Unearthed Arcana UA feats, are they trying to allow people to not have to multiclass to get class abilities?

[Weiley31]

Your character is not a ***#&% MTG deck.

But, but, we're in Theros and Ravnica.

 

[Weiley31]

Well at least we can combine these MC-lite feats with the MC feats that EN5ider made for their Patreon backers.

 

[ccs]

But, but, we're in Theros and Ravnica.

No, I've merely borrowed bits & pieces from those books.

 

[Markh3rd]

Come to think of it... there's no Monk feat either...

I would have thought an extra ki feat would have been very popular.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I would have thought an extra ki feat would have been very popular.

You would need to tie it to a monk ability made sense for non-monks to learn, and preferably wasn't automatic for a monk.

Looking through, I think the best way to do it would be to raid the 4E subclass.

Ki Adept. Your can use your Wisdom score instead of Strength for attack and damage rolls when making an unarmed strike. Your can roll 1d4 in place of the normal damage of your unarmed strikes. You gain 2 ki points. Choose one Elemental Discipline. If the Elemental Discipline has a prerequisite you may choose that discipline only if you are a monk and only if you meet the prerequisite. You may swap your elemental discipline for a different one when you level up.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

• Barbarian: There's nothing here. Maybe they could make a feat that gives something like Brutal Critical or Reckless Attack.

I was looking at this, perhaps changing Reckless Attack into a fighting style as an barbarian alternative class feature. The trouble is it becomes way too good on a rogue.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I must have missed an update on the statistics of the player experience.

Can you link the source for those percentages? Last I saw, feats were much lower than 80%.

If you want to go digging for it, you can, but I started two polls here and IIRC, multiclassing was used in over 50% of tables, but many of them did not involve "heavy"-style MCing.

The poll on feats showed something like 90% or more tables (it might have been as high as 95%) of tables used feats.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you want to go digging for it, you can, but I started two polls here and IIRC, multiclassing was used in over 50% of tables, but many of them did not involve "heavy"-style MCing.

The poll on feats showed something like 90% or more tables (it might have been as high as 95%) of tables used feats.

Oh, it’s a reference to polls taken here?

All due respect to the good folks here...we aren’t a useful sample of the D&D community.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Oh, it’s a reference to polls taken here?

All due respect to the good folks here...we aren’t a useful sample of the D&D community.

LOL no problem, it was just the only information available. Others might have other sources, but that was mine.

FWIW, I've never met or played at a table in either 3E or 5E that doesn't use both feat and MCing to one point or another. I've heard about tables, but never experienced it myself.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

LOL no problem, it was just the only information available. Others might have other sources, but that was mine.

FWIW, I've never met or played at a table in either 3E or 5E that doesn't use both feat and MCing to one point or another. I've heard about tables, but never experienced it myself.

I have met them, though I think they’re strange. Then again, I think ever picking an ASI is kinda odd, so what do I know.

edit: okay that isn’t true. My level 13 rogue/fighter might pick an ASI at fighter4 (character level 15), or maybe the next feat after that, because he has all the feats he really needs at this point and I don’t wanna add any more widgets after getting manuevers at fighter3.

Of course, this set of feats makes me wonder if maybe fighter MC was unnecessary to begin with...but no, Second Wind and Action Surge are awesome.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have met them, though I think they’re strange. Then again, I think ever picking an ASI is kinda odd, so what do I know.

I'd probably find them a bit odd, myself. I'd say the ASI option is about 20-25% IME.

My character leveled last night, and I am considering an ASI to bump my INT to 18 from 16. But my reason is also we acquired a Tome of Clear Thought which will further boost me to 20.

However, as both cleric and wizard with two 16's. I might read the book and then ASI bump WIS to have two 18s. I'm still undecided.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'd probably find them a bit odd, myself. I'd say the ASI option is about 20-25% IME.

My character leveled last night, and I am considering an ASI to bump my INT to 18 from 16. But my reason is also we acquired a Tome of Clear Thought which will further boost me to 20.

However, as both cleric and wizard with two 16's. I might read the book and then ASI bump WIS to have two 18s. I'm still undecided.

