# 2024 PHB Feats and Misc discussion



## TerraDave (Aug 19, 2022)

A third thread to help unpack the flood of info coming our way.

Another starting observation, if feats are to be made a part of the core game, they need a total rework, and they seem to be doing that. 

As this is also a "misc" thread, they may want to leave crits alone, and bring back the drunken condition.


----------



## Raith5 (Aug 19, 2022)

I for one welcome our new feat overlords - especially the level or tiered nature of them.


----------



## Akrasia (Aug 19, 2022)

I haven't been using feats in my 5e game and I'd prefer to leave them out of the core rules. Getting rid of feats (making them optional) was one of my favourite things about 5e. 

Looks like that's no longer going to be the case. _sigh_


----------



## Azzy (Aug 19, 2022)

My group uses feats, so this isn't a dealbreaker for me. Looks like things are being cleaned up, and level-locking some feats seems like a  no-brainer.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Aug 19, 2022)

People actually play this game without feats? In the year 2022?

Anyway, I hope these changes indicate that feats are going to be selected more often as you level up.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 19, 2022)

I have limited feats and consider them to be the real weak spot of 5e.

I liked the idea of a no feat 5e for those that want that. 

But thinking about, I played 3 (and 3.5) and 4e, and those had feats. And 3e feats were based on certain proficiencies--and later some other official optional things--that were feat-like in 2e, and we also used those. So given that 20 years+ with them, I guess I can handle this. 

As long as they finally _fix _them.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

even the 1st level feat have the "always take" and dump tier category:

Everyone will consider Alert, Tough and Lucky, maybe Magic initiate. Possibly Healer
Rest will be ignored as usual.

Skilled should be 4 skills or 2 skills and +1 ASI,
Crafter, musician, Savage attacker are joke feats.

Tavern brawler has d4 damage and reroll of 1's. Just make it d6 and stop complicating things.


----------



## Azzy (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> even the 1st level feat have the "always take" and dump tier category:
> 
> Everyone will consider Alert, Tough and Lucky, maybe Magic initiate. Possibly Healer
> Rest will be ignored as usual.
> ...




I'd like to quote the playtest packet: 

"*Power Level.* The character options you read here might be more or less powerful than options in the Player’s Handbook (2014). If a design survives playtesting, we adjust its power to the desirable level before official publication. This means an option could be more or less powerful in its final form."

That's not to say that discussion of feats being of variable desirability is of no use. (Quite the contrary, hammer this naughty word out and make sure to tell them in the survey!) Rather, it's just a gentle reminder that they do know everything isn't pitch perfect and these are not necessarily the feats' final forms.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I'd like to quote the playtest packet:
> 
> "*Power Level.* The character options you read here might be more or less powerful than options in the Player’s Handbook (2014). If a design survives playtesting, we adjust its power to the desirable level before official publication. This means an option could be more or less powerful in its final form."
> 
> That's not to say that discussion of feats being of variable desirability is of no use. (Quite the contrary, hammer this naughty word out and make sure to tell them in the survey!) Rather, it's just a gentle reminder that they do know everything isn't pitch perfect and these are not necessarily the feats' final forms.




As if the designers put some thoughts into the document...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Tavern brawler has d4 damage and reroll of 1's. Just make it d6 and stop complicating things.




As I said in the other thread. On its own it seems unnecessarily complicated. But now the feat has something nice for a monk. 
You might reroll d10s.

As if the designers put more thought into the documents than the casual reader.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 19, 2022)

Regarding the new rules for crits, I don't think that they can really be evaluated without reading the new classes. For example, maybe rogues compensate the nerf in some other way, but without looking at the playtest rogue, it's hard to form an opinion.


----------



## Minigiant (Aug 19, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> Regarding the new rules for crits, I don't think that they can really be evaluated without reading the new classes. For example, maybe rouges compensate the nerf in some other way, but without looking at the playtest rogue, it's hard to form an opinion.



It's possible that a dead rogue level gets a class feature that lets rogue roll seak attack dice on crits.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Azzy said:


> I'd like to quote the playtest packet:
> 
> "*Power Level.* The character options you read here might be more or less powerful than options in the Player’s Handbook (2014). If a design survives playtesting, we adjust its power to the desirable level before official publication. This means an option could be more or less powerful in its final form."
> 
> That's not to say that discussion of feats being of variable desirability is of no use. (Quite the contrary, hammer this naughty word out and make sure to tell them in the survey!) Rather, it's just a gentle reminder that they do know everything isn't pitch perfect and these are not necessarily the feats' final forms.



After Tasha's playtest, they decided that having rangers with Hunter's mark without concentration would break the game and then they added Twilight cleric as "perfectly balanced" sub-class...

Let's just say that when it comes to themes and "feel" of the game, they did great job with 5E, but when it comes to balance and numbers, they don't have a clue, because if they do, they would not waste time writing Crafter, Musician and Savage attacker in this form.
They are not worth half a feat, yet they have audacity to make them full feats.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> As I said in the other thread. On its own it seems unnecessarily complicated. But now the feat has something nice for a monk.
> You might reroll d10s.
> 
> As if the designers put more thought into the documents than the casual reader.



yes, I can see monks doing cartwheels for an entire day to pick this over Alert or Tough or Lucky


----------



## Demetrios1453 (Aug 19, 2022)

I honestly read the thread title as "Minsc discussion" and was a bit nonplussed that he'd get his own thread. I guess Boo is hogging all the spotlight these days with Spelljammer...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> yes, I can see monks doing cartwheels for an entire day to pick this over Alert or Tough or Lucky




I think you did not understand the Idea of a playtest.
If you think alert and lucky is too strong, just give that feedback.

Also the tavern brawler has other nice things for the monk. Shoving with a normal hit seems quite strong, it is a free disengage. Also clubs are monk weapons, so now furniture are monk weapons. But hey, dumb feat...


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 19, 2022)

Minigiant said:


> It's possible that a dead rogue level gets a class feature that lets rogue roll seak attack dice on crits.



Yes, it is possible, but we don't know. That's basically my point: hard to give feedback when missing vital information.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think you did not understand the Idea of a playtest.
> If you think alert and lucky is too strong, just give that feedback.
> 
> Also the tavern brawler has other nice things for the monk. Shoving with a normal hit seems quite strong, it is a free disengage. Also clubs are monk weapons, so now furniture are monk weapons. But hey, dumb feat...



I know what the idea of playtest is. And I will trash this feats as soon it comes up.

They are making same mistake. Putting combat feats and noncombat feats in same resource pool.

If 1st level feat(and maybe extra 4th level feat) options have only Skilled, Skill expert, Prodigy, every skill feat from UA, this various tool feats, Chef and similar feats, I would be 100% for it.

But, as soon you put Alert, Tough and Lucky vs. Crafter and Musician, there is no choice here.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I know what the idea of playtest is. And I will trash this feats as soon it comes up.
> 
> They are making same mistake. Putting combat feats and noncombat feats in same resource pool.
> 
> ...




I think you misjudge tavern brawler. But I genrally agree to your second last paragraph.
Lucky is way to good as written. Tough is borderline ok, as its benefit is mainly passive and does not help with regenerating over the day. Alert is okish. It starts getting really good later on, swapping initiative is rather a group benefit.
Musician is better than you give it credit for. It comes close to lucky.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I think you misjudge tavern brawler.



I would rather have that Shove on Bonus action:
Here is my take on it:
+1 str, dex or con
1d6 unarmed
As Bonus action you can make one Unarmed attack or 5ft shove or prone.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I would rather have that Shove on Bonus action:
> Here is my take on it:
> +1 str, dex or con
> 1d6 unarmed
> As Bonus action you can make one Unarmed attack or 5ft shove or prone.




Urgh. Does not work woth monk at all.
Also:I think I have not seen bonus action mentioned in the document anywhere.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Also:I think I have not seen bonus action mentioned in the document anywhere.



!?!?! If that is the case.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Urgh. Does not work woth monk at all.
> Also:I think I have not seen bonus action mentioned in the document anywhere.



It's mentioned in the ardling writeup.


> *Angelic Flight. *As a Bonus Action, you sprout
> spectral wings for a moment and fly up to a
> number of feet equal to your Speed. If you are in
> the air at the end of this movement, you fall if
> ...




And, on that subject, they've apparently re-nerfed Dragon Breath. Le sigh. Metallic, Chromatic, and Gem Dragonborn were nice while they lasted...


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Urgh. Does not work woth monk at all.
> Also:I think I have not seen bonus action mentioned in the document anywhere.



It should not work on monk at all.
Monk is better version of that feat.

Same as that awful weapon proficiency feat does not work on fighter as fighter has all weapon proficiencies.
But hey, I turned it into half feat so it works for monk somehow.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It should not work on monk at all.
> Monk is better version of that feat.



