems like good game design - final judgment reserved for after we actually have the PHB in our hands and get a chance to play a few games with it.