# Expert Classes - Feats Discussion



## Neonchameleon (Sep 29, 2022)

So we see 4th level feats - and some 20th level feats. The question is whether there are 8th or 12th level feats or just 1st, 4th, and 20th level feats. Some takeaways

Fighting Styles are now 1st level feats that require PCs to be in the Warrior Group or to be rangers (or probably paladins)
The other 1st level feat included is "Lightly Armoured" for training with light and medium armour and shields - a pretty obvious gap from the previous packet
All fourth level feats give you a single point of ASI (yes, even War Caster( - other than the repeatable feat that gives you two (and replaces the old ASI boost)
Some of the old power feats have been changed - with the "power attacks" vanishing
Great Weapon Master now gives you prof bonus to damage 1/round as well as possible extra attacks
Polearm Master requires heavy reach weapons (i.e. polearms) - no spear or staff and shield
Crossbow Expert now requires you to get the extra attack from the light weapon property - so no single hand crossbow rapid fire. This wouldn't be broken anyway because:
Sharpshooter now cancels disadvantage but no extra damage

Everyone's now a ritualist - the key benefit of the Ritual Caster feat is once per day cast a ritual in regular casting time without spending a slot
The common pattern for utility feats is one ASI, one either training or Expertise in a single skill, and the ability to use a utility action as a bonus action
I'm cautiously optimistic here. The feats do look both good and characterful enough to use without costing you too much stat progression. And the OP feats have generally been nerfed. Sword and Board I think works quite a lot better when you aren't getting potential +10 damage on the greatweapons.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 29, 2022)

*The Winner*

Durable: That feat is GOOD now, like I can see a lot of warriors taking it. Being able to fast heal in combat can be life saving.

Charger: Rock solid now

Keen Mind: From Garbage to gold

Mage Slayer: I've heard some people think this new one is worse, which means they haven't looked close enough. You get an AUTOMATIC pass on 1 wisdom/int/or charisma save per day, and thats after you fail (so its never wasted). That is pure unadulterated gold, like sign me up any day of the week. That ability alone might be worth a feat, that's how good it is.

Skulker - now that is some skulking.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 29, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> The other 1st level feat included is "Lightly Armoured" for training with light and medium armour and shields - a pretty obvious gap from the previous packet




Good catch. Also the only level 1 feat with +1 to a stat. 

Funny thing:
With lightly armored you can recreate the mountain dwarf but better by chosing this feat.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 29, 2022)

There is still no lv1 feat with a +1 to stat.

Grappler is amazing now. I'm just happy about that.


----------



## Krachek (Sep 29, 2022)

Some points:

polearm master only apply to heavy and reach weapon. No more staff!
The attack on incoming enemy no more combo with sentinel Feat.

No more timing bug with shield master.

no more -5/+10, that will  need a special thread just for that!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Sep 29, 2022)

Krachek said:


> Some points:
> 
> polearm master only apply to heavy and reach weapon. No more staff!
> The attack on incoming enemy no more combo with sentinel Feat.
> ...




Also shield master has no dumb requirement when you can interpose it as a reaction.


----------



## Krachek (Sep 29, 2022)

Heavy armor master apply to any attack. Magical weapon don’t bypass it.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 29, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> Mage Slayer: I've heard some people think this new one is worse, which means they haven't looked close enough. You get an AUTOMATIC pass on 1 wisdom/int/or charisma save per day, and thats after you fail (so its never wasted). That is pure unadulterated gold, like sign me up any day of the week. That ability alone might be worth a feat, that's how good it is.




I don't disagree, but my favorite part of the old feat was the opportunity attack for spell casting.  Especially with a rogue or paladin.  Seems like the rogue doesn't get sneak attack on OAs anymore, though, so....


----------



## squibbles (Sep 29, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> [...] Crossbow Expert now requires you to get the extra attack from the light weapon property - so no single hand crossbow rapid fire. [...]



It also only removes disadvantage for crossbows when attacking at close range.

Awesome.

--edit--
Ah, hadn't read to sharpshooter yet.

But the new sharpshooter also specifies "ranged attack rolls _with weapons_" (with the disadvantage cancelling feature for spell attacks being moved to spell sniper)

So... still awesome.


----------



## Krachek (Sep 29, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> I don't disagree, but my favorite part of the old feat was the opportunity attack for spell casting.  Especially with a rogue or paladin.  Seems like the rogue doesn't get sneak attack on OAs anymore, though, so....



We can start the bet that paladin will be able to smite only on attack action, and maybe only once per turn!


----------



## payn (Sep 29, 2022)

Whats with the Epic_ Boon_ naming convention? Why not just go with Epic? Epic combat prowess, Epic luck, Epic peerless aim, etc...


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 29, 2022)

payn said:


> Whats with the Epic_ Boon_ naming convention? Why not just go with Epic? Epic combat prowess, Epic luck, Epic peerless aim, etc...




To evoke what's in the DMG, maybe.  But, yeah, it's awkward.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 29, 2022)

Krachek said:


> We can start the bet that paladin will be able to smite only on attack action, and maybe only once per turn!



Yep been my houserule for years, and the paladin is still PLENTY powerful, never looked back.


----------



## Weiley31 (Sep 29, 2022)

I do like the fact that War Caster allows a Spellcaster to use a Spell as a kind of Opportunity Attack.