One thing they said about these starter feats is they want them to also work for characters whose schtick matches the feat.  So they would want Tavern Brawler to be useful for a Monk.

And I almost fairly certain that they will not give bonus +1s to any of these Level 1 feats because they are only going to be used by characters who are already gaining +2/+1 from their chargen.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 19, 2022)

The hard part about divining how useful feats like Crafter are is whether there are going to be any real changes to the whole Tool proficiency system.  The UA does mention that if you have a Tool and a Skill that are both applicable to a situation that you get to both add your prof bonus and roll with Advantage (I presume this comes out of Tasha's?)... but if that's the case I'd want a strong list of which Tool Profs are meant to match up with which Skills (without needing to refer back to Tasha's).  Because if some Tools have natural matches and thus give the player Advantage when they use them (like Herbalism Kit and Nature, and Musical Instrument and Performance)... but other don't (like what Skill does Carpenter's Tool's match up to when building a crate, and without an Engineering skill can Thieve's Tools ever grant Advantage)... then for my money the Tool Proficiencies again won't be that great a system and I probably will strike them from my game.

Not that I would have a problem doing that... but I figure if they're still stayng in on Tools, I'd certainly prefer a bit of a system punch-up for them given the choice.  This'll be one of the things I'll be talking about in the survey when it comes.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> (I presume this comes out of Tasha's?)



Xanathar's actually I believe. It suggests the DM is the arbiter of what matches up situationally.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 19, 2022)

Akrasia said:


> I haven't been using feats in my 5e game and I'd prefer to leave them out of the core rules. Getting rid of feats (making them optional) was one of my favourite things about 5e.
> 
> Looks like that's no longer going to be the case. _sigh_



I am curious about that. The only data the we have seen has shown previously that a lot of people didn't use feats. I wonder if that has changed with all the new people that have come to D&D. I noticed they didn't really clarify that feats are optional or not in the videos. Two other thoughts:

They describe feats as being like class features that any class can take. Which I am fine with. But class features make a class stronger.  To keep classes balanced with 2014 classes something would need to give if feats are default. So...
Will ASI in character advancement go away or become optional? So right now feats or optional to default ASI. Maybe now ASI will be optional to Feat default. So you can still have Featless D&D However, that seems more difficult with level gated Feats.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Xanathar's actually I believe. It suggests the DM is the arbiter of what matches up situationally.



Thanks!  Knew it was one of the two, just couldn't remember which book.  I will say though that even all the stuff they put in Xanathar's about Tools did not fix the system enough to my liking that I went back to the book's system.  I still strip Tool profs from my game and add/change my Skills list to cover the holes I don't like.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> One thing they said about these starter feats is they want them to also work for characters whose schtick matches the feat.  So they would want Tavern Brawler to be useful for a Monk.
> 
> And I almost fairly certain that they will not give bonus +1s to any of these Level 1 feats because they are only going to be used by characters who are already gaining +2/+1 from their chargen.



Fair enough.

Then the feat needs something more.

I.E.
to be equal to fighting style atleast
1d6 unarmed(1d8 if both arms free)
Shove: as described
Furniture: as described

If you have unarmed strike from any other source, raise the higher damage by one step.
I.E. 11th level monk with this feat would have 1d10(d12 if both hands free) damage instead of d8.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> One thing they said about these starter feats is they want them to also work for characters whose schtick matches the feat.  So they would want Tavern Brawler to be useful for a Monk.
> 
> And I almost fairly certain that they will not give bonus +1s to any of these Level 1 feats because they are only going to be used by characters who are already gaining +2/+1 from their chargen.



Yes, in the video they were explicit that level 1 feats will not have any ability bonuses.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Yes, in the video they were explicit that level 1 feats will not have any ability bonuses.



not needed limitation, but whatever, easy to houserule/ignore.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I would rather have that Shove on Bonus action:
> Here is my take on it:
> +1 str, dex or con
> 1d6 unarmed
> As Bonus action you can make one Unarmed attack or 5ft shove or prone.



Then that would make it the only first level feat to have a +1 to a stat. These feats aren't compared to the old baseline feats but to each other.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Also:I think I have not seen bonus action mentioned in the document anywhere.



From the orc
As an Orc, you have these special traits.​*Adrenaline Rush.* You can take the Dash​Action as a Bonus Action. When you do so, you​gain a number of Temporary Hit Points equal to​your Proficiency Bonus.​It's in a couple of other places as well (Aardling Flight, Dwarf Stonecunning).


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Then that would make it the only first level feat to have a +1 to a stat. These feats aren't compared to the old baseline feats but to each other.



another bad decision and failure to admit mistake of 5E that feats are "optional"

1. Feats never should have been optional
2. All characters should have started with one feat
3. All feats should be comparable with each other as much as possible and being competitive with +2 to primary ability at level 4.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> not needed limitation, but whatever, easy to houserule/ignore.



For general use I think it is a good limitation (though this is just a playtest). Like you say, it is easy to ignore/change, but I think it is a good default.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Thanks!  Knew it was one of the two, just couldn't remember which book.  I will say though that even all the stuff they put in Xanathar's about Tools did not fix the system enough to my liking that I went back to the book's system.  I still strip Tool profs from my game and add/change my Skills list to cover the holes I don't like.



Honestly I feel like Tool profs are a very half-arsed system and you've kind of nailed it by pointing out the mismatch with Skill profs. Xanathar's was heading in the right direction but it didn't get there.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It should not work on monk at all.
> Monk is better version of that feat.
> 
> Same as that awful weapon proficiency feat does not work on fighter as fighter has all weapon proficiencies.
> But hey, I turned it into half feat so it works for monk somehow.




I don't like your Idea and think the designers do it better.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> From the orc
> As an Orc, you have these special traits.​*Adrenaline Rush.* You can take the Dash​Action as a Bonus Action. When you do so, you​gain a number of Temporary Hit Points equal to​your Proficiency Bonus.​It's in a couple of other places as well (Aardling Flight, Dwarf Stonecunning).




Thank you. I was forgetful.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Honestly I feel like Tool profs are a very half-arsed system and you've kind of nailed it by pointing out the mismatch with Skill profs. Xanathar's was heading in the right direction but it didn't get there.




Lets wait and see. And give feedback. Xanathar's was great. I want that in the PHB.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> For general use I think it is a good limitation (though this is just a playtest). Like you say, it is easy to ignore/change, but I think it is a good default.



maybe it should be; 
For beginners, take one of these several feats,
For experienced players; take any feat,


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Lets wait and see. And give feedback. Xanathar's was great. I want that in the PHB.



No question Xanathar's is better than the pure PHB so I will be feeding that back, but I will be echoing @DEFCON 1 's point re: some Tool profs having no skill to go with them and that being a bit of an issue.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

The stand out bad feat is Savage Attacker because, uniquely among the feats, it doesn't scale. It adds in rough terms an average of 1.5 damage to the attacks it applies on. Which is ... OK ... at first level when a fighter is doing about 10 damage per hit.. But there are two big issues.

As you level up you do more damage per hit. A level 1 duelist fighter with Str 16 will do an average of 9.5 damage per hit and the 1.3 damage is about 13% and meaningful. A level 9 duelist fighter with Str 20 and a Flametongue Longsword will do an average of 18.5 damage per hit - and the 1.3 extra damage is about 7% and ... a whole lot less meaningful. This is before taking into account anything like other feats or subclasses further increasing your damage
As you level up you get more attacks. 2 at level 5 - and then there's the three at level 11 and how many more options to use bonus actions or reactions to attack with. Savage Attacker caps at one attack.
Meanwhile _every other feat_ with the exception of Tavern Brawler scales somehow. Normally with proficiency. And even Tavern Brawler's shove has some scaling.


----------



## Tales and Chronicles (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Honestly I feel like Tool profs are a very half-arsed system and you've kind of nailed it by pointing out the mismatch with Skill profs. Xanathar's was heading in the right direction but it didn't get there.



I believe they'll put the tools rules from XGtE in the book. I wish they do the same with the downtime rules, by the way; rules about players actions should be in the PHB.

I think they should go back to 4e's ''martial rituals'' (cant remember their real name) to use with the Tools Proficiencies. That'd be nice.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> another bad decision and failure to admit mistake of 5E that feats are "optional"
> 
> 1. Feats never should have been optional
> 2. All characters should have started with one feat
> 3. All feats should be comparable with each other as much as possible and being competitive with +2 to primary ability at level 4.



There is a _major_ problem with feats in 5e - and that is that because they can all without exception be taken at level 4 none of them can give abilities that would be out of line for a level 4 character.

This playtest explicitly talks about level 1 feats - which are not level 4 feats and are entirely appropriate for a level 1 character. They _aren't_ +2 to a primary ability score or Great Weapon Fighter. And they aren't intended to be; they are intended for level 1 characters.

