D&D 5E Need opinions about a few feats

[Lornis]

Hi guys!

This is my first post here, I have followed the Wotc's train to here and I'm not disapointed this website/forum is awesome!

Okay so I've got a few questions for you. I recently decide to allow feats at my table, and I find the majority of them well-writen. However I find some of them to be a little overpowered and I need your opinions and feedback.

I am concerned with Great Wepon Master, Sentinel and Lucky. I fear that these little mechanics (specifically Sentinel) to be way stronger than the other feats.

I am also concerned with Magic Initiate and Martial Adept. More particulary the last one, I am affraid that allowing it just make the battlemaster useless.

Any thougths?

Sorry for my english, not my native linguage

 

[Kithas]

We've been playing with feats for over a year and I've used most of those. Let's go in order;
Personally I think that the -5+10 mechanic is boring and swingy but overall it's not broken. However if you are concerned about it the main fix I would recommend is not letting GWM work with Polearm Master.

Sentinel is powerful but not as good as it looks on paper, I have it and I rarely get to use most of it :/ The clauses are very specific, and the reactions it gives aren't opportunity attacks so they don't interact with the speed reduction it gives.

Lucky is very good but the limited usage means that it cannot be overpowered. you only get 3 a long rest.

Magic initiate is very good for getting access to cantrips, but the once per day on the spell and the fact that it means you have one more stat to worry about keeps it balanced.

Martial adept is generally only worth it if you are already a battlemaster, one dice and it being a d6 means this feat is generally considered underpowered.


If I may add one big fix we've made was that Polearm master's reaction is not an opportunity attack. This keeps it from interacting with both Warcaster and Sentinel in degenerative ways. We also lowered polearms damage to a d8 because we found that reach was worth much more than one average damage (2d6 vs 1d10).


As far as the -5+10 thing goes there are a lot of recommendations for changes, usually it is seen as too good, or imo too boring. Personally for my group I am working on completely overhauling both great weapon master and sharpshooter. I would talk to your players and see what they would like out of a feat like that and what they feel is exciting but fair. Agree on it and run with it.

 

[Lornis]

Thank you for the feedback I think I'll allow them then. I was afraid Sentinel will be game breaker by blocking my monsters, but a lot of glasscanons monster have special movement abilities so maybe it's not that strong after all.

I also have an idea for creating a new feat for melee that allow them to don't have disadvantages when they fight a target they can not see. Some kind of Blind Combat Mastery for a weapon master drow in a darkness are for example. Will that be overpowered?

 

[Kithas]

Thank you for the feedback I think I'll allow them then. I was afraid Sentinel will be game breaker by blocking my monsters, but a lot of glasscanons monster have special movement abilities so maybe it's not that strong after all.

I also have an idea for creating a new feat for melee that allow them to don't have disadvantages when they fight a target they can not see. Some kind of Blind Combat Mastery for a weapon master drow in a darkness are for example. Will that be overpowered?

Since each player only gets one reaction per round you can really only lock down one creature at a time.

That could be troublesome with someone casting Darkenss on themselves, It is already one of the best options for Warlocks but it being that class only keeps it balancedish. Basically you give advantage to the person with the feat and disadvantage/the inability to attack to anyone close to him/her. A creature in the Darkness spell is blinded, so disadvantage to hit and advantage to get hit. It would be a rather large boost.

 

[Unwise]

Sentinel allows a player to play a tank, without it or the optional marking rules, it is just too easy for monsters to use a disengage and run through the battleline and tie up the wizard in melee. I personally would not want to play a sword and board style tank without sentinel being an option.

As for the Blind Fighting feat, I suggest just don't do it. The last thing 5e needs is more people casting Darkness and long protracted fights with everybody rolling with disadvantage. I just don't think it is particularly fun and in the cast of a Warlock or Shadow Monk it can happen every fight, making every fight pretty much the same. It is not much fun for the rest of the party.

 

[muppetmuppet]

one game I am playing in has banned lucky, that is our only restriction in that game.

 

[Lornis]

Okay guys thanks for the feedback I'll allow them.

And I was wondering maybe my rule interpretation of Darkness is wrong. For me you get no disadvantage or advantages because you can't see the one who attacks you (advatnage for him) but he can't see you so he also gets a disadvantages. So in the end Darkness do almost nothing except against a few humans with low perception. Am I ruling the spell correctly?

 

[abirdcall]

I think it is best to allow feats on a case by case basis. I flat out don't allow GWM, SS or Lucky.

 

[Horwath]

For GWM and SS drop the "power attack" feature -5/+10 and give +1 to an atribute instead. Or limit penalty to amount equal to proficiency bonus. that would slow the feat down until higher levels.


Lucky is OK feat. It becomes broken if your players are working the "5 min work day". I.E. you have 3 rerolls every combat.

If your day is spread over 5-6 combats or 30-50 rounds total, 3 re rolls are not too much.


Sentinel and PAM are only way that you can be convincing tank in this edition so they are OK.

 

[iserith]

I allow all feats. The DM controls the difficulty of the challenge and how the spotlight is shared, so there's really no concern with players taking what they want.