D&D 5E New Feats, Thoughts ?

[Immoralkickass]

Shouldn't the Dodge feat help with Dex saves? Maybe give it proficiency or advantage.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just a piece of general advice, and something pretty much everyone forgets when coming up with their own feats. Feats are designed to have at least one feature that is usable in a general sense. I.e., if you look at feats like crossbow mastery and GWF, they each have a feature that can be used outside of crossbows and heavy weapons. I can't recall if it was Mearls or Crawford, but they said this was intentional, and core to how feats should be designed.

As an alternate opinion: don't.

Nothing sucks harder from a charop perspective than to take a feat and then not pick the weapon it is geared for.

Nobody in our group would take Crossbow Expert and then use it for a bow. Nobody would pick Greatweapon Master to gain the cleave part with a longsword.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

As an alternate opinion: don't.

Nothing sucks harder from a charop perspective than to take a feat and then not pick the weapon it is geared for.

Nobody in our group would take Crossbow Expert and then use it for a bow. Nobody would pick Greatweapon Master to gain the cleave part with a longsword.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

You seem to be confusing "Feats are designed to have at least one feature that can be used in general" with "If you design a feat in the way it's supposed to, you must choose a weapon outside of that feat's specialty."

I.e., just because crossbow feat has a feature that applies to all ranged weapons, in no way means you're forced to use a weapon other than a crossbow. By eliminating that design standard for feats, you're limiting choices and scenarios where that feat could be useful, making them hyper-specialized. Not to mention how it's not the best design to focus only on the char op crowd, since they are the minority of all game players anyway, so you're limiting your target audience as well. You're also completely forgetting that the PC won't always have their weapon of choice handy, and having that feat would also grant a benefit when you find yourself in a situation where the only weapon available to you is a longsword, or long bow, or dagger, etc.

 

[CapnZapp]

You seem to be confusing "Feats are designed to have at least one feature that can be used in general" with "If you design a feat in the way it's supposed to, you must choose a weapon outside of that feat's specialty."

I.e., just because crossbow feat has a feature that applies to all ranged weapons, in no way means you're forced to use a weapon other than a crossbow. By eliminating that design standard for feats, you're limiting choices and scenarios where that feat could be useful, making them hyper-specialized. Not to mention how it's not the best design to focus only on the char op crowd, since they are the minority of all game players anyway, so you're limiting your target audience as well. You're also completely forgetting that the PC won't always have their weapon of choice handy, and having that feat would also grant a benefit when you find yourself in a situation where the only weapon available to you is a longsword, or long bow, or dagger, etc.

You are forgetting to separate fact from opinion.

I stated my opinions. I even presented them as an alternate take, ie not the One and Only Truth.

Please stop pretending there is only one right way of designing feats.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

You are forgetting to separate fact from opinion.

I stated my opinions. I even presented them as an alternate take, ie not the One and Only Truth.

Please stop pretending there is only one right way of designing feats.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

When the designers say "this is how to design feats", then yeah, that is the way to design them. I'm not pretending anything.

Also, I don't know what your objection to that design process is. Something like cleave works with heavy weapons AND all other melee weapons, so from a char op perspective, you're not losing anything. However, you are still having a benefit outside of heavy weapons, so why are you against a feat having one feature is is more broad in application? I honestly have no idea why you think limiting a PC in feat design is a better approach.

 

[CapnZapp]

When the designers say "this is how to design feats", then yeah, that is the way to design them. I'm not pretending anything.

Also, I don't know what your objection to that design process is. Something like cleave works with heavy weapons AND all other melee weapons, so from a char op perspective, you're not losing anything. However, you are still having a benefit outside of heavy weapons, so why are you against a feat having one feature is is more broad in application? I honestly have no idea why you think limiting a PC in feat design is a better approach.

Read my post again.

Having more than one perspective might actually benefit you.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Sacrosanct]

Read my post again.

Having more than one perspective might actually benefit you.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

Well, this is a bit of an ironic post, since it's you who is arguing for a more limited approach to feat design. You never answered my question. What is your objection to having a feature in a feat that is more general use? The only answer you gave is because no one would choose to have GWM and use a longsword. That makes no sense because no one is making you use a long sword if you choose that feat. By including that more general feature, it supports heavy weapons AND other weapons if you find yourself without your heavy weapon at some time. It does nothing to take away from the char op aspect of the feat, but only adds additional functionality. So you're arguing for a more limited and restrictive feat. In what way is that "having more than one perspective"?

So help me understand your perspective. Why do you support a more limiting feat design process, that takes away from having a broader benefit included in that feat?

 

[CapnZapp]

Okay Sacrosanct.

At first you came across as merely a Mike Mearls fanboy, ripping my opinion and trying to "prove" how one design estetic is better than another. To this, I say: so people like Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, and Skip Williams are objectively inferior designers than Mike Mearls? And based on what evidence?

But now you seem to display a modicum of respect as to the perspective that there can be several ways to design feats, none of them inherently better than another.

In the spirit of that, I'll make a reply.

First off, when I speak of different perspectives, I mean things like "broad feats are good" and "narrow feats are good". Your interpretation is uncharitable and combative, and I shan't respond to it.

So why do you conclude my approach is more narrow than yours? That's preposterous.

If the original feat is, let's say something silly:

You gain extra damage with two-handed weapons. You also get to make a vorpal attack with greataxes.​

Why do you assume my ideal is

You deal extra damage and do vorpal attacks with greataxes.​

That only excludes everybody but greataxe owners.

It is equally possible (and much better design, IMO) to say

You deal extra damage and do vorpal attacks with two-handed weapons.​

Don't let your eagerness to oppose me in every thread you find cloud your judgement, Sacrosanct. As shown here, it gets embarrassing.

And for everybody else:

Yes, I quite dislike the feeling of the first version of this example feat. If I choose a greatsword I lose out on half the feat. Is there a compelling reason to have it that way? No.

If you look at my own feat redesign, I hope to show you a better way. At present, the most updated thread is this one:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?557377-Feats-Redux-II

You will see that Cleave is its own feat, and has been made as broad as possible. Now it allows all sorts of weapon attacks made in melee or at close range. It still signals it is meant for Strength builds, by the most commonly suggested replacement for the broken -5/+10 mechanism: a simple +1 Strength. So my Cleave can be said to be the immediate spiritual successor to the PHB GWM.

You will also see that Great Weapon Master and Savage Attacker (my versions) have been made inclusive to all possible "heavy" attacks. No longer is the benefit restricted to heavy weapons only, or even two-handed weapons only, but "a melee weapon attack you made with two hands". There's a difference.

The previous way simply feels wrong to me. There is no real reason for excluding you from wielding a versatile Longsword in two hands and still claim 100% of the benefits of the feat you have fought so hard for and finally chosen.

Choosing a feat is a special occasion in 5th edition - you don't get very many, and you always must weigh the pros and cons against a straightforward ASI.

Asking you to choose a feat for only half its benefits is asking you to make an unfun choice. (Also a by definition substandard choice).

In no way do I consider my design to cater only to minmaxers and charop players. They will never settle for a Longsword in the first place, when the Greatsword does a teensy bit of extra damage.

In fact, in my opinion, the people that stand the most to gain my a redesign like mine are the casual players and the ones prioritizing fashion over form! They don't even have to know they were spared a subpar decision when they can now choose, say, Cleave or Savage Attacker instead of the PHB Great Weapon Master.

(Apologies for going off topic - now back to the new feats of the OP!)