This is IMO an improvement - a way that you can have all characters starting out with one feat while not having all characters able to start with e.g. Polearm Master while at the same time not removing PAM from the game.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> There is a _major_ problem with feats in 5e - and that is that because they can all without exception be taken at level 4 none of them can give abilities that would be out of line for a level 4 character.
> 
> This playtest explicitly talks about level 1 feats - which are not level 4 feats and are entirely appropriate for a level 1 character. They _aren't_ +2 to a primary ability score or Great Weapon Fighter. And they aren't intended to be; they are intended for level 1 characters.
> 
> This is IMO an improvement - a way that you can have all characters starting out with one feat while not having all characters able to start with e.g. Polearm Master while at the same time not removing PAM from the game.



played many games with variant humans/custom lineage and house ruled bonus feat at 1st level.

only feat that is somewhat of a problem is Heavy armor master at 1st level, but the feat is bad later on.
Maybe it should have been prof bonus damage reduction. Or DR 1 per 2 levels(round up) max of 5.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> This is IMO an improvement - a way that you can have all characters starting out with one feat while not having all characters able to start with e.g. Polearm Master while at the same time not removing PAM from the game.



The only issue I see with it is that frankly some of the L1 Feats are dangerously close to being "Trap Feats" (i.e. "take this if you don't know how the game works mechanically!"), and there aren't enough L1 Feats. It'll be interesting to see the L4 and L8 and so on.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> The only issue I see with it is that frankly some of the L1 Feats are dangerously close to being "Trap Feats" (i.e. "take this if you don't know how the game works mechanically!"), and there aren't enough L1 Feats. It'll be interesting to see the L4 and L8 and so on.



I really hope there wont be level 8 requirement feats.

there should only be a handful of feats with lvl4 requirement as many people are worried about having feats at 1st level.

have following feats lvl4 as min level;

Heavy armor mastery
Polearm mastery
greatweapon mastery
Sharprshooter
Crossbow expert
Mobile
Savage attacker(just kidding, delete this waste of space)


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> One thing they said about these starter feats is they want them to also work for characters whose schtick matches the feat.  So they would want Tavern Brawler to be useful for a Monk.
> 
> And I almost fairly certain that they will not give bonus +1s to any of these Level 1 feats because they are only going to be used by characters who are already gaining +2/+1 from their chargen.



I kinda wish that they would rename "Tavern Brawler" to "Street Fighter."


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> The only issue I see with it is that frankly some of the L1 Feats are dangerously close to being "Trap Feats" (i.e. "take this if you don't know how the game works mechanically!"), and there aren't enough L1 Feats. It'll be interesting to see the L4 and L8 and so on.



Is "some" a euphemism for Savage Attacker (and possibly Tavern Brawler)?


Horwath said:


> I really hope there wont be level 8 requirement feats.
> 
> there should only be a handful of feats with lvl4 requirement as many people are worried about having feats at 1st level.



Why out of curiosity? There is no _current_ feat that should have a requirement higher than L4 - but why can't we have stronger feats as we level up?


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Is "some" a euphemism for Savage Attacker (and possibly Tavern Brawler)?



maybe add the "I'm a tool guy" and "I'm a guitar guy" feats into this.


Neonchameleon said:


> Why out of curiosity? There is no _current_ feat that should have a requirement higher than L4 - but why can't we have stronger feats as we level up?



I believe that higher level abilities should come from class feat(ures).

Feats should be things that almost everyone can learn, but that are not necessary in your class portfolio.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> Is "some" a euphemism for Savage Attacker (and possibly Tavern Brawler)?



And Toughness. Tavern Brawler is just good enough I wouldn't consider it a trap, but it does show the utterly hilariously demented WotC attitude to unarmed/natural weapons continues into 6E. I mean, we kind of knew this from MotM, where WotC continues to insanely think having claws that do 1d6+STR damage is an awesome ability and not literally useless to perilously close to 100% of characters. Again I must theorize that WotC's own designers constantly run (like every third session) "You got stripped naked and thrown in jail" adventures, because it's just nonsensical otherwise. Natural weapons which don't integrate into Bonus Action attacks or the like are basically as useful as saying "This race has bright blue skin".


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> maybe add the "I'm a tool guy" and "I'm a guitar guy" feats into this.



I definitely wouldn't go so far as to call musician a trap with all the free inspiration it hands out (if you use short rests). I think that Crafter (which, oddly, covers gambling) needs its bonus polished.


Horwath said:


> I believe that higher level abilities should come from class feat(ures).
> 
> Feats should be things that almost everyone can learn, but that are not necessary in your class portfolio.



Meanwhile I believe that the tiers should be meaningful - and what "everyone" who reaches level 20 can learn is significantly wider than what every 12 year old can learn.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> I really hope there wont be level 8 requirement feats.
> 
> there should only be a handful of feats with lvl4 requirement as many people are worried about having feats at 1st level.
> 
> ...



They seriously should delete Savage Attacker. It's mean to present people with wasteful choices just because they're not system-savvy. It's particularly extra-offensive because it forces you to consider whether to use it, once you get multiple attacks. Like that's an entirely needless decision-point. And it's supposed to happen before you roll too, which messes with people rolling attack and damage at the same time to save time.

Sometimes I genuinely wonder if WotC's designers actually play D&D. I know they do, but they seem so wildly unfamiliar with how people actually use dice that it disturbs me.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> And Toughness. Tavern Brawler is just good enough I wouldn't consider it a trap, but it does show the utterly hilariously demented WotC attitude to unarmed/natural weapons continues into 6E. I mean, we kind of knew this from MotM, where WotC continues to insanely think having claws that do 1d6+STR damage is an awesome ability and not literally useless to perilously close to 100% of characters. Again I must theorize that WotC's own designers constantly run (like every third session) "You got stripped naked and thrown in jail" adventures, because it's just nonsensical otherwise. Natural weapons which don't integrate into Bonus Action attacks or the like are basically as useful as saying "This race has bright blue skin".



this.

Having an unarmed d4 damage is about useful(powerful) as an extra tool proficiency. I would say 1/12th of a feat.

If you cannot do 1d8 or 1d12 with both hands of claw damage, do not pretend that it is a worthwhile investment.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> maybe add the "I'm a tool guy" and "I'm a guitar guy" feats into this.



Musician is fine. Crafter I can't say yet, but my guess is the 20% discount thing is actually potentially useful unless your DM is just like "doesn't apply" to everything.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> If you cannot do 1d8 or 1d12 with both hands of claw damage, do not pretend that it is a worthwhile investment.



Even 1d8 is questionable unless it counts as a melee weapon for all purposes and preferably has Finesse as a characteristic, which the natural weapons normally do not. It's like I'd love to have a Leonin who fought with his claws, but they're terrible - 1d4+STR damage and they're an unarmed strike, so not a weapon.

It looks like 6E may be correcting the not-a-weapon thing but even then it's pathetic damage and no Finesse or other characteristics and a PITA to make magical etc etc. Weird how PF handles this infinitely better.


----------



## Nikosandros (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> And Toughness. Tavern Brawler is just good enough I wouldn't consider it a trap, but it does show the utterly hilariously demented WotC attitude to unarmed/natural weapons continues into 6E. I mean, we kind of knew this from MotM, where WotC continues to insanely think having claws that do 1d6+STR damage is an awesome ability and not literally useless to perilously close to 100% of characters. Again I must theorize that WotC's own designers constantly run (like every third session) "You got stripped naked and thrown in jail" adventures, because it's just nonsensical otherwise. Natural weapons which don't integrate into Bonus Action attacks or the like are basically as useful as saying "This race has bright blue skin".



100% agree. It is so frustrating to see wasted racial powers on things like you can bite for 1d6 damage (if not 1d4!) that doesn't scale in any way...


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> And Toughness.



I consider that most people vastly overrate Constitution as a stat. But one of the biggest things it does is to give you more hp - especially as there are no skills based on Constitution. 2hp/level gives you the same combat endurance boost much of the time as +4 Con.

Savage Attacker I've tried to defend elsewhere in its state as is partly to work out whether it's just bad or an actual trap (and actual trap is my conclusion mostly because it doesn't scale) but here I genuinely think you are _way_ off.


Ruin Explorer said:


> Tavern Brawler is just good enough I wouldn't consider it a trap, but it does show the utterly hilariously demented WotC attitude to unarmed/natural weapons continues into 6E.



I think that for a monk it's surprisingly good (free disengages) but for anyone else it's ... at least not pretending to be useful most of the time.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Musician is fine. Crafter I can't say yet, but my guess is the 20% discount thing is actually potentially useful unless your DM is just like "doesn't apply" to everything.