----------



## Amrûnril (Sep 29, 2022)

Just noticed that the feat form of Protection Fighting Style gives -2 to an attack instead of imposing disadvantage, which seems like a pretty significant nerf. It does have the advantage that it's triggered after the attack roll and can thus be saved until it will change the outcome, but I'm not sure that's enough to compensate. 
I suppose the new version makes sense in that +2 is the normal shield bonus to AC, but it seems a lot more fiddly than the 2014 version, especially since it turns the "to hit" calculation into a 3 person affair. And it doesn't solve the original version's issue of scaling poorly with high levels/multiple attacks, except insofar as having fewer opportunities to actually work makes it less likely to be used up.


----------



## Charlaquin (Sep 29, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> Just noticed that the feat form of Protection Fighting Style gives -2 to an attack instead of imposing disadvantage, which seems like a pretty significant nerf. It does have the advantage that it's triggered after the attack roll and can thus be saved until it will change the outcome, but I'm not sure that's enough to compensate.
> I suppose the new version makes sense in that +2 is the normal shield bonus to AC, but it seems a lot more fiddly than the 2014 version, especially since it turns the "to hit" calculation into a 3 person affair. And it doesn't solve the original version's issue of scaling poorly with high levels/multiple attacks, except insofar as having fewer opportunities to actually work makes it less likely to be used up.



I feel like it should be prof bonus instead.


----------



## Baumi (Sep 29, 2022)

Overall I am VERY happy with it! They made every weak/usefull Feat now really compelling ... except Weapon Training, which still sucks (but at least give a Ability Increase now) 

As a fan of Inspiring Leader, I find it interesting that they uncoppled it from Charisma. I belive that it is slightly weaker now (have to check) but I do find it cool that it is no longer only interesting for Charisma Types.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 29, 2022)

payn said:


> Whats with the Epic_ Boon_ naming convention? Why not just go with Epic? Epic combat prowess, Epic luck, Epic peerless aim, etc...




because its Epic to say *BOOOON* man, like an exploding BOOON of epicosity


----------



## Baumi (Sep 29, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> Just noticed that the feat form of Protection Fighting Style gives -2 to an attack instead of imposing disadvantage, which seems like a pretty significant nerf. It does have the advantage that it's triggered after the attack roll and can thus be saved until it will change the outcome, but I'm not sure that's enough to compensate.
> I suppose the new version makes sense in that +2 is the normal shield bonus to AC, but it seems a lot more fiddly than the 2014 version, especially since it turns the "to hit" calculation into a 3 person affair. And it doesn't solve the original version's issue of scaling poorly with high levels/multiple attacks, except insofar as having fewer opportunities to actually work makes it less likely to be used up.




Yeah I don't like that change. The old version was quite underrated but actually felt great if you took it and was quite powerful a. which I find good if you take something that helps other instead of yourself.


----------



## Baumi (Sep 29, 2022)

But the best feat IMHO is the Lighty Armored 1st Level Feat. That fixes all that awkward Multiclassing/Races builds just to get your Spellcaster some Armor.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 29, 2022)

Baumi said:


> Yeah I don't like that change. The old version was quite underrated but actually felt great if you took it and was quite powerful a. which I find good if you take something that helps other instead of yourself.



The thing I didn’t like about the old version is that it got wasted most of the time. You would use it, then the monster would either still hit, or would have missed anyway. So you not only waste the ability but your reaction. 

This new version is ‘weaker’ but never wasted. 

Overall I like it, but I wish it were either PB instead of fixed +2, or lasted until end of current turn.


----------



## Baumi (Sep 29, 2022)

Crossbow Expert - Dual Wielding is one of the most confusing written Descriptions.


----------



## Weiley31 (Sep 29, 2022)

I honestly don't know how to feel about Fighting Styles being feats.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 29, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> I honestly don't know how to feel about Fighting Styles being feats.



Since they are in a sub-category of feat, I’m guessing warriors will get one of these in addition to regular feats. I suspect the real purpose is to save page count.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Sep 29, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> I honestly don't know how to feel about Fighting Styles being feats.



It shouldn't really change anything. You could previously pick up a fighting style with a feat, now they are just placed into feats individually. Because Rangers still get one fighting style for free, you'd imagine actual Warriors will get at least one, too.

It's just a change in presentation.


----------



## Horwath (Sep 29, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> I honestly don't know how to feel about Fighting Styles being feats.



they suck.

fighting styles should be half feats at best.

nerf archery, buff GW fighting and make all those half-feats.


----------



## Amrûnril (Sep 29, 2022)

fluffybunbunkittens said:


> It shouldn't really change anything. You could previously pick up a fighting style with a feat, now they are just placed into feats individually. Because Rangers still get one fighting style for free, you'd imagine actual Warriors will get at least one, too.
> 
> It's just a change in presentation.




It is slightly more restrictive, in that the UA format only alllows Warrior classes (and Rangers) to take the feat, whereas the Tasha's fighting style feat only requires a martial weapon proficiency. Personally, I'd dump this requirement- I don't see any reason not to allow War Clerics, Battle Smiths etc. to invest a feat into gaining a fighting style. 

