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."

News Archive | Dungeons and Dragons

Read the full archives of Dungeons & Dragons news, Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, and D&D Studio Blogs.

dnd.wizards.com

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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

This is what I’m talking about. Active reading requires actually looking at the context of a statement.

In this case, my statement was part of a post that dealt exclusively with your claim that the rogue could be a better ranger than the ranger. Any level of active reading would have told you that any statement regarding the rogue and ranger in that post, would also be in that context, much less a statement immediately following another statement about that comparison and claim, in the same paragraph.

Had mistwell asked for clarification, I’d have simply given it.

 

[Undrave]

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.

If they decide that a feat is going to use a specific spell from Xanathar's or another non-PHB source then they would reprint it. They do it for races that use non-phb spells. If a feat has a single spell and it is in a book similar to Xanathar's with a spell section, I could see the spell being included with the rest of the spells otherwise they will include a box next to the feat with the spell description.

They really need to reprint the SCAG cantrips in something people will actually WANT to buy so now would be a good opportunity. We'll probably see the psionic spells like Mind Sliver in that book too so they'll have a spell section anyway.

 

[MNblockhead]

I opened the PDF thinking "I really don't want more feats," but then I saw the Chef feat. It's so flavorful (insert knee-slapping GIF) and fun, and helps bring a character to life beyond just mechanical bonuses.

Yes, with the Chef feat, I can now play the campaign I always wanted to: Delicious in Dungeon - Wikipedia

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

This is what I’m talking about. Active reading requires actually looking at the context of a statement.

In this case, my statement was part of a post that dealt exclusively with your claim that the rogue could be a better ranger than the ranger. Any level of active reading would have told you that any statement regarding the rogue and ranger in that post, would also be in that context, much less a statement immediately following another statement about that comparison and claim, in the same paragraph.

So, umm, thanks for dodging the clarification then? What rogue feature do you think rangers can get from this feat? Again, at least two people found your general statement confusing, so please do clarify, because Sneak Attack is not granted, Expertise is not granted by this feat, and neither are many other rogue abilities.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, umm, thanks for dodging the clarification then? What rogue feature do you think rangers can get from this feat? Again, at least two people found your general statement confusing, so please do clarify, because Sneak Attack is not granted, Expertise is not granted by this feat, and neither are many other rogue abilities.

If I was unclear about the fact I was referring to the suite of feats in question, I apologize. I’m not gonna go back and check, because today has been garbage and I don’t wanna.

Anyway, Expertise is the only relevant rogue feature to the question of “who rangers best”.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If I was unclear about the fact I was referring to the suite of feats in question, I apologize. I’m not gonna go back and check, because today has been garbage and I don’t wanna.

Anyway, Expertise is the only relevant rogue feature to the question of “who rangers best”.

Okay, I'll do it:

They are, at most, a better sniper, and good at wilderness challenges in a different way. They don’t get “I win” buttons, they just get really good skill checks. Meanwhile, with these feats, the ranger can gain the only thing that the Rogue has that the ranger doesn’t, while still also benefiting from the rest of the feat.

Okay, I'm assuming you're referring to Practiced Expert now instead of Tracker, sorry for the misunderstanding, but you were unclear.
(Sorry you have had a bad day)
Yes, they get expertise, in one skill or tool proficiency. Scouts get expertise in Nature and Survival automatically, as well as expertise in 4 other skills/thieves' tools. This feat technically does give them access to one thing that would help rangers be better, but it's nowhere near as big an advantage as to what rogues get from these feats. Scouts get Stealth and Survival, as well as Nature, and 3 other expertise abilities. This in no way allows rangers to "gain the only thing the rogue has that the ranger doesn't".

 

[Andras]

They have to willingly move to take the damage. However you are forcing them to take the damage or accept the new position you put them in, which is still pretty awesome.

Good job quoting me 37 minutes after I edited the post! I'm impressed.

Also after pushing them back 5ft you can walk away from them w/o an AoO so they would need to take the damage or do nothing the next turn.

 

[Unwise]

My only concern is that Tandem Tactician really steals the crux of the Mastermind subclass.

I don't hate it though, I would probably just get players to decide what classes they are playing first before deciding if I would let it in my game. It doesn't matter that is steals the limelight of a class that is not being played.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Okay, I'll do it:

Okay, I'm assuming you're referring to Practiced Expert now instead of Tracker, sorry for the misunderstanding, but you were unclear.
(Sorry you have had a bad day)
Yes, they get expertise, in one skill or tool proficiency. Scouts get expertise in Nature and Survival automatically, as well as expertise in 4 other skills/thieves' tools. This feat technically does give them access to one thing that would help rangers be better, but it's nowhere near as big an advantage as to what rogues get from these feats. Scouts get Stealth and Survival, as well as Nature, and 3 other expertise abilities. This in no way allows rangers to "gain the only thing the rogue has that the ranger doesn't".

Rereading it, I do think I was pretty clear, but it is what it is.

(Thank you. Covid makes every single hour of working in retail noticeably more stressful, especially as a front of store manager at a company that isn't enforcing mandatory masks and is barely enforcing social distancing or giving us adequate tools to mitigate the risks posed by noncompliant idiots that I can't kick out of the store unless they get belligerent. We don't even have any sort of clear barrier at the counter. People are literally talking at me, unmasked, from maybe 6 ft away, with nothing in the way. It's super great.)

Anyway, The only thing the rogue has that the ranger lacks is expertise. That's it. The ranger can get expertise with these feats. Every other benefit of these feats is just as good for the ranger as they are for the rogue.

And the rogue still won't have Pass Without Trace or any other ranger spell beyond 1st level, the ability to auto-succeed on many wilderness/travel challenges, the ability to sense the presence of creatures in an area and gain detailed information about them en masse, expert knowledge about a type of creature including fluency in their primary language, etc, etc.

The Ranger needs some non-exploration abilities at level 1 instead of stuff that is a ribbon in a hack and slash game, but is otherwise doing just fine, and is in no in absolutely any danger of being outclassed in it's own turf by the rogue.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My only concern is that Tandem Tactician really steals the crux of the Mastermind subclass.

I don't hate it though, I would probably just get players to decide what classes they are playing first before deciding if I would let it in my game. It doesn't matter that is steals the limelight of a class that is not being played.

It really shines as a feat for a mastermind rogue, so I'd also ask a potential mastermind player if they like the look of the feat for their character, since it's a great boost to their efficacy. A bard with the feat and a mastermind rogue with the feat shouldn't be a problem in the same party, other than too much advantage every round in a general sense. The mastermind will still be much better at it.