For the 20% discount to be actually useful past third level you'd need meaningful money sinks in D&D. I'm more interested in the time - and whether they'll do anything with the fact it also covers gambling.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> I consider that most people vastly overrate Constitution as a stat. But one of the biggest things it does is to give you more hp - especially as there are no skills based on Constitution. 2hp/level gives you the same combat endurance boost much of the time as +4 Con.



To be honest I go back and forth on Toughness. Like I know intellectually that you're correct, but I've seen PCs with Toughness, and somehow it's just not working for them, y'know? Like, they're dying just as often as other PCs, and I dunno what exactly is causing this, like is it incaution on their part, is it something mechanical that's getting things there, is it just bad luck and not representative? I dunno. But my mind says Toughness isn't quite a trap (not as an L1 Feat), but it isn't as good as it sounds on paper. Sorry to be vague.

I will say with that and Dwarf you could have +3 HP/level which with some classes would be close to double HP (before CON), that's gotta count for something, right?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> For the 20% discount to be actually useful past third level you'd need meaningful money sinks in D&D. I'm more interested in the time - and whether they'll do anything with the fact it also covers gambling.



I'm assuming they just have to be introducing a ton more money sinks, because it would be easy to do and madness not to, but I guess we'll see.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> To be honest I go back and forth on Toughness. Like I know intellectually that you're correct, but I've seen PCs with Toughness, and somehow it's just not working for them, y'know? Like, they're dying just as often as other PCs, and I dunno what exactly is causing this, like is incaution on their part, is it something mechanical that's getting things there, is it just bad luck and not representative? I dunno. But my mind says Toughness isn't quite a trap (not as an L1 Feat), but it isn't as good as it sounds on paper. Sorry to be vague.



I know what you mean here. And I think that rather than a mechancal trap it's the sort of effect that makes winding roads with poor visibility safer because people drive more cautiously so when you have the accidents (with the rates barely changing) you'll be driving more slowly.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> 100% agree. It is so frustrating to see wasted racial powers on things like you can bite for 1d6 damage (if not 1d4!) that doesn't scale in any way...



It is only wasted if valued to much, if you value unarmed damage as extra tool or language or a single weapon, then I'm fine with it. If you value it as a skill proficiency or darkvision, then it's a problem.

Every race should have 4 or 5 minor trait slots:
tool proficiency,
language,
weapon proficiency,
unarmed damage,
unarmored defense(12+dex),
non damaging/non save cantrip that it is not guidance


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

maybe Toughness could give 4HP at 1st level and then 2HP per level, as in 2 steps in increasing your HD.
4HP would be noticable even for high HP classes(d10/d12)


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 19, 2022)

Neonchameleon said:


> I know what you mean here. And I think that rather than a mechancal trap it's the sort of effect that makes winding roads with poor visibility safer because people drive more cautiously so when you have the accidents (with the rates barely changing) you'll be driving more slowly.



Thinking out loud here:

1) If you don't get like, into the bottom 50% of your HP with some regularity it doesn't _really _matter how many HP you have (above level 1/2) because it's so unlikely you'll be one-shot or even two-shot. And that's a lot of PCs, in my experience. So they have this higher number but it's not actually helping them most of the time, because like, quite often it's the same number of actual hits to kill them, or very close. Ironically the higher the damage-per-hit the less it's likely those extra HP will matter too. This is actually part of why D&D works so well with classes with significantly different HP values (not all games do).

2) Toughness (and Dwarf) don't help you to regain HPs (unlike CON, which helps with HD healing at the least). They just give you a higher initial max. So both HD healing and magical healing only heals the same exact amount as PCs without those Feats. So the extra HP only count "once per day", as it were, assuming a Long Rest. Like, two level 6 Fighters, a Toughness one has 12 HP more - but only once per day and quite likely on a tough day, both those Fighters go through more than 100% of their HP, what with Second Wind, magical healing, and HD healing.

Add in the "incautious driving" factor, because the guy who has 20% more HP is probably going to worry less about damage, even when he should worry, and I think that accounts for most of it. I think the "doesn't help you regain HPs" thing is particularly part of what makes this rather trap-y. I guess I will suggest that it should add to HD HP rolls at the very least in the Feedback.


----------



## Stalker0 (Aug 19, 2022)

This new alert feat is way weaker than the last one. Losing the “you can no longer be surprised” clause is a huge loss (though it’s possible that surprise is just advantage on initiative checks now…based on one snippet of the Packet, but that’s an unknown)


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> After Tasha's playtest, they decided that having rangers with Hunter's mark without concentration would break the game and then they added Twilight cleric as "perfectly balanced" sub-class...



okay... that is funny


Horwath said:


> Let's just say that when it comes to themes and "feel" of the game, they did great job with 5E, but when it comes to balance and numbers, they don't have a clue, because if they do, they would not waste time writing Crafter, Musician and Savage attacker in this form.
> They are not worth half a feat, yet they have audacity to make them full feats.



I agree, I have been told that there is a chart about how spells that lock opponents out of count as only minor damage


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 19, 2022)

I suspect that in the case of all of these Level 1 starter feats... they really need to boost them all equally-- in that they should each have a functionality for the character outside of combat and as part of combat.  If you can't give a small bonus to both sides with the feat in question... you either need to redo the mechanics or else change the name to allow for it.

I can't remember who said it and in which thread... but I agree that so long as you have combat-only feats alongside non-combat-only feats... you're never going to get them balanced.  Except in the most extreme "characterization" players will you ever have someone take Crafter over Lucky.  The Tool system and the Money system in the game are both too wishy-washy to make a feat that aids both of them seem actually useful.  You would need to give that feat something that would help the character in battle for it to have anything meaningful for a large percentage of the playerbase.

What that combat-related ability could be for Crafter in particular (that would also be useful for the Artificer class) I do not know.  But there has to be something.


----------



## King Babar (Aug 19, 2022)

This was mainly "biking home from work" brainstorming, but I wonder if *Crafter *would be more worthwhile if it allowed a character to make two items for the same resource and time cost as one.

This would be quite powerful, but the current effects are pretty lame by themselves. Doubly so when you consider it's competing with other feats and faced with D&D's anemic crafting system.


----------



## John R Davis (Aug 19, 2022)

I can only see one mention of Short Rest, and then it's not defined in the glossary ( whereas long rest gets a full write up?) Or are my ancient half-elf eyes fading????


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 19, 2022)

Tales and Chronicles said:


> I believe they'll put the tools rules from XGtE in the book. I wish they do the same with the downtime rules, by the way; rules about players actions should be in the PHB.
> 
> I think they should go back to 4e's ''martial rituals'' (cant remember their real name) to use with the Tools Proficiencies. That'd be nice.



Martial Practices.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 19, 2022)

King Babar said:


> This was mainly "biking home from work" brainstorming, but I wonder if *Crafter *would be more worthwhile if it allowed a character to make two items for the same resource and time cost as one.
> 
> This would be quite powerful, but the current effects are pretty lame by themselves. Doubly so when you consider it's competing with other feats and faced with D&D's anemic crafting system.



I know that it is a hard weird limit... but are potions alchemy or magic? can you make magic healing potions from the 2014 phb this way?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 19, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> Martial Practices.



yes I think they were half baked at best... but loved the concept.


----------



## King Babar (Aug 19, 2022)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I know that it is a hard weird limit... but are potions alchemy or magic? can you make magic healing potions from the 2014 phb this way?



Going off the rules in Xanathar's, A potion of healing can be made after 1 day and 25gp if you have a herbalism kit.

PHB rules would be 10 days and 25gp. If I'm reading it correctly.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> Let's just say that when it comes to themes and "feel" of the game, they did great job with 5E, but when it comes to balance and numbers, they don't have a clue, because if they do, they would not waste time writing Crafter, Musician and Savage attacker in this form.




I think judgement on the Crafter feat should wait until we see if they revise crafting rules.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> I think judgement on the Crafter feat should wait until we see if they revise crafting rules.



if they are going to make 4E style magic mart shops then this feat is completely overpowered and needs to be removed.

If magic item trading stays ambiguous as now and only way you can make something out of this feat is to open a 7/11 full-plate shop, it is still horrible design.

1. remove 20% buy discount
2. add expertise in one tool.
3. make 50% reduction in crafting time
4. make it a half feat.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> if they are going to make 4E style magic mart shops then this feat is completely overpowered and needs to be removed.
> 
> If magic item trading stays ambiguous as now and only way you can make something out of this feat is to open a 7/11 full-plate shop, it is still horrible design.




As if those are the only options?  All righty then.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Umbran said:


> As if those are the only options?  All righty then.



those are extremes.


discounts should stay in charisma checks and getting favors through roleplay.

getting -X% discount via feat feels cheap. Pun intended.

maybe advantage for bartering checks and then let your DM decide on DC or if success is possible.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> even the 1st level feat have the "always take" and dump tier category:
> 
> Everyone will consider Alert, Tough and Lucky, maybe Magic initiate. Possibly Healer
> Rest will be ignored as usual.
> ...