It's also slightly more flexible, in any class with access to fighting styles can select any style, rather than being constrained to a pre-specified list. This could be helpful if a player wants to go slightly outside the box and build a strength-focused ranger, for instance.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Sep 29, 2022)

Just as long as I can still play a monk with blindsight, I’m happy.


----------



## Tonguez (Sep 29, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> I honestly don't know how to feel about Fighting Styles being feats.




Easiest way to turn it into D20 GURPS probably


----------



## Horwath (Sep 29, 2022)

Elemental adept.

drop the damage on 1 being 2, and add:
you treat immunity on chosen element as resistance.

New feat: 
elemental master: requires elemental adept
+1 ASI
for your element chosen by elemental adept feat, you gain +1 damage for every damage die of the spell.
I.E. 3rd level fireball gains +8 damage on its 8d6 damage roll.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Sep 30, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I feel like it should be prof bonus instead.



Or at least the shield's bonus to AC if magical.


----------



## Lojaan (Sep 30, 2022)

WOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOO no more PAM+spear+shield cheese! Or even more ridiculous - PAM+quarterstaff+shield cheese!

Sweet sweet validation.

Now I just need an official post from WoTC saying that anyone who thought that you could use the extra attack from PAM with a weapon you are wielding _in one hand_ (because of the errata that let you use it with a spear, or a quarterstaff which is stupidly also listed as 'versatile'), and get to use a shield in the other, are poo poo heads and aught to be ashamed of themselves.

I am aware that this is unlikely.


----------



## BlackSeed_Vash (Oct 1, 2022)

Fighting Styles as feats mean whenever a class/subclass grants them, they don't have to waste extra space printing the list and what they do for each individual one. Also, when a new Fighting Style is created it's just available (assuming DM allows book).


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 2, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Elemental adept.
> you treat immunity on chosen element as resistance.



I personally have always hated that concept.

Dropping resistances to immunities, I am good with that. But immunities are rare and special, and in many monster cases are an innate part of the creature's physiology. 

The idea that a fire element can walk through lava just fine but your little 1d8 fireblast is "so hot that it burns the hottest fire"....sorry, no that's just bump kiss to me.

I do agree with that the 1->2s is an annoying mechanic, but the stuff above is not how I would fix it. I would do a simple +1 damage for every 2 dice rolled, minimum 1, or something like that.


----------



## jmartkdr2 (Oct 2, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> I personally have always hated that concept.
> 
> Dropping resistances to immunities, I am good with that. But immunities are rare and special, and in many monster cases are an innate part of the creature's physiology.
> 
> ...



There’s a few special cases where I can imagine a solution (ie holy fire ignores fiends’ fire immunity) but nothing I would grant as a feat (holy fire comes from an item or epic boon)


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 2, 2022)

Weiley31 said:


> I honestly don't know how to feel about Fighting Styles being feats.



I am actually happy that the Fighting Styles are going to be 1st-level feats for those in the Warrior Group (in addition to the Ranger and the Paladin classes). The Fighting styles represent a style of training that the melee types have either practiced on their own, or were taught to them by a more experienced fighter, monk, etc. When I first started playing 5e last year, I was kind of bothered that just about everyone could wield two weapons. I was more use to how TWF was handled in 3e, as the starter feat for a variety of two-weapon combat feats (Improved TWF, Greater TWF, Two-Weapon Rend, etc.) 

I wonder if there will be subclasses that specialize in a particular Fighting Style in One D&D.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 2, 2022)

Corinnguard said:


> I am actually happy that the Fighting Styles are going to be 1st-level feats for those in the Warrior Group (in addition to the Ranger and the Paladin classes).




I wonder if one implication of this is that the Warrior group classes get another goodie. That is, if everybody now gets a first level feat…something new…but some classes have to spend that feat to get something they already had, are they getting something new to compensate?

(In before “no, they are only taking things away because WotC hates martials and is only catering to kids who play video games and can’t handle complexity which is how they make the most money while worshipping Satan and putting pineapple on pizza.”  So if that’s what you were going to say no need to bother; I gotcha covered.)


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Oct 2, 2022)

I notice that Great Weapon Fighting still has the same language saying that you can reroll 1 and 2 on _any_ damage dice related to your attack, not just the weapon dice.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 2, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> So we see 4th level feats - and some 20th level feats. The question is whether there are 8th or 12th level feats or just 1st, 4th, and 20th level feats. Some takeaways



There are 8th level feats in the Giant UA, but they do give stat boosts and I now think that level 8 feats should give at least a +1 ASI.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Good catch. Also the only level 1 feat with +1 to a stat.
> 
> Funny thing:
> With lightly armored you can recreate the mountain dwarf but better by chosing this feat.



Er, no it doesn't? Lightly armored doesn't come with a +1 to a stat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 2, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Er, no it doesn't? Lightly armored doesn't come with a +1 to a stat.




I swear, I looked it up and double checked it, when I first opened the packet, it said increase str or dex by 1. I did not download it sadly, so I have no proof. Not for you and not for me :/.

Edit: I know what happened: I looked a bit too low and read the line of mage slayer. It increases dex or str, so my brain mixed it up... sorry I was late.

But nontheless, taking lightly armored recreates mkst of the mountain dwarf. I'd say it is an overall better package. Instead of +1 con, you get +1hp per level and tremorsense and shield proficiency. You only lose expertise in such narrow circumstance, that it never comes up.

