D&D 5E Wizard with 20 CON and the Durable feat

[KarinsDad]

A sorcerer with a red dragon bloodline is going to want to cast nothing but fire spells.

Sure he might. But he probably still won't take Elemental Adept. +2 Cha means +1 on attack, +1 on Cha saves, -1 on monster saves vs. his spells, +1 on some skills, and +1 damage on a 12D6 attack. Compared to +2 damage on the same 12D6 attack and the once in a blue moon extra damage vs. a resist monster.

Where exactly does this specific feat trump the general +2 to ability score?

And what about the sorcerer with the copper dragon bloodline? There are probably very few monsters with acid resistance compared to fire resistance. Is this feat anywhere near as useful for this PC (not that it is really useful for any PC)?

If one monster in 20 has resistance that this overcomes (and the monster would not have died or run away anyway or even been targeted with the given spell, even if did have resist), that means that this feat has some small utility about once every three levels compared to +2 Cha that helps out 5% of the time for a wide variety of circumstances maybe several dozen times per level.

If we are talking a feat that won't even be considered until level 12, that's a feat that helps out 3 to 5 times by the time the PC gets to level 20. Whoop de doo. Sure, those 3 to 5 encounters it helped waste those resist monsters, but out of well over a hundred total encounters from level 1 to 20, who is going to remember that?


Not even in the same ballpark as other feats.

 

[Chocolategravy]

A sorcerer with a red dragon bloodline is going to want to cast nothing but fire spells.

KDad pretty much covered it. Looks like it would be good, but in actual play it isn't. It's a trap feat.

As for casting nothing but fire, no, you won't want to do that. CC can often be a better choice as can different elements if a monster is immune or vulnerable.

Even if you're taking it just for flavor, expensive with how few feats you get on top of being at the costs of stats, the fact that it will rarely if ever come up means there is no flavor. Even if you could convince yourself that ignoring resistance is somehow flavorful, which it isn't.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

This is the thing. I WANT to take feats with my character. Stat bumps are effective, but fairly boring. Make feats good enough that I'm not penalized for my 16 Cha warlock.

Feats in 5e have been specifically balanced to be exactly the same or slightly worse than a +2 to a stat. This is to make sure that new players who don't want to complicate their character with feats aren't less powerful than those who take feats. Feats also give you more options and more flavor which should be its own reward.

An ice mage with 16 Int and Elemental Adept should be better with Ice Spells than a mage with 18 Int.

What? No. Then the feat would be a no brainer. You want them to be almost as good as a +2 to a stat. I don't really think the idea is to compete with a +2 to your prime stat. After all, by high levels, you'll definitely have a 20. The idea is to compete with a +2 to a non-prime stat.

It's precisely because stat bumps are boring that they should be slightly more powerful than feats. You need the added incentive for people to take them.

Then that sucks. A Dex 16 fighter with Dual Wielding should do more damage than a Dex 18 fighter without it, especially since the 18 Dex fighter has more AC, Saves, and Initiative.

See above. You get actual interesting benefits for taking the feat. You can now use 2 Rapiers or 2 Longswords as your weapons. You can draw 2 weapons as one action. You get +1 to your AC when wielding two weapons that stacks with everything else.

However, if you take the +2 Dex, you likely also get the +1 to your AC, +1 to Dex Saves and checks, +1 to hit and +1 to damage(which is almost the same as upgrading both your weapons).

They are roughly equal...depending on how much you value the roleplaying aspect of using 2 bigger weapons or being able to draw both your weapons at once. But if you value that roleplaying benefit poorly...well, then the stat bump is a better idea.

I think that's almost precisely in the range of power I'd like feats to be.

Feats should be for everyone who find stat increases boring. There's no reason flavor should take a mechanical penalty. You want to reward people for adding flavor, not punish them. To me, that's so obvious I don't know why it even needs to be said.

Here's what happens when you "reward" "flavor": You end up with 3.5e where everyone obsesses over feats. Where which feats you take are more important than the rest of your character. It doesn't matter that you are a Dragonborn Fighter who comes from Amn. Instead what is important about your character is that you are a Chain Fighter who trips people.

Feats aren't really roleplaying to begin with. They are mechanical. They give you benefits you can't get anywhere else. Their exclusiveness counts as power by itself.

 

[variant]

Sure he might. But he probably still won't take Elemental Adept. +2 Cha means +1 on attack, +1 on Cha saves, -1 on monster saves vs. his spells, +1 on some skills, and +1 damage on a 12D6 attack. Compared to +2 damage on the same 12D6 attack and the once in a blue moon extra damage vs. a resist monster.

Where exactly does this specific feat trump the general +2 to ability score?

Well, that would depend really. How many monsters with fire resistance are they running into? If they are playing a Planescape campaign it could be every other monster.

And what about the sorcerer with the copper dragon bloodline? There are probably very few monsters with acid resistance compared to fire resistance. Is this feat anywhere near as useful for this PC (not that it is really useful for any PC)?

Maybe a sorcerer with a copper dragon bloodline wouldn't want to take the feat?

If one monster in 20 has resistance that this overcomes (and the monster would not have died or run away anyway or even been targeted with the given spell, even if did have resist), that means that this feat has some small utility about once every three levels compared to +2 Cha that helps out 5% of the time for a wide variety of circumstances maybe several dozen times per level.