I thought Musician was a joke feat, but others persuaded me it's not as bad as it looks at first. Completely ignore the musical instruments part. Let's say you have two short rests a day, and of course you start your day with a long rest. And let's say your proficiency bonus is a 3. So that's 9 advantages you're handing out every day, which can be used on key things like saving throws, including concentration checks and death saves. And PCs who receive your inspiration can now trade them out to other PCs who need them. And the feat scales with level - once you get a 4 proficiency bonus, now you're handing out 12 advantages every day.

That's pretty good. It's not as good as Alert, Lucky and Magic Initiate, but it's far better than Crafter and Savage Attacker and fits well with a number of good character concepts.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> I thought Musician was a joke feat, but others persuaded me it's not as bad as it looks at first. Completely ignore the musical instruments part. Let's say you have two short rests a day, and of course you start your day with a long rest. And let's say your proficiency bonus is a 3. So that's 9 advantages you're handing out every day, which can be used on key things like saving throws, including concentration checks and death saves. And PCs who receive your inspiration can now trade them out to other PCs who need them. And the feat scales with level - once you get a 4 proficiency bonus, now you're handing out 12 advantages every day.
> 
> That's pretty good. It's not as good as Alert, Lucky and Magic Initiate, but it's far better than Crafter and Savage Attacker and fits well with a number of good character concepts.



if the short rest gets reduced to 1-5 min it might work, then again you gain inspiration if you make any roll a 20.

I'm sure that there will be lots of calling to make skill(ability) checks for trivial things.

it if were made a half-feat, I might be half interested in it.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 19, 2022)

I've been giving feats out at 1st level, for free, since 2017.  I haven't noticed any issues with game balance yet.

I guess it's nice to know that my house-rule is about to be codified in the rulebook.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I've been giving feats out at 1st level, for free, since 2017.  I haven't noticed any issues with game balance yet.
> 
> I guess it's nice to know that my house-rule is about to be codified in the rulebook.



I thing they implemented it as it was one of the most popular house rules.

but still, they feel they need to to half arsed job out of it by limiting what feats are taken.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> if the short rest gets reduced to 1-5 min it might work, then again you gain inspiration if you make any roll a 20.
> 
> I'm sure that there will be lots of calling to make skill(ability) checks for trivial things.
> 
> it if were made a half-feat, I might be half interested in it.



Why do you view Lucky as worthwhile, with 3-4 advantages/disadvantages a day, while Musician as worthless with 9-12 advantages a day? Yes, Lucky lets you gain advantage after the roll so it's wasted less often, but it has far less uses a day. I still put Lucky above Musician but I definitely no longer see Musician as a bad feat. You're not rolling a ton of natural 20s every adventuring day. It's still only a 5% chance.


----------



## Weiley31 (Aug 19, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> and bring back the drunken condition



Imagine if they reworked subclasses, and Druken Master required ya to be in the Druken condition all the time in order to use it fully?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 19, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> And, on that subject, they've apparently re-nerfed Dragon Breath. Le sigh. Metallic, Chromatic, and Gem Dragonborn were nice while they lasted...




Not if we all "HATE IT!" when the survey arrives!


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> I can only see one mention of Short Rest, and then it's not defined in the glossary ( whereas long rest gets a full write up?) Or are my ancient half-elf eyes fading????



In the second paragraph of the Rules Glossary:  
"If a term doesn’t appear here, use its
definition in the 2014 Player’s Handbook."


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Aug 19, 2022)

I like feats and felt the game lost a lot when they became optional. So attaching feats to backgrounds is a good thing. It makes since in places where you strongly want to attach special background stuff to characters like Strixhaven and those UAs that are trying to test these sort of things.

Do I do find feats like Great Weapon Mastery to be a problem, they represent things I didn't like about must have feats in 3e for characters to be viable like: Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Great Cleave, Spring Attack and Whirlwind Attack. In the case of Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter and the like, I think those should be an "Advanced Fighting Style" feature that classes like Fighter, Ranger, Paladin and Barbarian get.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

Tweaks I might make:

Add the following sentence to *Savage Attacker:*
"In addition, when you score a Critical Hit with a Weapon as described above, instead of rolling the damage dice for the Weapon a second time, use the max value for the Weapon's damage dice and add that as extra damage to the target."

(This is a change I might instead implement for critical weapon hit by anyone, because it sucks rolling two 1's for a critical hit. But then would need something else for Savage Attacker. Provided the Critical Hit changes make it through.)

Add the following sentence to *Tavern Brawler* - Furniture as Weapons:
"Whenever you roll a damage dice for attack using furniture, you can reroll the die if it rolls a 1, and you must use the new roll. However, the furniture breaks if you do this."

I know, minor damage boost with a downside, but I like the flavor of actually _smashing _a chair across an opponent.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

Something I don't think is intended but needs better wording for Tavern Brawler: 

"Enhanced Unarmed Strike. When you hit with
your Unarmed Strike* and deal damage, you
can deal Bludgeoning Damage equal to 1d4 +
your Strength modifier, instead of the normal
damage of an Unarmed Strike."

Reading as is, it could be interpreted that a Monk with a d10 Unarmed Strike would have it reduced to 1d4.

Another thing about TB, the Shove action lets you do damage AND shove the target. So, it's essentially a free action. I was confused by the suggestion earlier to make it a bonus action, as that would actually be a nerf (unless it would _still_ deal damage as a bonus action, in which case it'd then be a bit over the top.)


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 19, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> Reading as is, it could be interpreted that a Monk with a d10 Unarmed Strike would have it reduced to 1d4.



Since it says "you can deal" rather than "you deal," it's pretty clearly opt-in.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

Ah, true. Disregard my complaint, then.

I still want furniture to get broken in the tavern brawls.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 19, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> I know, minor damage boost with a downside, but I like the flavor of actually _smashing _a chair across an opponent.



So...basically something you'd never use unless you know you aren't going to need that bit of furniture anymore? Because the benefit is microscopic and applies (based on what you're saying here) to literally _one_ damage roll, not even to all attacks in a given Attack action.

I absolutely get your position and, generally, agree that it's cooler and more flavorful to have "break the furniture" as an option, I just don't think the benefit is worth the cost here.

Personally, my recommendation would be something like (wording is probably sloppy, I'm tired) "you can give yourself Advantage on any attack roll made with furniture, but if you miss an attack while using this benefit, the furniture breaks." This gives a push-the-envelope mechanic, and demonstrates the luck involved in this sort of thing--maybe the chair lasts the whole way through, maybe it breaks after a single swing. Edit: Further, you could have a final stinger, e.g. "if you break a piece of furniture using this feature, you can deal 1d6 Bludgeoning damage plus your Strength modifier." Which would very specifically include the "break a chair over their head" direction you're hoping for.


----------



## Snarf Zagyg (Aug 19, 2022)

So I have an idea for humans to keep them roughly equivalent to the other races .... seriously, gnomish cunning? Advantage on three different saves? I was just building a monk, and while I can't conceptually get my head around a gnome monk for a lot reasons, a gnome monk would start with proficiency on two saves, and advantage on three more (everything but Con).

And if you ever get you gnome monk up to Diamond Soul, without anything else, you are proficient in all saves, advantage on three, and can reroll any failed save.


Anyway, humans. My proposal instead of "Skilled" as a feat-

SuperSkilled (yes, it needs a better name)
+1 Proficiency
+1 Expertise
+1 ASI


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> Ah, true. Disregard my complaint, then.
> 
> I still want furniture to get broken in the tavern brawls.



I want improvised weapons in Street Fighting!







And cars to get broken!


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> Personally, my recommendation would be something like (wording is probably sloppy, I'm tired) "you can give yourself Advantage on any attack roll made with furniture, but if you miss an attack while using this benefit, the furniture breaks." This gives a push-the-envelope mechanic, and demonstrates the luck involved in this sort of thing--maybe the chair lasts the whole way through, maybe it breaks after a single swing.



Interesting, mainly because it's almost the exact mechanic in a rules-lite game I'm prepping to run (Death in Space.) In that, you can spend a Void point, similar to Inspiration, to give yourself Advantage. But if you fail, you make a check or gain a corruption specific to that game.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Aug 19, 2022)

Edit: Never mind, seems like someone already thought it up and I hadn't read all the way through the thread.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 19, 2022)

I thought for a second that the title said "Feats and MINSC" and I was wondering what that maniac had to do with feats.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Aug 19, 2022)

P







Snarf Zagyg said:


> So I have an idea for humans to keep them roughly equivalent to the other races .... seriously, gnomish cunning? Advantage on three different saves? I was just building a monk, and while I can't conceptually get my head around a gnome monk for a lot reasons, a gnome monk would start with proficiency on two saves, and advantage on three more (everything but Con).
> 
> And if you ever get you gnome monk up to Diamond Soul, without anything else, you are proficient in all saves, advantage on three, and can reroll any failed save.
> 
> ...