Since Xanathar's allow advantage if you have tool and skill though, mason's tools became what I would have expected from old stonecunning: advantage on finding traps in stone walls.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 2, 2022)

Horwath said:


> they suck.
> 
> fighting styles should be half feats at best.
> 
> nerf archery, buff GW fighting and make all those half-feats.



They're level 1. Level 1 feats don't get an ASI.

Especially when you get them for free.


----------



## Corinnguard (Oct 2, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> They're level 1. Level 1 feats don't get an ASI.
> 
> Especially when you get them for free.



And that's because you have already received two ASIs from your Background. There's no need for the level 1 feats to have them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 2, 2022)

This would be my solution. 

If you take a 4th level feat at first level instead of a 1st level feat, you don't get the stat increase from  the feat. Done.

Edited for clarification


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 2, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> This would be my solution.
> 
> If you take a feat at first level, you don't get the stat increase. Done.



Except the level 1 ASI is a total of +3, whereas feats (above level 1) are balanced around a +2. And level 1 feats are worth roughly a +1.

So this would replace your level 1 ASI _and_ level 1 feat (value of +4) with a single 4+ feat (value of +2).

That's a terrible bargain.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 2, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> Except the level 1 ASI is a total of +3, whereas feats (above level 1) are balanced around a +2. And level 1 feats are worth roughly a +1.
> 
> So this would replace your level 1 ASI _and_ level 1 feat (value of +4) with a single 4+ feat (value of +2).
> 
> That's a terrible bargain.




What no.
You don't get the stat increase from the level 4 feat.

Edit: if you are worried about the wrong stat being boosted, you can say in the background:

At level 1 you can chose:
+2/+1 or +1/+1/+1 and a level 1 feat

Or +1/+1 and a level 4 feat (excludong ability score increase)


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 2, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> What no.
> You don't get the stat increase from the level 4 feat.



Eh.


----------



## THEMNGMNT (Oct 2, 2022)

Overall, I like the way feats are headed. A few thoughts:

Some of these should probably scale better. For example, rather than granting 2d4 temporary hit points, Inspiring Leader could grant THP equal to d4 x Proficiency Bonus.

Protection should scale with your proficiency bonus. I would also let players move up to half their speed so the effect can trigger more often.

Duelist should scale with your proficiency bonus. Basically, it's bonus damage equal to your proficiency bonus.

I would combine Defense and Defensive Duelist. Or just replace the former with latter.

Maybe flip Great Weapon Fighting, so that a rolling a 1 or 2 allows you to roll the weapon die again and ADD it to the 1 or 2. And it's repeatable. This is sort of an inverted version of exploding dice that rewards bad rolls.

I think Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper should reduce cover effects by one step rather than ignore them completely.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 2, 2022)

Stalker0 said:


> I personally have always hated that concept.
> 
> Dropping resistances to immunities, I am good with that. But immunities are rare and special, and in many monster cases are an innate part of the creature's physiology.
> 
> ...



It does seem pretty silly in most cases.  Perhaps it's a side effect of 5e's lack of granularity increasing into 6e.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 2, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> This would be my solution.
> 
> If you take a feat at first level, you don't get the stat increase. Done.




My favorite thing about the new feat design is that you don’t have to choose between optimal (ASI) and fun (feat). Force that choice anyway? No thanks.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 2, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> My favorite thing about the new feat design is that you don’t have to choose between optimal (ASI) and fun (feat). Force that choice anyway? No thanks.




The idea (as I understand it) is that at level 1 you can choose a level 1 feat (which doesn't include an ASI) or a level 4 feat (with the ASI removed). Similarly, at level 4, you could choose a level 4 feat (with a built in ASI) or a level 1 feat (with an ASI added). In either case, there's no new feat vs. ASI choice, just a broader range of feats to choose from.

I think it would be more elegant to simply combine the two lists and make the ASI part of the general rules rather than the individual feats, but this is a good workaround if the devs choose not to do that.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 2, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> My favorite thing about the new feat design is that you don’t have to choose between optimal (ASI) and fun (feat). Force that choice anyway? No thanks.




Ok. I clarify.

If you take a 4th level feat instead of 1st level feat at level 1, you don't get the +1 to an ability score.

I can see how my first post was misleading. I did not type it out correctly...


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Oct 4, 2022)

One thing I noticed that makes another feat not good is *Actor*.

Actor gives you two functionalities (beyond the stat bump that all feats give): 


Advantage on Charisma (Performance) checks when disguised as someone else
Voice and sound mimicry

Here's the issue though... by the new rules of Tool Proficiency, anyone who is proficient in both Disguise Kit and Performance would be gaining Advantage on their checks to impersonate someone already.  Which means that this feat is breaking that rule that Jeremy was talking in the first packet's release about wanting feats that make someone who already does something... make them even better at it (as opposed to the feat being superfluous).  In this particular case though... half the Actor feat is superfluous for a character who already was designed to be an actor.

I think this feat needs a different or additional ability beyond the Advantage on Performance checks, because that ability just duplicates what an "actor" PC would already have taken from their Tool and Skill choice.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 4, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> One thing I noticed that makes another feat not good is *Actor*.
> 
> Actor gives you two functionalities (beyond the stat bump that all feats give):
> 
> ...



It's also terrible even if you aren't already getting advantage. Too narrow.