Yeah my group has adopted a houserule that makes ASI’s mostly obsolete, bc we just do not enjoy taking them. (You get +1 to a stat every time your class gives you a choice and you pick a feat.)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Yeah my group has adopted a houserule that makes ASI’s mostly obsolete, bc we just do not enjoy taking them. (You get +1 to a stat every time your class gives you a choice and you pick a feat.)

That's a useful rule. I might steal that. My table also hates taking ASIs, as they take away from feats, which we use heavily. We've had campaigns end with people having a 16 in their highest ability score because they wanted feats, not ASIs.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I was looking at this, perhaps changing Reckless Attack into a fighting style as an barbarian alternative class feature. The trouble is it becomes way too good on a rogue.

Yeah, it would be good. They could make it a bit different, though, maybe only giving advantage on the first attack, and attacks against you still have advantage, or something like that. I think Brutal Critical would work best as a feat, though.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yeah my group has adopted a houserule that makes ASI’s mostly obsolete, bc we just do not enjoy taking them. (You get +1 to a stat every time your class gives you a choice and you pick a feat.)

Do you remove the +1 ASI a lot of feat give? Otherwise, a feat and ASI +1 seems a bit strong.

 

[Ashrym]

Or as I call it just plain human (Seriously, default human is a bland bundle of numbers that just gets in the way of making characters the way I want). When Vhuman is not allowed, I make a half elf and call her a human. It worked for Aragorn, it works for me.

Use dragon-marked humans. They are only restricted to Eberron if the DM won't allow them or in organized play.

Come to think of it... there's no Monk feat either...

Not for ki but the class feature variants unarmed fighting fits.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Do you remove the +1 ASI a lot of feat give? Otherwise, a feat and ASI +1 seems a bit strong.

Nope. If I had trouble challenging the PCs, I might, but IME challenging the PCs is the easiest part of DMing.

5e is very robust. I’ve run games with rolled stats, where some PCs had much higher stats than others, and the game runs fine. Everyone being a little higher isn’t actually a big deal. I also have run games with a 32 point buy, and the only noticeable difference is PCs that are closer to their concept, and less player frustration with the character building system.

 

[cbwjm]

LOL no problem, it was just the only information available. Others might have other sources, but that was mine.

FWIW, I've never met or played at a table in either 3E or 5E that doesn't use both feat and MCing to one point or another. I've heard about tables, but never experienced it myself.

I'm the same, though I may have been playing with people who don't multiclass or use feats as it's not really something that comes up in casual convo. Everywhere I've been they've been options for people to choose to take.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Nope. If I had trouble challenging the PCs, I might, but IME challenging the PCs is the easiest part of DMing.

5e is very robust. I’ve run games with rolled stats, where some PCs had much higher stats than others, and the game runs fine. Everyone being a little higher isn’t actually a big deal. I also have run games with a 32 point buy, and the only noticeable difference is PCs that are closer to their concept, and less player frustration with the character building system.

Yeah, in the grand scheme of things an extra point here or there won't make or break the PC or game. Our table has been discussing moving to a 30-pt buy system with cap 16 for 11 points. If we do, the standard array will become 16, 14, 13, 12, 10 9 IIRC to more match the expected values of 4d6k3.

Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me. I had a load of fun back in 1E playing a Cleric with everything from 9-12! So, he actually had a 5% chance of spell failure LOL! It only came up a couple of times, but man was it entertaining.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah, in the grand scheme of things an extra point here or there won't make or break the PC or game. Our table has been discussing moving to a 30-pt buy system with cap 16 for 11 points. If we do, the standard array will become 16, 14, 13, 12, 10 9 IIRC to more match the expected values of 4d6k3.

Honestly, it really doesn't matter to me. I had a load of fun back in 1E playing a Cleric with everything from 9-12! So, he actually had a 5% chance of spell failure LOL! It only came up a couple of times, but man was it entertaining.

Yeah we’ve been having a lot more fun this way, tbh. It just opens up the character building process to make whatever we want, without anyone feeling like they’re going to struggle to be effective. (Pretty often, “effective at core competencies” is a big part of the character concept, ya know? )