Please no extra ASIs.

Proficiency, Expertise sounds great though.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 19, 2022)

Aldarc said:


>



You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> Regarding the new rules for crits, I don't think that they can really be evaluated without reading the new classes. For example, maybe rogues compensate the nerf in some other way, but without looking at the playtest rogue, it's hard to form an opinion.



Yeah, this is a real problem with introducing these changes one chunk at a time instead of a full vertical slice. We lack the necessary context to properly evaluate the rules glossary changes.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> One thing they said about these starter feats is they want them to also work for characters whose schtick matches the feat.  So they would want Tavern Brawler to be useful for a Monk.



Which is a great move in my opinion.


DEFCON 1 said:


> And I almost fairly certain that they will not give bonus +1s to any of these Level 1 feats because they are only going to be used by characters who are already gaining +2/+1 from their chargen.



Jeremy said as much in the video. Well, he said “not increasing ability scores is a sign of a first level feat.” Which could be interrupted to mean that all Feats of higher than 1st level increase ability scores, but I don’t think that was his intent.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> The UA does mention that if you have a Tool and a Skill that are both applicable to a situation that you get to both add your prof bonus and roll with Advantage (I presume this comes out of Tasha's?)



Xanathar’s.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Which is a great move in my opinion.
> 
> Jeremy said as much in the video. Well, he said “not increasing ability scores is a sign of a first level feat.” Which could be interrupted to mean that all Feats of higher than 1st level increase ability scores, but I don’t think that was his intent.



Yeah, probably more like "first level feats don't have ASI's, but not all feats without ASI's are first level."


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Honestly I feel like Tool profs are a very half-arsed system and you've kind of nailed it by pointing out the mismatch with Skill profs. Xanathar's was heading in the right direction but it didn't get there.



Tool profs were designed in a context where checks were ability-first and proficiencies (be they skill, tool, or other) were an optional add-on, and make perfect sense in that context. Technically, that is still true of 5e as-written, but not how most DM’s actually run it.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Jeremy said as much in the video. Well, he said “not increasing ability scores is a sign of a first level feat.” Which could be interrupted to mean that all Feats of higher than 1st level increase ability scores, but I don’t think that was his intent.



Of course, making all feats into half-feats above 1st level could be a way to nerf some of the more problematic feats.

IIRC, the clear majority of feats in Tasha's were half-feats, also.  Could be indicative of a design shift.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> Of course, making all feats into half-feats above 1st level could be a way to nerf some of the more problematic feats.
> 
> IIRC, the clear majority of feats in Tasha's were half-feats, also.  Could be indicative of a design shift.



Replacing ASIs or still a choice between them and feats, you think?


----------



## Henadic Theologian (Aug 19, 2022)

EzekielRaiden said:


> It's mentioned in the ardling writeup.
> 
> 
> And, on that subject, they've apparently re-nerfed Dragon Breath. Le sigh. Metallic, Chromatic, and Gem Dragonborn were nice while they lasted...




 I think there is still time to correct that.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> maybe Toughness could give 4HP at 1st level and then 2HP per level, as in 2 steps in increasing your HD.
> 4HP would be noticable even for high HP classes(d10/d12)



I like that idea.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

John R Davis said:


> I can only see one mention of Short Rest, and then it's not defined in the glossary ( whereas long rest gets a full write up?) Or are my ancient half-elf eyes fading????



You’re correct, presumably because long rests changed and short rests did not.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 19, 2022)

Sir Brennen said:


> Replacing ASIs or still a choice between them and feats, you think?



My gut feeling is that they're going to replace "Ability Score Improvement" with "Feat" in the class tables, and "Improve 2 different stats by 1" is going to be a 4th level repeatable feat.

I also don't think raising a stat by 2 at once is going to be possible, because I think they want people to take feats as opposed to beelining for 20s.  I have nothing to base that on, just what I'm feeling.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

Horwath said:


> if the short rest gets reduced to 1-5 min it might work, then again you gain inspiration if you make any roll a 20.



Part of the change to long rests was that if one gets interrupted after 1 hour or more, you still get the benefits of a short rest. So I think it’s a safe bet that short rests are still an hour.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

It's also telling what are not included among the 1st level feats. It's not just the Great Weapon Masters and Polearm Master feats. It's also the ones that provide armor and weapon proficiencies.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

TwoSix said:


> My gut feeling is that they're going to replace "Ability Score Improvement" with "Feat" in the class tables, and "Improve 2 different stats by 1" is going to be a 4th level repeatable feat.



I agree.


TwoSix said:


> I also don't think raising a stat by 2 at once is going to be possible, because I think they want people to take feats as opposed to beelining for 20s.  I have nothing to base that on, just what I'm feeling.



As you say, this is baseless, but I’d be up for it. Especially if they do actually make all 4th+ level feats give +1 to an ability score.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> It's also telling what are not included among the 1st level feats. It's not just the Great Weapon Masters and Polearm Master feats. It's also the ones that provide armor and weapon proficiencies.



Which is kinda odd in my opinion. They said they were shifting cultural traits from race to background, but there’s no way to gain the traditional racial weapon and armor proficiencies from your background. Maybe this choice will make more sense as we get more context, but right now it feels like Weapon Master and lightly/moderately/heavily armored (sans the +1 in Str/Dex/Con) would have been obvious candidates for 1st level Feats.


----------



## TwoSix (Aug 19, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> It's also telling what are not included among the 1st level feats. It's not just the Great Weapon Masters and Polearm Master feats. It's also the ones that provide armor and weapon proficiencies.



Very true.  I wonder if there's going to be a different system to assign starting skills, proficiencies, etc.  Possibly they view 1-level dips just to grab armor proficiencies and different saves as problematic.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, this is a real problem with introducing these changes one chunk at a time instead of a full vertical slice. We lack the necessary context to properly evaluate the rules glossary changes.



The other problem is that fills me with anxiety as to what the next installment contains.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Which is kinda odd in my opinion. They said they were shifting cultural traits from race to background, but there’s no way to gain the traditional racial weapon and armor proficiencies from your background. Maybe this choice will make more sense as we get more context, but right now it feels like Weapon Master and lightly/moderately/heavily armored (sans the +1 in Str/Dex/Con) would have been obvious candidates for 1st level Feats.



Maybe they don't want the Wizard to start out with more armor proficiencies at 1st level?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Tool profs were designed in a context where checks were ability-first and proficiencies (be they skill, tool, or other) were an optional add-on, and make perfect sense in that context. Technically, that is still true of 5e as-written, but not how most DM’s actually run it.




Doesn't help that it's not how official character sheets are designed.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Which is kinda odd in my opinion. They said they were shifting cultural traits from race to background, but there’s no way to gain the traditional racial weapon and armor proficiencies from your background. Maybe this choice will make more sense as we get more context, but right now it feels like Weapon Master and lightly/moderately/heavily armored (sans the +1 in Str/Dex/Con) would have been obvious candidates for 1st level Feats.



It's probable that they are such obvious and easy candidates that they don't feel that they need playtesting. They can 'port in as-is. (Minus the stat-bump, as you say.)


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Which is kinda odd in my opinion. They said they were shifting cultural traits from race to background, but there’s no way to gain the traditional racial weapon and armor proficiencies from your background. Maybe this choice will make more sense as we get more context, but right now it feels like Weapon Master and lightly/moderately/heavily armored (sans the +1 in Str/Dex/Con) would have been obvious candidates for 1st level Feats.



On this note, I want to propose a couple of Feats:

Dwarven Combat Training
_1st Level Feat_
*Prerequisite:* None
*Repeatable:* No

You have been trained in the traditional Dwarven fighting style. You gain the folllwing benefits.

*Weapon Proficiencies.* You gain proficiency with the battleaxe, hand axe, light hammer, and warhammer.
*Armor Proficiencies.* You gain proficiency with medium armor and shields.
*Weight Distribution.* Your speed is not reduced by wearing heavy armor.

Elven Combat Training
_1st Level Feat_
*Prerequisite:* None
*Repeatable:* No

You have been trained in the traditional Elven fighting style. You gain the folllwing benefits.

*Weapon Proficiencies.* You gain proficiency with the longsword, shortsword, longbow, and shortbow.
*Armor Proficiency.* You gain proficiency with light armor.
*Fleet of Foot.* Your base walking speed increases by 5 feet.

You could make similar ones for other cultural styles.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Doesn't help that it's not how official character sheets are designed.



Indeed! Very frustrating. There were other designs during the playtest that worked better, but people insisted on having spaces to pre-calculate their bonuses. Cause I guess adding two one-digit numbers and one two-digit number together is too much to ask.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> On this note, I want to propose a couple of Feats:
> 
> Dwarven Combat Training
> _1st Level Feat_
> ...