Rename it to Performer,. Have it grant proficiency in disguise kits or an instrument and expertise in performance. It would be... Less bad, but still kind of a trap, because Performance is a bad skill that should be folded into Deception.


----------



## Gorck (Oct 4, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> Performance is a bad skill that should be folded into Deception.



Why on earth would you fold Performance into Deception?  There are planty of instances where you would use Performance without actually attempting to deceive someone.


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 4, 2022)

Gorck said:


> Why on earth would you fold Performance into Deception?  There are planty of instances where you would use Performance without actually attempting to deceive someone.



Like?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 4, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> Like?



Entertainment?


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Entertainment?



So you really need a skill check for that?


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 4, 2022)

Haplo781 said:


> So you really need a skill check for that?



Depends on the stakes.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

I also think you could lose performance. It is usually either persuasion or deception. Very rarely intimidation.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 4, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I also think you could lose performance. It is usually either persuasion or deception. Very rarely intimidation.




Which would you use if a character is trying to win over a crowd with their performance of a classic tale/song/poem?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Which would you use if a character is trying to win over a crowd with their performance of a classic tale/song/poem?



Persuasion.
Except when they try to instill fear with their story. Then it is intimisation.

The only reason to have performance is when you are playing a memorized play and not actively engage with someone...


----------



## Haplo781 (Oct 4, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Which would you use if a character is trying to win over a crowd with their performance of a classic tale/song/poem?



Persuasion


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 4, 2022)

Huh. I wasn’t thinking of persuading the audience of anything specific, just getting them to be positively disposed toward you. 

I can see how, if you are trying to have fewer skills, those could be combined through a very broad definition of “persuade”. But then you’ve got the seasoned negotiator and the polished stage performer using the same skill. It’s like athletics covering swimming, climbing, running, and jumping, as if being good at one makes you good at all three. 

On the other hand, four CHA skills and one STR skill seems wrong.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 5, 2022)

Many feats offer clear improvements -- it's a really good sign. Here's ten where I think the fixes are solid improvements, even if many are ordinary-level feats.

* Weapon training. A better name, and finally has a use.

* Spell Sniper. Very good. I wish they had kept the free cantrip. I'd prefer that to the ASI. Also I think a clarification is needed: for the prerequisite is any spellcasting allowed (e.g. elves with a spellcasting ability) or is it the spellcasting class feature only?

* Skulker. Now is a very solid choice for rogues. Losing the penalty to vision is an interesting choice; I know for some that was the strongest part of the feat, but 10' of blindsight is solid. I am one with the Force and the Force is with me.

* Lightly Armored. This is a reasonable conflating two earlier feats.

* Keen Mind. Excellent re-thinking.

* Durable. I like it. Tying it to the bonus action is clear.

* Dual Wielder. Top Marks. I love the re-write. Sure, it's awkward but it finally does what the feat should be doing.

* Defensive Duelist. I was initially nonplussed by the change, but the more I think about it, the more it seems good (a slight reduction to the central importance of Dexterity, and a good way to ease of of an initial 13 Dex score. (e.g. for a strength-based rogue)

* Crossbow Expert. The redundancy with Sharpshooter (and the repetition of "firing into melee" reduces the liklihood slightly that players will want to nab both. I'm not sure it's needed, but it's a fair re-write.

* Athlete. Another solid re-write. Advantage on jumps is overall helpful (whatever they do with the jump rules), and getting a climb speed is nice. (Generally I like having movement and swimming speeds because in play it means that characters don't need to make a roll for normal movement, as they do without a stated speed. I would like the glossary to spell that out, but I doubt anyone thinks it's important enough.)


----------



## kigmatzomat (Oct 5, 2022)

I dislike Ritual Caster changes.  I _LIKED_ a single class barbarian taking Ritual Caster to be a shaman.  Or a rogue with Ritual Caster to help find magic treasure or traps.  Or the Fighter, just to irritate the wizard. 

This is ....Meh. 
No, more blech.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 5, 2022)

Almost every change is good. I'm impressed with this part of the packet.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Oct 5, 2022)

kigmatzomat said:


> I dislike Ritual Caster changes.  I _LIKED_ a single class barbarian taking Ritual Caster to be a shaman.  Or a rogue with Ritual Caster to help find magic treasure or traps.  Or the Fighter, just to irritate the wizard.
> 
> This is ....Meh.
> No, more blech.



I think this is a complaint that they might listen to if presented (clearly, and often enough) in the feedback. I agree with you 100%.


----------



## cbwjm (Oct 5, 2022)

kigmatzomat said:


> I dislike Ritual Caster changes.  I _LIKED_ a single class barbarian taking Ritual Caster to be a shaman.  Or a rogue with Ritual Caster to help find magic treasure or traps.  Or the Fighter, just to irritate the wizard.
> 
> This is ....Meh.
> No, more blech.



I liked the thought of the ritual book where anyone who has the feat can hunt down more rituals to add to it, which it sounds like the oneDND feat gets rid of completely The only change I'd make to the current ritual caster feat is that you can add all rituals rather than just a single class.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 5, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> All fourth level feats give you a single point of ASI (yes, even War Caster( - other than the repeatable feat that gives you two (and replaces the old ASI boost)



This is fascinating because it's like they've gone from not wanting you to take Feats to REALLY preferring that you take Feats instead of ASIs, which is, y'know, quite a difference.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 5, 2022)

kigmatzomat said:


> I dislike Ritual Caster changes.  I _LIKED_ a single class barbarian taking Ritual Caster to be a shaman.  Or a rogue with Ritual Caster to help find magic treasure or traps.  Or the Fighter, just to irritate the wizard.
> 
> This is ....Meh.
> No, more blech.



