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]

Fighting Initiate feat should be "half-feat" without style exchange option every level. add +1 str, dex or con to it.
remove prereq of martial weapon. why should wizards not take that feat?

No.

Even without style exchanging (which I expect is due to be made a general rule anyway) It's better than a half feat.

 

[Kurotowa]

Poisoner
Ignoring Poison Resistance is the main thing - intended to make Green Dragon Sorcerers suck slightly less.

I have to disagree. As people have pointed out, Poison Immunity is a lot more common than Poison Resistance. Also one of the more common cases of Poison Resist, the racial trait that dwarves and warforged get, also gives advantage on poison saves that this feat does nothing about. Now sure, this might help a little if you're trying to do an Alchemist Artificer or Green Dragon Sorcerer, but I don't think that makes it the main use case.

For that you have to look at the other two elements. You can apply poison to a weapon as a bonus action, and you get a relatively cheap and strong poison (by poison standards) to use with it. In other words, this is a great way for a Fighter or Ranger to put a little extra damage into their attack sequence if they need in.

 

[Horwath]

No.

Even without style exchanging (which I expect is due to be made a general rule anyway) It's better than a half feat.

why should it be general rule?

also it would be a very good half feat or very bad full feat.

 

[Gladius Legis]

Many tables don't.

And even when multiclassing is allowed I can see many players preferring this as a simpler option,.

Or if they don't want to delay the progression of their main class but would still like a few things from another class.

 

[Minigiant]

Fighting Initiate feat should be "half-feat" without style exchange option every level. add +1 str, dex or con to it.

I think the fighting style swap aspect completes it enough to not need the +1.

remove prereq of martial weapon. why should wizards not take that feat?

It's to gatekeep clerics and warlocks.

 

[seebs]

Weird. I click on the pdf link (here or on their page) and just get the text "Not found".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

why should it be general rule?

It was part of "the alternative class features" UA. So I very much suspect the reason the feat includes "exchange your style" is because it will be, after the new book, something fighters (etc) get automatically.

 

[RSIxidor]

Chef to me is basically allowing you to take Song of Rest from the Bard + a weak version of Inspiring Leader. I like that it exists.

Overall, I think this UA has a lot of fun in it but I don't think I like the "weapon damage type" feats. I feel like something like this has a place in the game but this way of doing it feels kind of meh. I'd rather the restrictions for which weapons get the bonus be closer to things like GWM and polearm master rather than just "x damage type."

I'm not sure that the Warlock Invocation feat is good enough. If you could accept level requirements but not other requirements as a non-warlock, it would at least make it more flexible. As is, I don't think it's much of a feat, personally. Personally, I'd like them to look at the Artificer feat presented here as a basis for how to do "multiclassing-as-a-feat". A cantrip, a small feature of the class (or a spell), and another small benefit.

 

[Jacqual]

Weird. I click on the pdf link (here or on their page) and just get the text "Not found".

I wonder if they are updating it in someway, maybe they are worried someone got offended. But I think it is for a revision of some kind, maybe even adding more feats for us to drool over.

 

[Undrave]

I don't understand the need for the multi-class type Feats unless you don't allow multi-classing.

It all feels like rules bloat to me.

Depending on how this and the alternate abilities UA several months ago turn out, this might the first 5E book I don't use at my table.

Because sometimes you just want a DASH of another class and not a full level and Multi-classing is, in general, an underwhelming choice. Unless you have good synergy it's a trap option. These are way better.

Why is this 'rules bloat'? They're just feat. That's not new rules, it's just new options for the same rule that's been in the PHB since the beginning.

Overall, I think this UA has a lot of fun in it but I don't think I like the "weapon damage type" feats. I feel like something like this has a place in the game but this way of doing it feels kind of meh. I'd rather the restrictions for which weapons get the bonus be closer to things like GWM and polearm master rather than just "x damage type."

Why though? I think this makes the damage type of weapon actually MATTER. There's almost nothing in the game that interacts with Bludgeoning/Slashing/Piercing unless they're non-magical (and it's always a negative interaction). These actually give them a reason to even EXIST in the game beyond legacy 'you need a mace to hurt skeletons' reasons.