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.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

My problem with feats like Chef - while I love the ... ahem ... flavour, it kinda does make growing your character organically a mechanically second-rate option. If I have proficiency with cook's utensils from character creation and i take this feat as i advance in level, then it nicely represents that I've been honing my skills over time. However, the mechanically optimal way of doing things is to take a different proficiency at character creation, and then take Chef at level 4 (or whatever), then all of a sudden bang, I'm a wonderful cook, but I've also got an additional proficiency.

Very important point.

 

[Weiley31]

Didn't Libris Mortis also introduce Dread as a concept of fear Paladins weren't immune to and that 20 level Necromancer class that became a lich by lvl 20? That book was whack...

The only "Dread" I'm familiar with was the"Dread" enhancement. It was basically "Bane times two" when it hit something it was designed to be used against.

But that was in the Epic Level Handbook. So I could be off on that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

• Monk: +1 Dexterity or Strength, unarmed strikes are 1d4 (or 1d6 if they already were), and you get 2 Ki points, and 3 different options to use it on (Flurry of Blows, bonus action dodge, bonus action disengage).

One design objective in these feats is they are good for the class they are based on as well as other classes. This is almost completely useless for a monk to take since it gives stuff they get automatically.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I think they should add a feat for Arcane Archer arcane shots. Then Arcane Archers who took it could enough arcane shots to not suck.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think they should add a feat for Arcane Archer arcane shots. Then Arcane Archers who took it could enough arcane shots to not suck.

But the feat needs to also work for people who do not have that class/subclass. If you made Arcane Archer shots generally available there would be even less reason to play one.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

But the feat needs to also work for people who do not have that class/subclass. If you made Arcane Archer shots generally available there would be even less reason to play one.

I don't think the Martial Adept feat has steered a lot of people away from Battlemaster. The availability of that feat does however make the Battlemaster uses per short rest advantage over Arcane Archers even more pronounced. My preferred solution would be to just rewrite the subclass to get a few more shots, but adding a feat seems a lot more in the realm of something that could actually happen.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don't think the Martial Adept feat has steered a lot of people away from Battlemaster.

That's because the Battlemaster is good to start with. Martial Adept only adds 1/3 of normal uses of battlemaster dice (at 3rd level), and then in a weaker form.

Since a feat can't add less that 1 use of Arcane Shot, a putative AA feat would give you 50% of the AA's toys off the bat. And the toys aren't that great in the first place.

Given that the options for Arcane Shot are nothing like as diverse as the battlemaster, gaining an extra option gives fairly low added value for an AA.

My preferred solution would be to just rewrite the subclass to get a few more shots

That's the only fix that would actually work.

 

[cbwjm]

Well the change to d4 was to not step into the realm of being just as good as a rogue at sneak attack (damage-wise) at 1st and 2nd level (after that it's a non-issue). The only real instance (as written in the PHB) that could happen would be with the variant human rule and them taking the feat as their bonus feat at 1st level. It is such an outlier (and short-lived at that) that leaving it at d6 seems reasonable.

I do agree it could use a little more "oomph" to it. Not in damage or easier enabling of a sneak attack....but definitely something, like a rider effect of some kind delivered on a successful sneak attack. Tricky bit is to avoid making it so good a Rogue would be foolish not to take it and avoid making the rider particularly complex or conditional (a successful sneak attack is enough of a condition to trigger any rider in my estimation).

I mean it could just be a half-feat and provide a +1 Dex along with the 1d4 sneak attack damage, but I think a rider would be more interesting and/or flavourful. Perhaps preventing the target from taking reactions until the end of its next turn or something.

I wouldn't worry too much about stepping toes, pretty much only variant human and the Theros supernatural gifts heroes would step on toes (but that means the rogue has some other benefit).

 

[Ramamoon_77]

The problem with feats like Metamagic Initiate and Tracker is not only making classes that have several problems (like Sorcerers and Rangers) less unique, but also they do not create a true explanation of what is going on. How is it possible that an eldritch knight can bend the rules of magic, if they barely know magic? Wizards are scientists of magic, and like all scientists, use their knowledge to their advantage, and they know what they can do and they can't. Scientists know that water does not mix with oil, gravity is attractive, hotness moves from hotter bodies to colder. Wizards know that you need words, hands' movements, and guano to cast a fireball, it takes an action to create an Hypnotic pattern, and Disintegrate affects one creature. They use it to their advantage, but cannot change it. But now with just one feat, everything is solved, but nothing truly is. Giving access to everything to everybody makes choices less compelling: let's go back to play with Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue: whatever we want, we will pick it up. Let's wait for Rage adept, Wildshape initiate, and Paladin training, and then you will be everything you want to be. If WotC want to go down this road, I hope they would be coherent and make an Initiate for every existing class (Cleric, Wizards and Rogue are missing, for example), even if, IMHO, is not the way to go.
Even worse, some of these become feat taxes for that very same class: a sorcerer would kill his/her mother to have one more metamagic, let alone two, and two more SP. And feat taxes, again, kill the diversity of the game, IMHO.
Have a great day you all!
Luca
Show less


REPLY

 

[Ramamoon_77]

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!

I understand what you mean, but if you want to replicate part of a class, I would rather not have that class at all. We should go back to the Warrior, Priest, Scoundrel, and Magic User, and then modifying them via feats to make them more warlock/sorcerer/wizard-ly like, rather than make some of the classes completely useless, and others more potent by exclusion. For example, there is a feat to partially mimic a warlock, but where is the feat to partially mimic the wizard? Now the wizard can be a warlock or a sorcerer, but not viceversa. Even worse for the sorcerer: two metas and 2 SP for a feat, it makes the sorcerer much less unique. I really hope they take away several of these feats that do not explain anything (how is it possible that the eldricht knight now can bend the rules of a magic he barely knows about?), or tone them down, because mixing and matching everything with everybody takes away the sense of uniqueness of the classes, and thus their purpose of existence.