One of my favourite characters to DM for ever was a 4E Fighter who had the 4E Ritual Caster Feat. I agree that this is just dreadful btw, but I do hope they'll listen to feedback on it.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 5, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> This is fascinating because it's like they've gone from not wanting you to take Feats to REALLY preferring that you take Feats instead of ASIs, which is, y'know, quite a difference.



Except they haven't quite succeeded in making feats a preferable option.  If it were up to me, I would remove ASIs entirely except for half feats.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 6, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> Except they haven't quite succeeded in making feats a preferable option.  If it were up to me, I would remove ASIs entirely except for half feats.



I'm not sure they haven't. The way D&Done works you're _always _going to start with a 16 or a 17 in your primary stat and if people race to level 3 (as they should) a 17 is preferable. This means that (for a non-monk) your 4th level feat isn't going to be the ASI because a +1 is basically as good as a +2 when your prime stat is 17.

This means that the only real question is whether you're going to get a feat or a full ASI for your second feat. If you take the ASI you spend until your next feat arguably ahead - but are permanently behind from your third feat. For a rogue or a fighter the answer is "Hell no" as you're only there for two levels. For a melee weapon user (barbarian, paladin, or two weapon ranger) I think the answer is also no - there are too many good melee feats.

For a caster I think it depends on game style. Warcaster is the only thing that comes close to being a must-have - or possibly Spell Sniper for a warlock. But Ritual Caster is good and there are plenty of fun feats.


----------



## Pedantic (Oct 6, 2022)

Yeah, it's definitely better, but really they should just clean up the choice at 8th level. It is really only a problem achieving the first 20, in whatever stat affects accuracy for your class. After that, you're either upping defense (which you could well do with a different Armor Proficiency or Save Proficiency feat) or improving skills. Those are both comparable effects to what you get out of feats, so it's a fairly reasonable exchange.

Just making +1 to your primary attribute a class ability at say 6th level would be perfect.


----------



## Minigiant (Oct 6, 2022)

The Keen Mind feat lets you quick study.

*Does Study even do anything in combat?

Is it supposed to give the user monster stats?

Which stats are you supposed to give out on a high rolls*?

Observant let's you Quiick Search. That includes Medicine. 

*Are you supposed to give out HP info in combat or just generally how wounded the target is wounded?

Does that mean you can't tell how hurt a foe is without taking the Search action?*

Oh man. This is a DM Discussion on itself.


----------



## fluffybunbunkittens (Oct 6, 2022)

Those are all great questions! I'm sure WotC will clear it right up, and won't leave it undefined and up to vastly varying interpretations.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 10, 2022)

I'm actually almost as disappointed by what Ritual Caster gains as by what it loses.

While the Quick Ritual feature may compensate power-wise for the inability to learn new rituals, it really doesn't fit the sort of character I'd want to create with this feat: someone who lacks a spellcasting adventurer's capacity for time-sensitive magic but who can manage a few spells if given time to sit down with a book or pray/meditate. I could imagine this sort of character being common in a lot of settings, but it's not supported rules-wise if learning rituals comes as a package deal with the ability to cast them quickly.

I wonder if the developers' reasoning here is the same as with Healer. Make a feat that gives characters a new ability attractive to characters that already have that ability. As in that case, I think this is a mistake here. Characters learning new ritual magic and characters looking to exhance the ritual portion of their existing magic would both be better served by dedicated feats than by a single feat trying to do two things at once.



cbwjm said:


> I liked the thought of the ritual book where anyone who has the feat can hunt down more rituals to add to it, which it sounds like the oneDND feat gets rid of completely The only change I'd make to the current ritual caster feat is that you can add all rituals rather than just a single class.



That might be a bit much for a single feat, but I'd at least make it repeatable to choose multiple classes.


Some shorter thoughs on other feats:

*Keen Mind/Observant:* The previous iterations of these feats were niche but they definitely had appeal for some players. The new versions actually seem more DM dependent, in that they codify moving an action to a bonus action, while leaving what that action can actually accomplish undefined.

*Lightly Armored:* Glad to see this improved. The 2014 armor proficiency feats seemed like a perfect example of the sort of feat chain the developers were trying to move away from. And with the changes to dwarves, it's nice to have an option to add armor proficiencies at level one.

*Heavily Armored:* But then this stays exactly the same, despite a +1 ASI becoming a default part of feats, rather than a balancing mechanism for weaker ones.

*Resilient: *I feel like this should be repeatable for different saves.

*Spell Sniper/Sharpshooter:* If the developers want feats to support ranged attacks in melee combat, they should design feats around that focus, not tack an ability onto feats focused on long range combat.

