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

[Szatany]

Instead of feat chains like Whirlwind attack and lots of prerequisites, maybe you get feat points that you could use to boost your feats. You could get 2 feat points at level 1 and 1 feat point at every level.

Yes please! but with one change. To makes matter simpler I advocate making them binary. So each feat you have can either be simple or expert. Expert has increased effect but requires two feats essentially.
All expert versions require level 6.

Specialities also work a little different. Instead of giving you 4 feats at predetermined levels, they give you 4 feats but you decide which of them you take, and whether you take all 4 by level 9, or 2 but on expert level, or 2 normal and 1 expert.

For example, the Reaper
Cleave
Combat Reflexes
Relentless
Weapon Mastery

Cleave
Effect: Same as normal, but also advantage on the bonus attack.
Expert: Your target can have current HP up to twice your level.

Combat Reflexes
Effect: You have an additional reaction.
Expert: You have two additional reactions and you may use up to two reactions in a single turn. You gain +2 bonus to all checks, saves and attacks made with a reaction.

Relentless
Effect: When you miss a creature with a melee attack, you have +1[W] on your next melee attack against that creature before the end of your next turn.
Expert: Same as normal.

Weapon Mastery
Effect: Same as normal.
Expert: When you roll damage, if any of the damage dice's result is a maximum possible result, roll one additional damage die of the same type and add it to the damage.
(for example, if you roll 3d6 and there's 6 on any of the dice, roll an additional 1d6 and add it to the rest)

At the level 9, I can end up with expert cleave and expert weapon mastery, or maybe expert relentless and expert combat reflexes, or maybe something else?

 

[Blackwarder]

I'm sorry, I'm confused, what you are essentially saying is that you are coming to this thread with the 3e POV? Because I don't see how 3e progression is relevant to this, I'm talking about D&DNext not 3e and in Next, a first level fighter using a long sword will do roughly the same amount of damage as a 20 level fighter wielding the same long sword, the only main difference between the two would be ability bonuses and that will be a difference of around 2-3 points of damage.

Warder

 

[Gorgoroth]

I would like to give an example to what I talk about when I think about feats being Big and meaningful.

Lets take Cleave as an example; as it is right now it simply allow you to make an extra attack to a creature within reach if you killed a creature with your main attack.
I think that cleave should be something more like this:
On your turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP or lower, you may take a 5 foot step and attack another opponent, if you drop that opponent to 0 HP you may repeat the attack. the number of such attack you may do on your turn is equal to your level.

That way, Cleave become the feat that allow you to cleave your way trough a sea of opponents. and it's a feat that grow better as you level.

Warder

Cool. I think you'd have to limit it though, like you get up to your melee attack bonus in extra attacks, and you have to use your main movement rate. So if you start your turn at level 20, and you kill something, you can move up to 30 feet in 5 foot increments, while doing chop chop on up to 5 creatures (assuming you kill each one with one hit), for free (i.e. on top of your regular attacks). This would HAVE to be compatible though with the increasing number of attacks as you level.

I don't think it would be too powerful since that would basically be "minion"-clearing for melee types. I.e. mostly useful against one-shottable creatures.

 

[am181d]

Why do people seem to think tracking is such an easy thing to do?

Because if someone leaves tracks in the mud, I can see them and follow? Under *ideal* circumstances (mud, recent snow, etc.) anybody can track. This is a text book example of a skill that should be feasible for anyone, with escalating DCs for more difficult terrain, etc.

 

[Blackwarder]

Cool. I think you'd have to limit it though, like you get up to your melee attack bonus in extra attacks, and you have to use your main movement rate. So if you start your turn at level 20, and you kill something, you can move up to 30 feet in 5 foot increments, while doing chop chop on up to 5 creatures (assuming you kill each one with one hit), for free (i.e. on top of your regular attacks). This would HAVE to be compatible though with the increasing number of attacks as you level.

I don't think it would be too powerful since that would basically be "minion"-clearing for melee types. I.e. mostly useful against one-shottable creatures.

Agreed. How about this:
I think that cleave should be something more like this:
On your turn, when you drop an opponent to 0 HP or lower, you may take a 5 foot step and attack another opponent, if you drop that opponent to 0 HP you may repeat the attack. the number of such attack you may do on your turn is equal to your level. Each 5 foot step will be counted toward your movement rate.

Warder

 

[cmbarona]

I've been a long-time advocate for splitting combat abilities and non-combat abilities (some split that into exploration and social) into different resource pools. Before deciding which feats should or should not be feats, I would probably start there. Perhaps your class could determine your ability to pick these, or you could choose priorities. When D&DN began, I thought they were leaning this way with Backgrounds on one side and Specialties on another, so I'm sad to see a step in the opposite direction.

Also, I lean toward the preference that feats let you do unique things rather than offering a simple mechanical benefit. Although take-ten on Stealth rolls is really nice.

 

[airwalkrr]

Because if someone leaves tracks in the mud, I can see them and follow? Under *ideal* circumstances (mud, recent snow, etc.) anybody can track. This is a text book example of a skill that should be feasible for anyone, with escalating DCs for more difficult terrain, etc.

Yes, and in D&D, for as long as the Survival skill and Track feat have been around, this had always been the case. Anyone, even someone untrained in Survival could follow tracks with a DC of 10 or lower (which fall into the circumstances you just described). But it takes special skill to track someone or something when the ground is dry and firm, when snow or rain has fallen ON TOP of the tracks, or when the trackee had waded through a river. It is not impossible to do, but it requires special training and a great deal of skill. This is not something "just anyone" can do. That is why it is best represented by a feat. If you don't think it is worthwhile in your campaign, tell players not to take it. If a player tells me he wants to take a feat that I know will give little if any benefit to the player, I tell him so. Just because the feat exists does not mean it is optimal for your campaign, not does your opinion make it sub-optimal for everyone's campaign.

 

[sabrinathecat]

Expertise. There should be no such thing. It should be part and parcel of being a PC--one of the things that sets the heroes apart from the normal folk.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Yep. A first level fighter can use all weapons with a +1 to hit. A first level wizard can attack with +1 too. There's their expertise.