D&D 5E (2014) Resilient Feat

[Yardiff]

Would it be to much if this feat could be taken more then once?

 

[Shiroiken]

Absolutely. I consider it to be one of the best feats in the game at mid to high level, since you can pick up another primary save (Con, Dex, Wis). Most higher level characters I've seen have this feat, and if given the option, I'm guessing many would take it a second time. Saves at high level are much harder to make if you're not proficient, so this can be a huge boost.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I disagree. The monk eventually get proficiency in all saves as part of his progression. As a DM, I'd rule that if a player wants to invest in the saves over the other available options, then that's fine with me. It's not like they can take it more than once per stat, obviously. Especially when you consider they are sacrificing a potential +1 to damage, attacks, AC, or additional HP.

 

[Celtavian]

I think it would be too much given how the 5E game is structured. Saves are already pretty easy to make. There aren't many lethal save effects in the game. It would make save effects too easy to circumvent.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Most feats are overpowered relative to the alternative, because they're balanced against a +2 in your primary stat, which means any feat that you can use is flat-out better than +2 in any other (non-primary) stat. Once you've capped your primary stat, any feat you can use is a pure power boost. This feat just happens to be one which can benefit anyone.

In the base game, if your fighter wants to increase its Wisdom save, then you take Wisdom +2 at your next opportunity. Once feats are available, your fighter just takes this feat instead, for roughly five times the benefit. If you can take the feat twice, then you're even more overpowered than you would otherwise be.

So yes, it would be broken to let someone take this feat twice, but it's already broken to let anyone take it once. It's just a question of degree, on how broken you want your game to be.

 

[Mirtek]

I am surprised, i always thought it could be taken until you run out if non-proficient saves

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

I allow it to be taken multiple times. It doesn't really break anything. And I don't see a player taking it more than twice unless someone is trying to build something really unorthodox like a grappling wizard. If someone wanted to play that at my table, why not give the player all the tools to be able to build it?

 

[CapnZapp]

Most feats are overpowered relative to the alternative, because they're balanced against a +2 in your primary stat, which means any feat that you can use is flat-out better than +2 in any other (non-primary) stat. Once you've capped your primary stat, any feat you can use is a pure power boost. This feat just happens to be one which can benefit anyone.

In the base game, if your fighter wants to increase its Wisdom save, then you take Wisdom +2 at your next opportunity. Once feats are available, your fighter just takes this feat instead, for roughly five times the benefit. If you can take the feat twice, then you're even more overpowered than you would otherwise be.

So yes, it would be broken to let someone take this feat twice, but it's already broken to let anyone take it once. It's just a question of degree, on how broken you want your game to be.

I agree to most of this analysis. Except if you take it before you have a 20 in your primary.

Of course, this explains why a) few minmaxers take it before they've capped their primary and b) many minmaxers take it after

I would probably allow the feat (and not house-ban it) but I would probably not houserule away the restriction on "take it once only" either.

 

[CapnZapp]

The monk eventually get proficiency in all saves as part of his progression.

Not to mention how Paladins eventually get a +5 on all their saves...

 

[CapnZapp]

I allow it to be taken multiple times. It doesn't really break anything. And I don't see a player taking it more than twice unless someone is trying to build something really unorthodox like a grappling wizard. If someone wanted to play that at my table, why not give the player all the tools to be able to build it?

This boils down to the question "how minmaxing are your players?" Yardiff.

If this reply was written in the context of a non-minmaxing group, it could well be good advice.

But if Myopic's reply is written in ignorance how frightfully effective a truly minmaxing group of players can be, and you suspect your players belong in that group, Yardiff, you should probably heed the advice of others such as Saelorn and Celtavian.