*Weapon Training: *The improvement from four weapon types to all martial weapons is welcome, though it does create an amusing scenario where a wizard who takes it can proficiently use any martial weapon but is still limited to a subset of simple ones.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 10, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> *Lightly Armored:* Glad to see this improved. The 2014 armor proficiency feats seemed like a perfect example of the sort of feat chain the developers were trying to move away from. And with the changes to dwarves, it's nice to have an option to add armor proficiencies at level one.
> 
> *Heavily Armored:* But then this stays exactly the same, despite a +1 ASI becoming a default part of feats, rather than a balancing mechanism for weaker ones.
> 
> ...




I think, I'd prefer militia training that gives light armor and all simple weapons (and a little extra). Medium armor + shield for armored mages is quite a lot for a level 1 feat and probably noone else really neads this.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 10, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> I'm actually almost as disappointed by what Ritual Caster gains as by what it loses.
> 
> While the Quick Ritual feature may compensate power-wise for the inability to learn new rituals, it really doesn't fit the sort of character I'd want to create with this feat: someone who lacks a spellcasting adventurer's capacity for time-sensitive magic but who can manage a few spells if given time to sit down with a book or pray/meditate. I could imagine this sort of character being common in a lot of settings, but it's not supported rules-wise if learning rituals comes as a package deal with the ability to cast them quickly.
> 
> ...



Yes.  To me, the whole point of ritual casting is to represent the kind of character you're describing.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 10, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think, I'd prefer militia training that gives light armor and all simple weapons (and a little extra). Medium armor + shield for armored mages is quite a lot for a level 1 feat and probably noone else really neads this.




I guess I'm thinking about this from the perspective of wanting heavy armor training to be reasonably accessible, to give more characters the option of prioritizing strength over dexterity. Spellcasters are probably the more common use case, though.

As I think more about this, maybe it's actually the higher levels of armor training that should be easier to get, since light armor is a +2 AC boost to anyone, while medium and heavy armor combined only add 1 AC over what a dexterity-based attacker can get "for free". I do wonder if it's really necessary for heavier armors to have both strength requirements and additional training requirements. Perhaps these could be re-written as alternatives. Plate armor for instance, might have a requirement of "Heavy Armor Training OR any Armor Training with 17 or higher strength".


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 10, 2022)

Amrûnril said:


> I guess I'm thinking about this from the perspective of wanting heavy armor training to be reasonably accessible, to give more characters the option of prioritizing strength over dexterity. Spellcasters are probably the more common use case, though.
> 
> As I think more about this, maybe it's actually the higher levels of armor training that should be easier to get, since light armor is a +2 AC boost to anyone, while medium and heavy armor combined only add 1 AC over what a dexterity-based attacker can get "for free". I do wonder if it's really necessary for heavier armors to have both strength requirements and additional training requirements. Perhaps these could be re-written as alternatives. Plate armor for instance, might have a requirement of "Heavy Armor Training OR any Armor Training with 17 or higher strength".




I think it is a mistake to think of heavy armor is only 1 more AC than light armor.

Yes, it starts like this and ends like this. But there are quite a few levels where you are 2 or even 3 points ahead. At level 5 or 6 you can probably afford full plate. If you and the dex character wants a feat, this puts you 3 AC ahead. If the dex character starts out with 17 dex, which is possible, you are only 2 points ahead, but that leaves the dex character with only a 15 top in their secondary stat.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 12, 2022)

Ritual Caster is the only significant disappointment.  I have seen a couple of characters take this feat.  One was a high level fighter, low level bard who was obsessed with prophecy and learned all the clerical divination rituals, the other was a tome warlock who just wanted to know more spells to add more utility.  Nobody was crying that the feat made these characters too powerful or too versatile.  Neither player was clamouring for faster rituals, although I'm sure they would not object.  The changes feel unnecessarily harsh to fix a problem that is only a problem on paper and risks impacting niche builds for groups that don't want combat magic to be a focus of their campaign.  Even if the number of rituals known at higher levels were to be capped e.g. at X character level, learn another ritual of X level or lower, it would just about fulfil its old purpose


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 17, 2022)

Still having a browse.   What's the deal with Tavern Brawler?  The nerf certainly does what it says on the tin but it's so horribly specific it feels like they are stomping on people's fun.  No skillet wielding Tika Waylan? No Bullseye using razor edged playing cards?  No classic monks using chopsticks or food bowls as weapons.  No smashing flagon of ale on people's heads. Legs of lamb?  Apples? Goats?  Wtf?


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 17, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> Ritual Caster is the only significant disappointment.  I have seen a couple of characters take this feat.  One was a high level fighter, low level bard who was obsessed with prophecy and learned all the clerical divination rituals, the other was a tome warlock who just wanted to know more spells to add more utility.  Nobody was crying that the feat made these characters too powerful or too versatile.  Neither player was clamouring for faster rituals, although I'm sure they would not object.  The changes feel unnecessarily harsh to fix a problem that is only a problem on paper and risks impacting niche builds for groups that don't want combat magic to be a focus of their campaign.  Even if the number of rituals known at higher levels were to be capped e.g. at X character level, learn another ritual of X level or lower, it would just about fulfil its old purpose



I suspect the goal of ritual caster is to make it easier for characters to perform rituals. So anyone who can cast spells can therefore perform rituals. Then the namesake Ritual Magic feat was repurposed for something different. The intention is to make the feat useful to both casters and noncasters.

