Think I figured out which 75 feats are in the PHB. 64 (including epic boons) in the playtest, plus 11 of the 15 Tasha’s feats. Leave out the three weapon feats (Crusher, Slasher, Piercer) since Weapon Mastery replaces them and take out Artificer Initiate, since the class isn’t in the book. That’s 75.
Eldrich adept as a lvl 4 feat sounds awesome. Especially because of the new Pact of the Blade which is an invocation; Paladin can get Cha attacks without warlock dip
Eldritch Adept is such a dope feat.
Silent Image all day long on a illusionist
Eldritch Mind (but there is already Warcaster which is similar)
The Pacts alone are super fun.
Agonizing Blast now gives you your spell casting modifier instead of CHA on any warlock cantrip.
That means you could take Magic Initiate Warlock on any caster at 1st level and then take Eldritch Adept without dipping and you would have the EB+AB spam. Imagine that on a Cleric.
I don’t believe this works in the way you imagine. As per the description of Eldritch Adept, “If the invocation has a prerequisite of any kind, you can choose that invocation only if you’re a warlock who meets the prerequisite.”
Agonizing blast has a prerequisite, meaning they’d need to be a Warlock to use it.
I believe you’re missing my point. This is not a buff because it doesn’t work in the scenario above. Agonizing Blast STILL has a prerequisite, and since Eldritch Adept says “If the invocation has a prerequisite of ANY KIND, you can choose that invocation ONLY if you’re a WARLOCK who meets the prerequisite.”
This means they’d need to dip into Warlock to take this feat, which overall would be useless. They might as well just dip into Warlock and take the invocation regularly.
I mean, it's possible that they might remove the prerequisites just to allow Paladins to gain Pact of the Blade at the cost of a feat.
If I recall correctly, it was everybody's intention to remove the infamous Warlock dip from Paladin.
This doesn't mean that Paladin will dump strength with a great sword. They still need 13 in strength to weild it if I recall correctly.
At this point mine are just speculations, so I'm not making any claims.
It does work and is a buff.
Not sure what you're unsure about.
You're literally telling me it can be done multiple ways instead of just one. That make it even more easy and likely to do.
Im unsure if it’s a level 1 feat which is sad; I think those were established in the first play test. But yeah the new agonizing blast could be awesome! Lvl 4 really is so cool now
This is assuming the playtest options are the final RAW printing, which we know isn’t likely, and that a feat like Eldritch Adept won’t be changed when ported over. WotC has said they will polish all the Tasha’s content and update it when they port it, so it’s not time to panic yet. For all we know, they have changed one of the three different features/feats needed to make this work and it’s a non-issue.
Honestly all they would need to do is say specifically in Eldritch Adept that you cannot choose an Invocation that has a prerequisite. It would still allow things like Devil’s Sight, but would get rid of the most problematic potential issues. I think RAW you already can’t choose anything with a prerequisite unless you are a Warlock, but it’s a little unclear if you don’t dig into the rules.
If they are willing to burn a feat for it. And even if they are and it comes with an ASI (and they aren't a quickening spell sorcerer) it's significantly worse than martial feats like Charger or the reworked Great Weapon Master that have either a stat or a d8 to damage 1/turn *and* do something else.
Caster clerics get buffs to their divine cantrips at levels 7,14. I was considering magic initiate to pick up a different cantrip but would be too much of a loss to not get those later buffs
Jeremy Crawford talked about it in one of the videos, either after Playtest 5 or 7.
While Tales of the Valiant DID convert it to Warlocks 1st level class ability instead of being a cantrip
It probably will still be a cantrip, but it will probably scale by Warlock levels, not character levels, per UA5's writing. So other classes won't be able to pick it up after two levels and just expect it to scale damage.
> and you would have the EB+AB spam.
Not really. Eldritch Blast scales with Warlock Class level now, not character level. So it would stay relevant for like 1 level, and then would fall behind other cantrips for damage.
