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.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I wasn't complaining, I was just stating a fact. I honestly don't care if rogues are better than rangers because of this, or if WotC designed a feat in this UA called "Screw Rangers" and took the spellcasting progression and spells from the ranger class and gave it to whoever takes this feat.

Play a sneaky wilderness guide with ranger spells, or play one that doesn't have ranger spells and is pretty much better in every way than the real ranger, except for the spells. I don't care. I'm just pointing out a fact about this UA.

Which is the thing. 5e ranger is what 5e ranger does. It's a half-caster, better at magic than an eldritch knight and very nearly as good as an artificer. I feel it's actually more like a 1st/2nd edition bard. But it's called ranger because it's traditional for D&D to have a class called ranger. You need to look past the labels to decide if it's mixture of fighting and magic are what you want to play.

Several of these feats emphasise that by letting you add different types of spells to your ranger's spell list.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nothing about this pandemic is "badass".

Making light of a dire situation is a natural human coping mechanism.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Something that was noted on another forum, Shield Training allows EK's to get an Arcane focus.

I'm still not sure it is worth it, because War Caster lets you cast VS spells and actually has better benefits for an AK, but it is an interesting thought if you need that M.

I'd noted that, but, as you say, warcaster is still probably better. Good for ATs though (and anyone else who doesn't want to juggle between a melee weapon and spells).

Really, I'm a bit uncomfortable with this feat in terms of lore. It's really one that is going to appeal to spellcasters rather than warriors. And, unlike clerics and paladins, it works with any shield. How? Why? what makes shields good for casting spells with? Can I rip the door off a taxi and cast a spell with it?

I would feel happier if is said something like "if you have the spellcasting focus class ability you can inscribe a mystic rune on your shield using 10gp in materials that allows you to use it as a spellcasting focus".

And add a different feat that enables "use your weapon as a spell casting focus" as part of it's function.

Addendum: Alternative class feature (Fighter):

Fighting Style: Battle Magic. You learn two cantrips from the Wizard list. Intelligence is your casting Stat. You can use a weapon as your spellcasting focus.

 

[Li Shenron]

Someone mentioned reprints...

With the PHB+1 rule for AL in mind, the fact they are considering publishing a feat which needs the Artificer spell list, doesn't it hint that the whole Artificer class will also be reprinted in such book?

 

[Li Shenron]

Anyway, The only thing the rogue has that the ranger lacks is expertise.

But the Ranger does have the same as expertise. It has the serious restriction of working only in the favored terrain type(s) and doesn't work with Stealth, otherwise it is the same benefit up to 5 skills potentially.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Someone mentioned reprints...

With the PHB+1 rule for AL in mind, the fact they are considering publishing a feat which needs the Artificer spell list, doesn't it hint that the whole Artificer class will also be reprinted in such book?

I think that is a reasonable assumption - it's something I have been expecting all along.

You can also deduce the existence of spell reprints - there are non-PHB spells on the Artificer list.

 

[Li Shenron]

That playtest from November was the best rated UA ever, per Crawford. Expect it to be central for the Q4 book

Yeah, and that probably makes sure the Q4 book will never make it to my table. I would have certainly liked alternate class/race features and a few more feats, but the "retrain at level up" or "swap stuff with a long rest" rules have too much potential to turn campaigns into something I don't want to see, and the fact that this is now embedded in many feats means it's confirmed. At this point I should probably like that they keep adding stuff I don't like so that I won't have second thoughts!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, and that probably makes sure the Q4 book will never make it to my table. I would have certainly liked alternate class/race features and a few more feats, but the "retrain at level up" or "swap stuff with a long rest" rules have too much potential to turn campaigns into something I don't want to see, and the fact that this is now embedded in many feats means it's confirmed. At this point I should probably like that they keep adding stuff I don't like so that I won't have second thoughts!

I will probably just house rule that stuff out. I would always let players change something if they where really not happy with it, so it's not an issue at my table. I can see why some tables might feel the need though.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I've been comparing the spells you can pick with Fey Touched and Shadow Touched, and Fey Touched is really much better (unless you are going for Darkness + whole party has Witch Sight cheese). Far more spells to choose from, including gamechangers like Hunter's Mark and Hex. The best things on the Shadow Touched list seem to be False Life and Cause Wounds.

 

[Li Shenron]

I will probably just house rule that stuff out. I would always let players change something if they where really not happy with it, so it's not an issue at my table. I can see why some tables might feel the need though.

Yes of course, they are explicitly optional rules.

The problem for me is than now my dislikes of new options are growing out of proportion...

I am always sympathetic with players who feel genuinely sad or guilty with wrong choices, and I invariably allow a swap or two, whenever we want. But having a rule means to make it player's right, and that doesn't sit well with me. It also encourages lousy character choices (pick whatever, you can change at next level), possible shenanigans and non-creative thinking (every spell that could be used as an insta-win button in a particular situation is always just one long rest away).

Then almost none of the new subclasses since Xanathar are of my tastes, maybe one or two. For me they jumped the shark with the Spore Druid, and reached the bottom with the Revived (although the second version is better).

I never liked spellcasting Artificers, and the turret pets are something that irritates me to no end.

I was never interested in Psionics in any edition of the game.

I love feats but I have issues with most of these.

At this point, rather than banning or house ruling most of the stuff after Xanathar (of which I like everything except the endless lists of names) I am much better off just not buying any more book and cherrypick the occasional feat or alternate class feature from UA articles.

Clearly, the direction taken by 5e is not going where I want, so I stop at Xanathar. And by the way this happened to me in every edition so it's not new.