The caster benefit is effectively two more prepared 1st-slot spells to use slots for. Albeit they must be rituals which tend to lack synergy with spell slots. The Quick Ritual benefit can be used for any slot levels, but only a few specific spells would benefit significantly.

Perhaps a nonprep caster might benefit by picking up two rituals, that otherwise would be impracticable because the limited number of known spells fiercely reduced which spells are worthwhile to cast.

The noncaster benefit is picking up two specific 1st-slot rituals. And thats it. Noncasters cant waste a feat on two minor rituals, when other feats are nicer.

Overall, while the feat feels adequate, there is nothing impressive about it, and I suspect players will rarely waste a feat on it when better feats are available − which is a problem the designers are trying to fix.



But the main problem is deeper. Inherently, spell-slot spells and rituals dont work well together and need separate design spaces. Spells that take an action cast versus spells that take minutes cast are for completely different situations and different purposes. To some degree, slot spells tend to be for combat when the time pressure is extreme, and rituals tend to be for exploration when the timing is liesurely, but the differences are bigger than that.

The game becomes more useful when there is one list for spells and a separate list for rituals. Rituals dont use spell slots. There can be a different way to determine the success of a ritual, such as a relevant skill check.

Personally, I use Nature for checks relating to elemental magic − earth, water, air, and fire/sunlight. I use Survival for animal life and plant life. I use Religion for planar magic, and Arcana for magical energy and force effects.

The point is, skill checks. Each ritual has a built-in level prerequisite in the form of corresponding slot level. But it is possible to allow noncasters who invest in a skill to find and use instructions for how to perform a particular ritual, and if they are high enough a level, make a skill check to determine if they perform it well.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 19, 2022)

I think 4e did rituals well, conceptually.  They seem almost pointless and poorly thought out in 5e.  Some spells like circle of protection seem really clunky, falling between the cracks for no obvious reason.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Oct 19, 2022)

Pauln6 said:


> I think 4e did rituals well, conceptually.  They seem almost pointless and poorly thought out in 5e.  Some spells like circle of protection seem really clunky, falling between the cracks for no obvious reason.



They're clunky from a narrative point of view, as many spells that narratively should be rituals (Animate Dead, for example) aren't for no reason beyond game balance.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 19, 2022)

Micah Sweet said:


> They're clunky from a narrative point of view, as many spells that narratively should be rituals (Animate Dead, for example) aren't for no reason beyond game balance.



I think Animate Dead would work fine as a ritual if the undead from a ritual were tied to the location where they were animated and the numbers were limited by level.


----------



## ehren37 (Oct 20, 2022)

Bill Zebub said:


> Which would you use if a character is trying to win over a crowd with their performance of a classic tale/song/poem?



Make a tool proficiency check. Performance is the odd man out in skills as it is far too niche.  The stakes are almost always minimal compared to a Stealth, Athletics, Deception, etc check. Meanwhile Thieves tools is the king of tools compared to bagpipes or whatever. Every published adventure will see multiple meaningful opportunities for thieves tools checks and *very* few for brewers tools. 

We should just bring back secondary skills from 2E for the mostly fluff stuff. That way we can dispense with the weirdness of being proficient in mason's tools and just have masonry be a secondary skill. Throw singing, fishing, cooking, farming and the other stuff that's rarely worth a "real" skill pick in there. Upgrade thievery to a standard skill, to allow expertise without a weird rogue specific rule.


----------



## Yaarel (Oct 20, 2022)

For a music performance to wow a crowd:

Instrument tool proficiency + Persuasion skill proficiency = Advantage



Musical instrument proficiencies are much like language proficiencies. Unfortunately, they are mechanically less useful − and should be for free but gated thematically.


----------



## Branduil (Oct 20, 2022)

ehren37 said:


> Make a tool proficiency check. Performance is the odd man out in skills as it is far too niche.  The stakes are almost always minimal compared to a Stealth, Athletics, Deception, etc check. Meanwhile Thieves tools is the king of tools compared to bagpipes or whatever. Every published adventure will see multiple meaningful opportunities for thieves tools checks and *very* few for brewers tools.
> 
> We should just bring back secondary skills from 2E for the mostly fluff stuff. That way we can dispense with the weirdness of being proficient in mason's tools and just have masonry be a secondary skill. Throw singing, fishing, cooking, farming and the other stuff that's rarely worth a "real" skill pick in there. Upgrade thievery to a standard skill, to allow expertise without a weird rogue specific rule.



I've been toying with a similar idea. I think it would work much better if D&D had two different skill spaces, "Adventuring skills" and "Roleplaying skills." I've never seen anyone want to waste their skill slots on things like an instrument, even if it would make their character more interesting, because skills are just too scarce and valuable. Give every character like 4 or 5 roleplaying skills, including things like additional languages and esoteric knowledge skills.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 20, 2022)

Branduil said:


> I've been toying with a similar idea. I think it would work much better if D&D had two different skill spaces, "Adventuring skills" and "Roleplaying skills." I've never seen anyone want to waste their skill slots on things like an instrument, even if it would make their character more interesting, because skills are just too scarce and valuable. Give every character like 4 or 5 roleplaying skills, including things like additional languages and esoteric knowledge skills.



In some ways this mirrors the problem with ASIs/Feats. Most people take the +2, and those who choose feats pick one that boost their combat.

Yeah…it would be interesting if combat and non-combat choices were separated.


----------