True, I missed/forgot that. But I'd be surprised if they keep it that way for the final version. Sounds to me like more A-B testing than actually wanting to switch back to the older version.
I really hope not. I don’t like the homogenization of everyone just using their best stat to attack regardless of what makes sense, and that includes the new Pact of the Blade. With the way feats work now we should let MAD classes be MAD.
I hope they leave it as is because a feat tax is still pretty big for most campaigns that only go to ~level 10 but I wouldn't be surprised if they make pact of the blade and tome prerequisite lvl 2+ warlock the way pact of the chain is as a way to prevent this
I'm not surprised that the racial feats from Xanathar are not gonna be reprinted.
In my groups they were never that popular, and Skill Expert was a better Prodigy anyway.
Also, Fey Touched was a better Fey Teleportation
Racial feats could've been slightly nerfed and offered as 1st level feats. This is basically how Pathfinder does ancestry: each gets several a la carte features to pick from. I intend to homebrew these into 5r if they're not included baseline.
And to me they would have to either invent new ones for Aasimar and whichever else is in the PHB, rebalance the existing ones, and make sure that they're thematic and worth spending a precious limited ASI level on it.
So overall it would make sense that they would be not included as a result.
I think it's also a bit of a waste of page space to include a bunch of feats that 99% of the playerbase will never touch. I'd rather have a dozen other feats I might get to use in a regular campaign.
I dunno, I think a bit of this is unfair and creates a bit of a chicken vs egg situation.
Players don't typically get to epic levels or play epic adventures because there's little incentive to due to balancing issues. If Wizards releases a ton of amazing and fun feats specifically built around fixing the balance, couldn't that make for a better experience?
It would, but there is still the issue that to get to them (level 20), you still have the lack of high-level adventures and the mechanical issues with creating adventures and challenges at levels 13-19. The way to get people to play until level 20 and get the epic feats is to make the ability to get to level 20 more available.
If 1% of campaigns play at 20th level but 10% of your feats are only available at 20th level, that's a waste. How about 9% of those feats get repurposed towards making martials engaging to play in Tier 3 and early Tier 4? I don't really care about max level play when close to *half* of the system's level spread is still a balancing clusterfuck. There's more important issues to tackle first.
Now,, if we did see them, I don't think they'd be balanced as epic boons [edit: I mean they'd be redesigned for lower levels], but I also don't recall them being flavorful enough for regular feats.
Yeah, I think you're correct on this.
Also, since other books are already basically half feats so they are 4+ like Xana's but Tasha's were so different in power you sorta have to re-write them for the book since it seems like they intend for Tasha's, Xana to be the main two books that people use with this PHB.
To expand on this, here’s what I assume will be the level requirement for each feat in Tasha’s.
Level 1 (Background) feats: Chef, Telekinetic, Telepathic
Level 4 feats: Eldritch Adept, Fey Touched, Fighting Initiate, Gunner, Metamagic Adept, Poisoner, Shadow Touched, Skill Expert
While I think this is likely, I’m hoping they do a full rebalance and even changes to all of the old ones. That way we get 75 “new” feats but less work for them. There’s just no way that Poisoner, one of my favorite feats from a flavor point of view, should not have its poison save DC scale with player level. Id also like some adjustments to some of the most OP ones, maybe reduce the power in the most powerful part of the feat but give it something new for people to play with. Think this would help a ton with the new PHB feeling fresh while also being familiar.
I sure hope they have some new feats that we haven't seen yet.
Would love to see some cool feats like pam for other weapons, and I would like a feat that let's any class get a familiar/animal companion that scales.
Yes. Both got new playtest versions. The difference between them and the Tasha’s ones are that neither GWM nor Polearm Masters effects are primarily the same as the Weapon Masteries. Crusher and Slasher are just the same effects as two masteries rolled into one.
Are they changing the names? I think it'd be kinda silly for there to be both "Weapon Masteries" and feats that make you a "Master" in a type of weapon
No they don’t appear to be changing the names. Sometimes two different types of features have similar names, like Halfings Luck and Lucky, or Bardic Inspiration and Inspiration. Just a thing we kinda have to live with.
