D&D 5E Unearthed Arcana: 16 New Feats

"Today’s Unearthed Arcana presents a selection of new feats for Dungeons & Dragons. Each feat offers a way to become better at something or to gain a whole new ability."


Ec0zu9OU8AA8eVM.jpg


The feats include Artificer Initiate, Chef, Crusher, Eldritch Adept, Fey Touched, Fighting Initiate, Gunner, Metamagic Adept, Poisoner, Piercer, Practiced Expert, Shadow Touched, Shield Training, Slasher, Tandem Tactician, and Tracker.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad


They have before, so it's not off the table, but I don't see them reprinting spells for feats (they don't for subclasses), when they could make it broader.

I doubt that. They're not going to put the Xanathar's spells in Xanathar's 2.0, unless something requires them to. The PHB+1 AL rule is broken, and needs fixing. That's not a reason to reprint something, as most people do not play AL.
They have shown no sign of deviating from PHB+1 design, and in part that is because it isn’t just there for AL.
Is that a thing? Do people ask their DMs for specific magic items, and the DM complies?
Yeah, absolutely.
 


At will mage armor or disguise self is much more valuable than 1/day. Disguise self at will is a game changer. It’s diet changeling, but more Diet Dr Pepper than Diet Pepsi (ie, Diet Dr Pepper is basically indistinguishable from regular DP).

The feat shines more for warlocks, but for non warlocks there are definitely some choices that can change a whole character.

It's certainly more valuable at will than once a day. I'm meant more that, if your class allows it, just learning Disguise Self and using spell slots covers most of what you can get out of it from a practical standpoint. Most of my Disguise Self schemes only require one or two changes. From a character building standpoint it's tremendous as well as from a wacky shenanigans standpoint. And I wouldn't discount taking it as a Changeling. I'm sure Changelings get mighty tired of having their unchanging clothes give them away.

One of my first 5e characters was a Charlatan Wizard whose whole goal in going into wizardry was to be able to magically impersonate people and pull various cons. If I was making him today with these materials I'd have him start as a variant human with this feat and the other characters wouldn't see his real face until way into the campaign.
 

They can? I don't recall a sneak attack feat in there. Did I miss one?
You know, a statement only exists in context. If it doesn’t make sense or seem right to you without context, check the context to clarify meaning, before making snarky retorts that add nothing to the conversation, and try to keep in mind what the failure state of “clever” is.
 

You know, a statement only exists in context. If it doesn’t make sense or seem right to you without context, check the context to clarify meaning, before making snarky retorts that add nothing to the conversation, and try to keep in mind what the failure state of “clever” is.
I was also confused by your statement that "Rangers get the only thing rogues have that they don't already have" and was going to point out sneak attack as well. It's not snarky to point out the flaw in a statement, and this isn't a context problem. Please do explain what you mean.
 

I'm meant more that just learning Disguise Self and using spell slots covers most of what you can get out of it from a practical standpoint.
Right, I assumed that is what you meant, and was responding to that. Sorry for any confusion.

What I’m saying is; Disguise Self is much much more valuable at will than limited by spell slot or 1/day. Even if we assume only, say, 3 uses in a day, that is a lot of daily power saved. If you fight later, 3 level 1 slots is gonna be noticed.

But maybe we also have different experiences, because I have definitely changed my appearance dozens of times in an adventuring day as a warlock with MoMF.
 

I was also confused by your statement that "Rangers get the only thing rogues have that they don't already have" and was going to point out sneak attack as well. It's not snarky to point out the flaw in a statement, and this isn't a context problem. Please do explain what you mean.
Does sneak attack relate to “being” a ranger?

edit; also, the wording of the reply that I called snarky was, in fact, snarky, regardless.
 

Does sneak attack relate to “being” a ranger?
You didn't state "Things that the rogue has over the ranger at being a ranger" you said "The only thing rogues have over rangers" (please excuse the paraphrasing).

Also, it is kind of important, as most ranger subclasses get an ability kind of similar to sneak attack, that is once a turn and they get extra damage to an attack.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top