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.

 

[ZeshinX]

Gotta say, I do very much enjoy most of these new feats. Artificer Initiate and Gunner will never make my table (guns are an absolute no-no for my medieval fantasy and I despise the Artificer as I find it a strictly NPC class).

Can't say I'm a fan of the "goldfish memory" mechanic in many of these, but thankfully that can be easily enough houseruled away. I prefer in-game, narrative means for that kind of re-training (though that's more ideal for seasoned players...the benefits for newer players are fairly evident).

The Chef feat is certainly flavourful (pardon the pun), though I'd never take it. It strikes me more as a benefit of having proficiency in cook's utensils, not a feat. Still, gotta admire the creativity behind finding the magical in the mundane.

Crusher, Piercer and Slasher...I sense another attempt at "weapon specialization" here. I like that it makes use of the damage type in nifty ways, though not nifty enough to me to burn an ASI on one of them. I find I'd still choose Martial Adept over these.

Tracker...yet another reason for me not to be a Ranger in 5e. Slap that feat on the Rogue (Scout) and it's one step closer to my ideal Ranger concept (a guerilla-style warrior).

The remaining ones all strike me as "about time" options.

 

[RSIxidor]

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.



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.

It's all flavor, but the issue I have with it exists in the PHB feats I mentioned as well, they just feel a tiny bit closer to where my thinking is, which is probably getting too close to realism for a game that is very much not realistic. My thinking is more along the lines that training with slashing weapons as a group doesn't make sense as there's lots of different slashing weapons. You wouldn't train the same way with a sword as you would with a scythe, for example. But that way of thinking probably leads toward too many too specific feats, and I'd rather have an issue of not liking the flavor slightly as compared to having books full of feats that might do very similar things. So, while I had the complaint, I guess I don't care about the complaint that much, was just my first thought when thinking it over.

A separate thought, I like that slasher and crusher have tactical benefits (as does polearm mastery), where Piercer and GWM are just number boosters. I get that some builds really just want giant numbers but I do welcome more tactical options for martial characters, even if they are somewhat small on their own.

 

[Undrave]

PDF is gone for me too. I think there was a few typos to fix?

Can't say I'm a fan of the "goldfish memory" mechanic in many of these, but thankfully that can be easily enough houseruled away. I prefer in-game, narrative means for that kind of re-training (though that's more ideal for seasoned players...the benefits for newer players are fairly evident).

I doubt the Goldfish memory mechanic will be much of an issue at table. It's a backup for people who make bad choice, it's pretty difficult to 'abuse' this in any meaningful way, and once you find a set up that works you're probably unlikely to change it unless something major happens (like getting a great magic weapon that doesn't match your fighting style anymore). Any sort of 'abuse' would probably end up fixed at the table if it becomes a problem. It's just a little retconjuration, nothing dramatic.

Crusher, Piercer and Slasher...I sense another attempt at "weapon specialization" here. I like that it makes use of the damage type in nifty ways, though not nifty enough to me to burn an ASI on one of them. I find I'd still choose Martial Adept over these.

I really wish I had Crusher as an option when I was building my monk, it'd be super fun!

Tracker...yet another reason for me not to be a Ranger in 5e. Slap that feat on the Rogue (Scout) and it's one step closer to my ideal Ranger concept (a guerilla-style warrior).

Hahaha, ranger...

You probably felt like the 4e Ranger concept was more your speed huh?

My thinking is more along the lines that training with slashing weapons as a group doesn't make sense as there's lots of different slashing weapons. You wouldn't train the same way with a sword as you would with a scythe, for example.

In practice I find people prefer to stick to one weapon as an aesthetic choice more than anything so they're unlikely to change in any significant way that would lead to mechanical problems. Maybe story-wise wonkiness but nothing that couldn't be hand waved away. At worse you'd have to ask your player to pick a fitting weapon (or like 1 Simple and 1 Martial) when taking the feat.

 

[Dausuul]

I was thinking in terms of raw combat power.

Fighting in the dark isn't party friendly, so unless everyone has it, I wouldn't rate it that highly. It's potentially very powerful, but you really have to build your whole squad around it to get the best from it.

True. However, the feat makes it possible to actually do that. Previously, for an entire party to be able to see in magical darkness, everyone had to put 2 levels in warlock*, which is not generally reasonable. But for the whole party to take a feat--not nearly so hard.

Moreover, the party-unfriendliness of darkness can be exaggerated. In general, the bonuses and penalties cancel out: Your disadvantage because you can't see the target is negated by your advantage because the target can't see you. It poses problems for spellcasters who need to be able to see their target, and for characters who rely on gaining advantage, but otherwise the effect is pretty much a wash.

*Or 3 levels in shadow sorcerer. However, Eyes of the Dark only lets you see through your own darkness spells, so you can't build an entire party around it.

 

[Jacqual]

The PDF is back up on wizards site

 

[Undrave]

The PDF is back up on wizards site

I think they fixed a few typo. I know the poisoner feat had the poison inflict typeless damage by mistake.

 

[Inchoroi]

That is one of my favorite aspect of feats. I would prefer there was no-multiclassing (we don't use it) and just feats that replicate part of a class. These types of feats + the variant class features UA are right up my alley. More please!

Eh, to each his/her/they [insert or delete whichever is inappropriate] own, I suppose! I've always disliked stuff like that, though. I'm looking at you gloves of missile snaring.

 

[Gradine]

Eh, to each his/her/they [insert or delete whichever is inappropriate] own, I suppose! I've always disliked stuff like that, though. I'm looking at you gloves of missile snaring.

The word you're actually looking for is "their", btw

To weigh in, multi-classing-through-feats is far and away my favorite method of multi-classing, so I love all of these feats. 4e's implementation understandably soured some people on the concept, I imagine.

I'm playing through Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition and I will say I do not miss 2nd-edition multi-classing at all.

 

[Ashrym]

I was disappointed at how undercooked Prodigy and Fey Teleporation were in Xanathar's. I'm just fine with these feats obsoleting those.

I wouldn't call those obsoleted. Fey teleportation recharges the free casting on a short rest and fey touched on a long rest for both spells so more free misty steps has some appeal. Someone might even tak both feats for +2 stat, 1st level spell, even more misty steps, and a language.

I think get touched is more appealing but I can see a niche for the short rest recovery.

I can easily see taking practiced expert and prodigy if I really want more expertise. Vuman taking both by 4th level has some appeal.

I think a lot of groups that use feats take as many half-feats as they can make good use

I like +1 feats. 2 feats still gets me +2 plus additional traits so SAD classes can fill out more, and +1 with more benefits is pure bonus over +2 on an odd ability score.

Chef to me is basically allowing you to take Song of Rest from the Bard

Song of rest is better because the die scales, but a bard can take chef and both stack, plus bonus for cook's utensils from XGtE.

I don't think anything that stacks with a feature takes it away from another class. ;-)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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?

It doesn't really make sense for non-melee wizards to have. Keep in mind, the prerequisite is proficiency with a martial weapon, so certain races automatically fulfill the requirement to take this feat, like most Elves, Dwarves, and Hobgoblins. Bladesingers can take it, so can Kensei, Hexblades, College of Swords, Rangers, and Barbarians.