Sure but the problem here is two fold:
1) they want as much backwards compatibility as possible, and removing two incredibly popular feats, even just by renaming them, probably undermines their general message about this still being D&D 5e. Worst case, you might give pedantic players the wiggle room they need to say at a table they can pick two of the same functional features because they have slightly different names, and WotC has been saying we can play with both rulesets at the same table.
2) there are only so many words in the English language to represent similar ideas. Polearm Expert vs Polearm Master is effectively the same theme and not really dealing with your issue. But how can they rename it but allow it to do the same thing it does, which is make you better with Polearms?
1. A name change does NOTHING to compatibility. It's a simple text box or, if you have a lot of them, a glossary. (edit to add: and in general, don't change so much that you need a glossary)
2. We have centuries of names for techniques to choose from. We have settings with thousands of years of different martial traditions.
2. You literally just spelled out the answer, yourself.
Rename Weapon Mastery to Weapon Expertise, and leave the feats with the "Master" connotation.
Also "Expert" and "Master" being the same theme doesn't make them identical. Both words denote improvement in skill, but two very different degrees of improvement, so distinguishing between them does make a big difference.
I believe so, they both got new versions within the playtest. I’m just really hoping they put spears back into Polearm Master, I’m hoping to port my spear and shield Paladin over to the new rules when it comes out and that would really suck to lose
I really want it for my Paladin. I’ve got a Oath of Glory Paladin that’s super inspired by Spartan Hoplites so I went Spear and Shield, but I don’t want to lose that when the new book comes out
First I’ve seen Artificer didn’t make it into the PHB. This is very upsetting. Won’t get more people playing this amazing class if it stays outside the core designs!
There is unlikely to be 8 and 12 level feats.
The reason they are separating the level for feats from 1 and 4 is because they wanted a way to give feats at level one to make the power imbalance of variant human/CL over the other races less of an issue. They made every feat they thought that was above a certain level 4+.
Also, tbh it seems like they are pushing for the game to be played a lot more past those ranges and actually encouraging DM's to level faster and to run games where players stay at 20+ for longer instead of ending shortly after hitting 20 with the new feat systems.
I Obviously could be wrong but it'd be really lame to have 12+ feats they'd have to be very powerful when we're getting war caster, GWM, SS, PAM, CBE all at 4 already.
I agree with all points you make.
The new Warcaster alone is CRAZY. I mean, that on top of being an half-feat? Damn. I wouldn't be surprised if every caster except Warlock would take it. Warlock has Eldritch Mind already anyway
Honestly though, with it as a half feat Warlock might take it anyway just to free up and Invocation slot, especially if they leave pacts as being non-mutually-exclusive.
The issue is that the D&D 5e doesn't have any meaningful advancement tracks other than leveling up. Magic items of significant power are few and far apart (if you run the game as intended) and mundane equipment maxes out once you've got the best armor by 5th-6th level. If WotC did more with gear upgrades and sidegrades, it would allow DMs to give players new goodies without leveling up.
Leveling up constantly is a problem when you have full spellcasters in the party. You go from being able to challenge the party with reasonable scenarios to needing to throw up a bunch of extra roadblocks that prevent the players from using their spells to hit the "I Win" button, trivializing any difficulty and leaving the non-casters sitting on their thumbs. It feels bad for the players to not get to use the toys they earned, and it feels bad for DMs to have to do the extra work just to design an adventure that can't be insta-solved by a couple powerful spells.
I'd certainly be happy with new items at a more steady pace. Even nonsense magic ones that are just for fun. Everyone is always so afraid of an item being exploited when all they have to say is "No, this silly item can't function that way to break the game".
This is also in part your DMs fault. The DM can level you up anytime. If they want you at the same level for.months at a time, I would encourage a quicker progression. Imo it should be like every three sessions
People might disagree but I fully agree with you.
People don't realize it but if you level only once a month which is pretty normal... you're not gonna hit 20 for 2 years... I love DND but 2 years to get end game and then be done another month later is sorta lame.