Well, it seems you know the percentage of monsters that have resistance in the Monster Manual. I will be waiting for these numbers to find out how you arrived at the one in twenty number.

If we are talking a feat that won't even be considered until level 12, that's a feat that helps out 3 to 5 times by the time the PC gets to level 20. Whoop de doo. Sure, those 3 to 5 encounters it helped waste those resist monsters, but out of well over a hundred total encounters from level 1 to 20, who is going to remember that?

If the feat isn't taken even until level 20, they neither gained nor lost anything by not taking it. It isn't as if they didn't take something else previously.

Not even in the same ballpark as other feats.

So you've seen all the other feats? I've only seen three and so far I've seen all of them called completely useless by various people. The Dungeon Delver one especially since it seems there are many people who don't run dungeons often.

 

[TwoSix]

Feats in 5e have been specifically balanced to be exactly the same or slightly worse than a +2 to a stat. This is to make sure that new players who don't want to complicate their character with feats aren't less powerful than those who take feats. Feats also give you more options and more flavor which should be its own reward.

I agree. Getting them to be "exactly the same" is obviously a fool's errand, but they should be in the 80-110% range, in my estimation. And you should reward people for choosing flavor over blandness by not giving them something ineffective.

What? No. Then the feat would be a no brainer. You want them to be almost as good as a +2 to a stat. I don't really think the idea is to compete with a +2 to your prime stat. After all, by high levels, you'll definitely have a 20. The idea is to compete with a +2 to a non-prime stat.

It's precisely because stat bumps are boring that they should be slightly more powerful than feats. You need the added incentive for people to take them.

But you don't want people to take stat bumps! I want a player taking 5 feats to be a worthwhile option compared to Main Stat 20.

See above. You get actual interesting benefits for taking the feat. You can now use 2 Rapiers or 2 Longswords as your weapons. You can draw 2 weapons as one action. You get +1 to your AC when wielding two weapons that stacks with everything else.

However, if you take the +2 Dex, you likely also get the +1 to your AC, +1 to Dex Saves and checks, +1 to hit and +1 to damage(which is almost the same as upgrading both your weapons).

They are roughly equal...depending on how much you value the roleplaying aspect of using 2 bigger weapons or being able to draw both your weapons at once. But if you value that roleplaying benefit poorly...well, then the stat bump is a better idea.

I think that's almost precisely in the range of power I'd like feats to be.

I'd like to see Dual Wielder provide a little more of a bump. It's +1 to hit and Dex saves versus quick draw + "big weapon flavor", once you cancel out the similar gains. It's not awful, but at 4th level, I'd have to take the Dex.

Here's what happens when you "reward" "flavor": You end up with 3.5e where everyone obsesses over feats. Where which feats you take are more important than the rest of your character. It doesn't matter that you are a Dragonborn Fighter who comes from Amn. Instead what is important about your character is that you are a Chain Fighter who trips people.

Feats aren't really roleplaying to begin with. They are mechanical. They give you benefits you can't get anywhere else. Their exclusiveness counts as power by itself.

There's no need to obsess with feats if they suit your flavor and they're just as good as a stat bump. You just take the one that sounds cool. If nothing really fits, then you take the stat bump.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, it seems you know the percentage of monsters that have resistance in the Monster Manual. I will be waiting for these numbers to find out how you arrived at the one in twenty number.

I'm basing it off of past experience with playing the game.

As an example from the 4E compendium:

5326 creatures

775 have resist and fire somewhere in their writeups.

306 have resist and acid somewhere in their writeups.

208 have resist and variable somewhere in their writeups.

Since not all of the ones with resist and fire actually have resist fire, one could estimate half or so at best. Just glancing through the list, there are creatures with vulnerable to fire, but resist to something else.

Even if every single creature with those words in their writeups had the appropriate resist, it would be 1 in 7 for fire resist and 1 in 15 for acid resist and 1 in 27 for variable resist.


So yeah, I'm thinking that 5E is not going to be this game where any significantly higher percentage of monsters will have resistance to fire than 4E.


Granted, even if 1 in 10 monsters have the ability, it's just as easy to hit them with a cold attack and the feat still sucks.

 

[marleykat]

Yes.

Normally, a hit die roll for the 20 CON mage is 1d6 + 5, so the possible results are 6-11. With the feat, the total of the roll has a minimum of 10. So, the possible results are 10 or 11.

That's how I read it. Though Mearls has said using the 15 version wouldn't be a gamebreaker. I see the feat as a way of locking in a minimum floor of hit point recovery.

 

[Wormwood]

Feats in 5e have been specifically balanced to be exactly the same or slightly worse than a +2 to a stat. This is to make sure that new players who don't want to complicate their character with feats aren't less powerful than those who take feats.

And given the fact that feats are optional and at the DM's discretion, making them superior to a +2 could annoy players whose DM doesn't want them in their game. A DM like me, for instance.

 

[TwoSix]

In the interest of being constructive, here's the house rule I'm going to use in my game.

"Ability Score Improvement: You may gain either a +2 to one stat, a +1 to two stats, or a +1 to one stat and a feat."

 

[Snapdragyn]

In the interest of being constructive, here's the house rule I'm going to use in my game.

"Ability Score Improvement: You may gain either a +2 to one stat, a +1 to two stats, or a +1 to one stat and a feat."

I would take your third option and go to town on feats that give +1 along with another minor bonus - woo-hoo, free stuff!