D&D 5E Which feats shouldn't be feats

[Klaus]

I agree with everything you said, except for this part. I can see the logic of making it a feat, because not all wizards want a familiar. "Don't cast the spell" you say? Well, there is a certain pressure to do so, if it is a wizard spell that doesn't cost a feat. Why wouldn't you cast the spell once the 100gp cost is minor? So you end up a with a familiar you may not really want. It happened plenty of times in earlier editions. Furthermore, since the familiar is permanent, it's not like other spell effects, so WotC will likely feel the need to balance this "free feat" by making wizards slightly less powerful in some other way...even if they don't players will feel they have.

In addition, by making this a feat, non-wizards can have a familiar. It's an interesting option, and I could see why a rogue or fighter with the Arcane Dabbler feat might also take this one. And it's perfectly suitable for a druid or cleric.

I agree with you, but there's a minor adjustment that has to be made: Arcane Dabbler gives only cantrips, and Find Familiar requires the ability to cast 1st-level spells, so a rogue or fighter can only get a familiar if he takes a level of wizard, cleric, druid, ranger or paladin (assuming that's how multiclassing will work).

 

[Gargoyle]

I agree with you, but there's a minor adjustment that has to be made: Arcane Dabbler gives only cantrips, and Find Familiar requires the ability to cast 1st-level spells, so a rogue or fighter can only get a familiar if he takes a level of wizard, cleric, druid, ranger or paladin (assuming that's how multiclassing will work).

Ah yeah, forgot about that detail.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

All of them.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Find Familiar requires the ability to cast 1st-level spells, so a rogue or fighter can only get a familiar if he takes a level of wizard, cleric, druid, ranger or paladin (assuming that's how multiclassing will work).

The first test packet just required the ability to cast a spell. I really liked that: if a player wants to have a little pet, it costs a feat, but a much wider range of characters could use it. I know my son would choose it regularly -- he wants his characters to have a pet he can talk to (or, sometimes, to be a pet...).

I saw no obvious way to break the rule, and dialling it back this way (especially considering the expansion of abilities through feats) seems almost mean spirited. I wish the old wording were restored.

 

[1of3]

They should get rid off feat prerequisites all together. Most of them are redundant, all of them are tedious.

 

[Klaus]

The first test packet just required the ability to cast a spell. I really liked that: if a player wants to have a little pet, it costs a feat, but a much wider range of characters could use it. I know my son would choose it regularly -- he wants his characters to have a pet he can talk to (or, sometimes, to be a pet...).

I saw no obvious way to break the rule, and dialling it back this way (especially considering the expansion of abilities through feats) seems almost mean spirited. I wish the old wording were restored.

I think the Specialties should be self-contained and universally viable (almost like Themes), so any character could take Hedge Magician (for instance) and benefit from all of its feats.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I think the Specialties should be self-contained and universally viable (almost like Themes), so any character could take Hedge Magician (for instance) and benefit from all of its feats.

Agreed. The first packet was nearly ideal in this regard.

 

[Szatany]

Agreed. The first packet was nearly ideal in this regard.

Also agreed. I don't want to use feats in my game, but I do want specialities.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I still believe, that a speciality should overrule prerequisites.

 

[Szatany]

I still believe, that a speciality should overrule prerequisites.

Maybe feats could be designed in such way that benefits are reduced if you don't meet prereqs.