D&D 5E New Feats Survey!

[Stalker0]

That's the problem with Feats,in a nutshell: they undermine creative play.

I think Feats can undermine creative play, but generally don't.

Quick Example: Keen Minds ability to always tell which direction is north. That doesn't suddenly mean no one can make a check to determine which way north is, Keen Mind just does it automatically.

In fact, feats can even serve as a template for creative play. Perhaps a paladin gives a big speech, and gets an amazing 25 on their persuasion. DM is trying to decide how to rule the effect, and decides to give the effects of the inspiring leader feat. Doesn't mean the paladin can do it all the time, but it was an easy way to rule the current situation.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Do you see it differently? I have faith in my DM allowing me to do trip attacks outside of the subclass or feats, but not necessarily other DMs.

Shove is functionally Trip in 5E, because Shove lets you either move them, or Prone them, your choice. So you can just narrate the Shove action as a Trip.

So that example at least is already covered by the rules. The Battlemaster Trip is just an all-round superior version of that.

 

[Parmandur]

This is an honest question and I'd like to know if anyone else sees it this way. Taking the Battlemaster (is that a portmanteau, or just two words?), and the trip maneuver, does this mean no one else is intended to trip? I would say that the implementation of a specific maneuver limited to a specific subclass or feats taken, implies that yes, no one else is intended to trip. The counterargument is weakened by there being specific options laid out in the rules to allow you to trip. However, there is a counterargument that the Battlemaster just gets bonuses to it, and that has some merit.

Do you see it differently? I have faith in my DM allowing me to do trip attacks outside of the subclass or feats, but not necessarily other DMs.

It should be merely a bonus, but the rules need to be more specific about what sort of physical stunting can be encouraged.

 

[Stalker0]

I would say that the implementation of a specific maneuver limited to a specific subclass or feats taken, implies that yes, no one else is intended to trip. The counterargument is weakened by there being specific options laid out in the rules to allow you to trip. However, there is a counterargument that the Battlemaster just gets bonuses to it, and that has some merit.

Do you see it differently? I have faith in my DM allowing me to do trip attacks outside of the subclass or feats, but not necessarily other DMs.

This isn't really a debate, the shove rules in the core books allow anyone to trip. Now the difference is a battlemaster gets to do it while adding damage, and uses a strength save instead of an opposed athletics check (which may or may not be better depending on circumstances).

Now the DMG does have variant rules for "trip attacks", but you can always choose to give up an attack to just go for a trip, no question about it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is an honest question and I'd like to know if anyone else sees it this way. Taking the Battlemaster (is that a portmanteau, or just two words?), and the trip maneuver, does this mean no one else is intended to trip? I would say that the implementation of a specific maneuver limited to a specific subclass or feats taken, implies that yes, no one else is intended to trip. The counterargument is weakened by there being specific options laid out in the rules to allow you to trip. However, there is a counterargument that the Battlemaster just gets bonuses to it, and that has some merit.

Do you see it differently? I have faith in my DM allowing me to do trip attacks outside of the subclass or feats, but not necessarily other DMs.

It's a bit like that, yeah. Though I feel it is less of an issue in 5e than in 3e. But I think that it would be better if there was more robust rules/guidance for all sorts of manoeuvres and stunts than anyone can attempt, and classes and feats would allow you do do them better. And some things already work like that, but I feel things could be further improved.

 

[Maxperson]

It's also why I don't like the Battlemaster. It's proscriptive play, in that unless you're specifically allowed to do this one thing, you can't do it.

I don't agree with that. Let's take Trip Attack. As a Battlemaster you get to add damage equal to the Superiority Die and get to try to knock it prone. I don't see why I would refuse to let a Champion or Ranger(not limiting to those two classes) try it at say a -2 to hit and no extra damage. A -2 isn't that significant a penalty and the Champion could see real benefit from the effort. It's not going to be nearly as good as a trained Battlemaster, but then it shouldn't be.

 

[Parmandur]

Wow. That explains a lot about 3E. I'd love to read a really detailed account of all that kind of stuff, if anyone knows of one, please point me to it!

I know that I heard or read something else about this, but here's what I found just now:

How Dungeons & Dragons Gained Feats

At a Dungeons & Dragons game, I overheard a player explain that feat was short for feature. That’s not right, but I kept quiet for 2 reasons: I don’t want to be the guy who butts into conversat…

dmdavid.com

 

[Parmandur]

I don't agree with that. Let's take Trip Attack. As a Battlemaster you get to add damage equal to the Superiority Die and get to try to knock it prone. I don't see why I would refuse to let a Champion or Ranger(not limiting to those two classes) try it at say a -2 to hit and no extra damage. A -2 isn't that significant a penalty and the Champion could see real benefit from the effort. It's not going to be nearly as good as a trained Battlemaster, but then it shouldn't be.

I do think yhst the rules could make it more clear what is normally on the table for physical combat. Not as hyperdetermined as 3E, but more suggestions for off beat stunt actions.

 

[Maxperson]

I do think yhst the rules could make it more clear what is normally on the table for physical combat. Not as hyperdetermined as 3E, but more suggestions for off beat stunt actions.

I think the more they spell out, the less players will look outside of what the game is spelling for you. Back in 1e/2e a lot more players tried outside of the box actions. 3e then tried to spell out nearly everything and that creativity plummeted. 5e spells out far less and I'm seeing that creativity return slowly as my players are being retrained in the old ways.

 

[ART!]

Usually more effective though (and it's5%, pretty significant on the aggregate.

I guess it goes without saying that for some characters an ASI makes more sense than any or most feats, and vice versa.

I'm currently running a fighter who just became 5th level. The Strength ASI I took at 4th level means she has a +1 with her greataxe. And now at 5th, when she attacks she can attack twice. And when I use Action Surge, she can attack three times on her turn - every single one of those at a +1 because of that ASI.

Are there feats that might make her more effective at a particular something or go with her style? Absolutely. Will any of them get as much use as that +1? No.

That character is very practical and all about being the reliable, effective frontline fighter.

Have I opted for feats over ASIs at lower levels with other characters? Yes.