Yeah, I think this would be the best way to go to replicate previous racial cultural benefits. The Dwarven "Forge Wise" trait should get a similar one as well, though probably would need another benefit or two to make it feat worthy. And a new trait to replace it.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

Aldarc said:


> Maybe they don't want the Wizard to start out with more armor proficiencies at 1st level?



But non-casters starting with a spell is fine. I dunno, just seems weird to me.


----------



## Aldarc (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> But non-casters starting with a spell is fine. I dunno, just seems weird to me.



Not sure. Armor boosts your AC, which seems to have more of a passive effect in combat (i.e., survivability) than most cantrips. I suppose I have less issue with the Linear Fighter getting some minor magic than the Quadratic Wizard getting armor.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> On this note, I want to propose a couple of Feats:
> 
> Dwarven Combat Training
> _1st Level Feat_
> ...



I love it. Preserves the potential for a cultural background to let a dwarf wizard use armor or an elf rogue use a longbow, but doesn't enforce that cultural heritage on the street urchin who never met another dwarf or elf, and doesn't give the race a feature useless to half the classes who just get the relevant proficiencies anyway (or only useful using Tasha's rules to swap duplicate weapon proficiencies for a ridiculous number of extra tools or whatever).


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 19, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> Not if we all "HATE IT!" when the survey arrives!



Nah, they'll just work extra-hard to convince us that we _don't actually _hate it.  I wouldn't be surprised if 6E isn't already 90% written (or more).  2024 is only 16 months away, after all, and it takes time to put a book together.  They don't have time to completely rewrite it, and scrapping it isn't really an option either...so...


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Aug 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Nah, they'll just work extra-hard to convince us that we _don't actually _hate it.  I wouldn't be surprised if 6E isn't already 90% written (or more).  2024 is only 18 months away, after all, and it takes time to put a book together.  They don't have time to completely rewrite it, and scrapping it isn't really an option either...



I mean, I think that generally holds true for the core mechanical decisions they've made. 

I think in terms of specific features of specific races and such they are a lot more willing to work from feedback. Ultimately very little of the game hinges on a dragonborn's breath weapon.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 19, 2022)

Benjamin Olson said:


> I mean, I think that generally holds true for the core mechanical decisions they've made.
> 
> I think in terms of specific features of specific races and such they are a lot more willing to work from feedback. Ultimately very little of the game hinges on a dragonborn's breath weapon.



I was speaking to the general attitude of "if enough people say they hate it, they'll change their minds,"  implying that the playtesters can use the surveys to direct the project.  Wizards of the Coast will be looking for feedback on stuff they've already decided--not asking us for direction, or new ideas.


----------



## Charlaquin (Aug 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> wouldn't be surprised if 6E isn't already 90% written (or more).  2024 is only 16 months away, after all, and it takes time to put a book together.  They don't have time to completely rewrite it, and scrapping it isn't really an option either...so...



I mean, with the previews playtest packets coming out monthly and surveys following two weeks after, I think it’s abundantly clear that this is the case. But, I also think they have an idea what changes are most likely to be controversial, and are prepared to walk them back if the responses to them are _too_ negative. Like, you can see in the video how much they hedge the critical hit changes and emphasize “this is JUST AN EXPERIMENT!” Because they know it’s not likely to go over well. But they’re putting it out there anyway, maybe partly as “censor bait,” and because hey, maybe folks won’t mind as much as they expect.


----------



## CleverNickName (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I mean, with the previews playtest packets coming out monthly and surveys following two weeks after, I think it’s abundantly clear that this is the case. But, I also think they have an idea what changes are most likely to be controversial, and are prepared to walk them back if the responses to them are _too_ negative. Like, you can see in the video how much they hedge the critical hit changes and emphasize “this is JUST AN EXPERIMENT!” Because they know it’s not likely to go over well. But they’re putting it out there anyway, maybe partly as “censor bait,” and because hey, maybe folks won’t mind as much as they expect.



Yeah, that's true.  My writing and publishing experience is very limited, but I can attest that it's _much_ easier to remove material that I've already written, than it is to change it...and both are easier than creating all-new material.

They are soliciting feedback, but I think that feedback is intended more for generating hype and get people talking about it...and most importantly, convincing each other that these changes are good and necessary and exciting.  Honestly, it's a brilliant marketing strategy and you can see it totally working, right here in real-time on ENWorld.  But I imagine if the feedback is spicy enough, they might decide to make tiny changes here and there.  But they're much more likely to just cut material from the initial release, then add it back in later in _Xanathar's II _or something once they've had a chance to refine it outside of the schedule.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 19, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Yeah, that's true.  My writing and publishing experience is very limited, but I can attest that it's _much_ easier to remove material that I've already written, than it is to change it...and both are easier than creating all-new material.
> 
> They are soliciting feedback, but I think that feedback is intended more for generating hype and get people talking about it...and most importantly, convincing each other that these changes are good and necessary and exciting.  Honestly, it's a brilliant marketing strategy and you can see it totally working, right here in real-time on ENWorld.  But I imagine if the feedback is spicy enough, they might decide to make tiny changes here and there.  But they're much more likely to just cut material from the initial release, then add it back in later in _Xanathar's II _or something once they've had a chance to refine it outside of the schedule.




I don't doubt that the playtest is ALSO designed to generate hype and get people talking, but they have definitely made changes before based on UA feedback (not always for the better, mind). I think it is likely that if the "new" Dragonborn gets negative feedback, they can easily cut-and-paste the Fizban's one into the new PHB.


----------



## Micah Sweet (Aug 19, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Which is kinda odd in my opinion. They said they were shifting cultural traits from race to background, but there’s no way to gain the traditional racial weapon and armor proficiencies from your background. Maybe this choice will make more sense as we get more context, but right now it feels like Weapon Master and lightly/moderately/heavily armored (sans the +1 in Str/Dex/Con) would have been obvious candidates for 1st level Feats.



Come to Level Up!  We have a place for you.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 20, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Yeah, that's true.  My writing and publishing experience is very limited, but I can attest that it's _much_ easier to remove material that I've already written, than it is to change it...and both are easier than creating all-new material.
> 
> They are soliciting feedback, but I think that feedback is intended more for generating hype and get people talking about it...and most importantly, convincing each other that these changes are good and necessary and exciting.  Honestly, it's a brilliant marketing strategy and you can see it totally working, right here in real-time on ENWorld.  But I imagine if the feedback is spicy enough, they might decide to make tiny changes here and there.  But they're much more likely to just cut material from the initial release, then add it back in later in _Xanathar's II _or something once they've had a chance to refine it outside of the schedule.



I think they have fully mapped out the maximum extent of changes they are comfortable with, and any direction will be walking back to the 2014 norm on a given point. I don't think the books are substantially done yet since D&D books have a 13 month development cycle, and these are 2 years (as much as 2.25 years) away from publication. As such, I think they have their ideas mapped out and are trying tinsel how far out they can go. I doubt they will introduce any further changes based on feedback.

They've always used Unearthed Arcana as a veto primarily. That's why we didn't get two new Classes (Mystic and Artificer) and a mass combat system in Xanathar's...even though they were largely finished and ready to go!


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Aug 20, 2022)

The other thing to keep in mind when it comes to UA, is that what WE see is often not the latest version of the rules that they're playing with. They could ALREADY have fixed a bunch of problems that we have with some element we're seeing, and all our feedback will do is show them that we agree.

I'm honestly not sure why they threw this Dragonborn in there, for example. I'm pretty sure that Fizban's is the one they plan to use going forward. This seems like an "older" draft. Might just be there to see if we're paying attention.


----------



## Parmandur (Aug 20, 2022)

FitzTheRuke said:


> The other thing to keep in mind when it comes to UA, is that what WE see is often not the latest version of the rules that they're playing with. They could ALREADY have fixed a bunch of problems that we have with some element we're seeing, and all our feedback will do is show them that we agree.
> 
> I'm honestly not sure why they threw this Dragonborn in there, for example. I'm pretty sure that Fizban's is the one they plan to use going forward. This seems like an "older" draft. Might just be there to see if we're paying attention.



Well, it's an improvement on the 2014 iteration, and they might want to leave the Fizban's treatments as viable alternatives moving forwards.


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Aug 20, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Nah, they'll just work extra-hard to convince us that we _don't actually _hate it.  I wouldn't be surprised if 6E isn't already 90% written (or more).  2024 is only 16 months away, after all, and it takes time to put a book together.  They don't have time to completely rewrite it, and scrapping it isn't really an option either...so...



While January 2024 may be that close, a mid-summer release is a lot more likely, giving us roughly two years to publication (and thus _at least_ a full year, probably a bit more, until final printing versions are laid down.) They conducted the original playtest from early 2012 to late 2013, which changed several times before it went to print. Even with my major criticisms of how D&D Next was handled, I wouldn't say major changes were impossible then, and I don't think they're any more impossible now. It seems to me likely that a strong enough negative response would convince them to change, especially if it comes early, like this one can.

But I do grant that there is likely to be resistance to changing things unless the response IS very negative. So I plan to respond to that survey myself and I hope all dragonborn fans do so and let Wizards know that we don't want to go back to the crappy PHB version now that we've seen actually good options.


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (Aug 20, 2022)

Horwath said:


> even the 1st level feat have the "always take" and dump tier category:
> 
> Everyone will consider Alert, Tough and Lucky, maybe Magic initiate. Possibly Healer
> Rest will be ignored as usual.
> ...




I agree with Savage Attacker, but I'd not be so quick to assume all tables will have this same view. There are multiple players at our table who would LOVE to take Crafter and my wife and I both looked at Musician and said we can't wait to take this for a number of characters. The game isn't all about combat my dude.



Nikosandros said:


> Regarding the new rules for crits, I don't think that they can really be evaluated without reading the new classes. For example, maybe rogues compensate the nerf in some other way, but without looking at the playtest rogue, it's hard to form an opinion.




I suspect the ability to crit on sneak attack dice will be the replacement class feature for the Assassin Rogue subclass classic's current Assassinate ability. It would be on theme and fitting. And frankly, having played multiple paladins and having had multiple in my games, I for one am glad they are getting rid of smite crit fishing.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 21, 2022)

MostlyHarmless42 said:


> I agree with Savage Attacker, but I'd not be so quick to assume all tables will have this same view. There are multiple players at our table who would LOVE to take Crafter and my wife and I both looked at Musician and said we can't wait to take this for a number of characters. The game isn't all about combat my dude.



I know it is not only combat, but maybe combat and non-combat feats should be at separate counter?

My current sorcerer has Telekinetic feat, for which I say that it is best designed feat of 5E, but for combat I would be far better if I took Shadow/fey touched instead.


----------



## The Myopic Sniper (Aug 21, 2022)

One way to make some 1st level feats seem more attractive is if WOTC decides to go whole hog on prerequisites. 

Do you want Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master at level 4? Well, you needed to take Savage Attacker at level 1.

Sentinel or Resilient? You needed to have taken Tough. 

That would also make synergies between feats like Polearm Master and Sentinel come online way later in the game.  That is one way they could do it anyway, I would prefer they simply buffed the more lackluster 1st level feats.


----------



## MarkB (Aug 21, 2022)

The Myopic Sniper said:


> One way to make some 1st level feats seem more attractive is if WOTC decides to go whole hog on prerequisites.
> 
> Do you want Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master at level 4? Well, you needed to take Savage Attacker at level 1.
> 
> ...



That's very similar to what they did with both feats and class features in Star Wars Saga Edition. In SWSE you'd gain Feats and (class-based) Talents at alternating levels, and Talents weren't tied to a specific level - you could take any Talent you qualified for when you levelled up. But some Talents, and some Feats, were built with prerequisites such that they had to be taken in a certain order.


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 22, 2022)

The Myopic Sniper said:


> One way to make some 1st level feats seem more attractive is if WOTC decides to go whole hog on prerequisites.
> 
> Do you want Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master at level 4? Well, you needed to take Savage Attacker at level 1.
> 
> ...



I do think that we are not seeing the whole picture. For the Krynn book, they were proposing feat trees, and that of course could make these look very different.

For savage attacker, I have seen a lot of dumping on it. But if the die is say a d10 or d12, that should be a noticeable bump in damage, which will make a difference, at least at lower levels.


----------



## pnewman (Aug 22, 2022)

DEFCON 1 said:


> One thing they said about these starter feats is they want them to also work for characters whose schtick matches the feat.  So they would want Tavern Brawler to be useful for a Monk.



Custom Background - Bouncer - +2 CON, +1 WIS, Skills - Perception and Intimidation, Tool - Brewer's Supplies, Language - Dwarvish, Feat - Tavern Brawler

"I used to be the bouncer at the Inn of the Welcome Wench. One day a whole squad of Draconians came in and started a brawl. I was doing fine at first but there were just too many of them. Mr Miyagi stepped in to help me, and later he taught me how a true unarmed warrior fights."

Class - Monk


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 22, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> For savage attacker, I have seen a lot of dumping on it. But if the die is say a d10 or d12, that should be a noticeable bump in damage, which will make a difference, at least at lower levels.



Not really.

On a d12, the most extreme possible example, it averages a little under +2 damage on one _hit_ (which would be smaller as a value of DPR).

And that's on a d12, so only Greataxes.

On a d10 it's close to +1.6 damage on one hit. d8, 1.3, and so on.

You can use Anydice to check this if you want to disagree. Once you get multiple attacks, it becomes a smaller proportion of your damage. Also note it only applies _now_ to the Attack Action, not to Opportunity Attacks, Bonus Action Attacks, etc. etc.  - So like if you missed with your mainhand or the main attack of your polearm (with PAM), it cannot apply to your offhand. This is a nerf from the previous performance.

For a Great Axe Barbarian focused solely on damage, who is level 1-4, it's not a completely terrible choice, though I'd say it's objectively inferior to almost all the other choices in terms of overall impact on the game. Anyone else? It's pretty bad, and notably, it gets less and less important, whereas a lot of the Feats retain utility.

Feel-wise it'll be a mixed bag, because you're going to see an awful lot of "I rolled middle or less on both dice... ".


----------



## TerraDave (Aug 23, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Not really.
> 
> On a d12, the most extreme possible example, it averages a little under +2 damage on one _hit_ (which would be smaller as a value of DPR).
> 
> ...




1.6 at low levels is pretty good. There is also the question of how it would work for crits. In any case I think for many characters it would more of an impact then most of the other level 1 feats. 

Presumably they feel that doing this for every attack would be too strong. It would solve the scaling issue.


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 23, 2022)

The Myopic Sniper said:


> One way to make some 1st level feats seem more attractive is if WOTC decides to go whole hog on prerequisites.
> 
> Do you want Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master at level 4? Well, you needed to take Savage Attacker at level 1.
> 
> ...




And I started a whole other thread on why that would be a terrible idea. It accomplished exactly the opposite of the stated goals for first level feats, demanding a level of system mastery from beginners.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Aug 23, 2022)

TerraDave said:


> There is also the question of how it would work for crits.



Well, the reroll mechanic is the same as now, and the generally accepted reading is that if you use Savage Attacker on a crit, you re-roll the weapon damage dice from the crit, so like with a Longsword crit you do 2d8, so you'd reroll that 2d8 and take whichever total was best.

Anything less makes it even worse.



TerraDave said:


> In any case I think for many characters it would more of an impact then most of the other level 1 feats.



I don't agree, unless you run an utterly combat-centric game. It ups your DPR, if you're a weapon-based melee with a two-hander doing 1d10 or 1d12 damage, by like, 1 point a round on average (remember per-hit isn't DPR). 

I don't think "many" characters fit into that, and I don't think the impact of that is going to be anywhere near as big as say, Magic Initiate, or Skilled. Skilled alone is going to have a huge amount of impact over the life of a character.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 23, 2022)

The Myopic Sniper said:


> One way to make some 1st level feats seem more attractive is if WOTC decides to go whole hog on prerequisites.
> 
> Do you want Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master at level 4? Well, you needed to take Savage Attacker at level 1.
> 
> ...



no thanks, I had my fill of taking Point black shot in 3.5e every time I wanted to play archer. Or Dodge for some kind of skirmisher.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 23, 2022)

I wouldn't have minded Point Blank Shot if it's bonus wasn't so trivial.  Precise Shot should have been the opening Feat.


----------



## Horwath (Aug 23, 2022)

James Gasik said:


> I wouldn't have minded Point Blank Shot if it's bonus wasn't so trivial.  Precise Shot should have been the opening Feat.



that was the problem with Point blank shot, if you are using it, you are using archery wrong.


----------



## James Gasik (Aug 23, 2022)

Horwath said:


> that was the problem with Point blank shot, if you are using it, you are using archery wrong.



Yeah, it was bizarrely more useful for spellcasters.


----------



## MostlyHarmless42 (Aug 24, 2022)

The Myopic Sniper said:


> One way to make some 1st level feats seem more attractive is if WOTC decides to go whole hog on prerequisites.
> 
> Do you want Great Weapon Master or Polearm Master at level 4? Well, you needed to take Savage Attacker at level 1.
> 
> ...



Frankly I hope not. The best thing 5e did was remove feat trees and minimize prerequisites for feats. If I wanted to keep track of nightmarishly long and complicated character builds I'd play either edition of Pathfinder, not 5e. I'll be definitely giving them VERY negative feedback on anything that implies the return of that stuff and hope to hell I'm in the majority there.


----------