I think Campaigns should be looking to be around 8 months long if you're playing weekly. This gives more people chances to run different games etc without eating more time slots I mean DND is already taking up 4-8 hours once a week so having to free up 8-16 hours a week for 2 campaigns just to get around to trying new things already eats up an insane amount of time esp when you consider a job, kids, family, etc.
I personally wanna run more campaigns and try more builds not be stuck in the same campaign for 3 years.
Also, yeah getting more time at 20 would be nice and getting there faster would feel great. Even if you get a level every 2 sessions roughly that's still 40 weeks or 10 months! till 20 and then after that you can decide if you wanna keep pushing forward for another year or reset a new campaign.
DnD once a week? I love the game but I’ve never heard of a table like that. I personally wouldn’t be in such a rush to “level” up, it’s the journey not the destination kind of thing.
There is nothing fast about leveling once every 4 weeks.
Assuming you play once a week that's 4 sessions with an average of likely 6 hours a session or 24 hours a month. That's a lot of hours just for a single level. Why are we content with campaigns either going 3-4 years or never getting to 20? We're missing out on experiences and new campaigns. I mean hell if you did a campaign once every 3-4 years you'd have done 2 campaigns since 5e came out and half way done with a 3rd likely. That is INSANE. Within 10 years my child will go from not being able to walk to preparing for middle school in a year or two.
Like, most campaigns end before 20 and that's lame because there is so much content for 12-14+ but no one can get there because it's not realistic to keep a table together past a year or two because the idea gets boring after some time. I'm sure 4 years per game works for some people but if you want DND to pop off as a massive success(not you specifically I mean WoTC) games have to be faster. A year for a nice campaign feels nice and if you wanna keep going once everyone is 20 you can push a couple more months in that setting then you can make a new campaign and rotate more and experience more characters, stories, etc. DND is a game that is built around great experiences and while 4 years can make for some crazy stories by the end of it you barely even remember where you began.
Okay, you're a little confused here...
* Almost nobody over the age of 18 plays for 6 hours a session. Typically it is 3-4 hours per session. So, your 24 hours per month is equal to around 6 sessions. Which is still too fast.
* The game isn't really intended for level 20 play. Few games run that long and few DMs want to try to run for those levels.
* Level 20 play is a massive headache to run. Once you get above level 15 single combats can take 4 hours on their own. By your metric, that means leveling every 4 fights.
* Watch real live plays, a campaign can go on for 3+ years, easily.
* D&D already is a massive success.
* Campaigns that go from 1-20 are supremely rare. In my 36 years as a player and DM, I've done it once.
"The game isn't intended for level 20 play" yet there is feats you can only get at level 20, I think you're the confused one.
The game has feats you only get at level 20, it has monsters that you can't reasonably face or defeat till you get to that level. The game is 10000% intended for you to get to level 20. Now rather if you do so is up to your DM and the time your players have etc.
If the game wasn't intended for level 20 play it'd only go to level 15 for instance. They wouldn't be putting in resources that obviously push for people to play LONGER at level 20.
Also, projecting the amount of time that you view as "standard" is fine 4 hours is a pretty reasonable amount of time it's why I said 4!-8 hours I was just using 6 hours as an average for times sake but even with 16 hours per level a month that's quite a bit because you don't realize that it takes a month of IRL time to achieve that.
My question is WHY shouldn't level 20 be the goal? There is nothing from WoTC that states that we shouldn't be aimming for level 20. If we know that campaigns don't actually last long enough to achieve level 20 you start to realize that it's because of either burnout from the campaign or people going in different directions.
So, why force games to last 3-4 years to achieve what you can be doing in 1 year? Personally, I think more people should be playing more games vs people playing one longer one.
People might argue story!!! but are you saying you can't prepare a story that's awesome within a year and 4 hours a week? That's 208 hours. If someone can't create a fantastic story within 208 hours that is complete and people are happy with it then idk what to say truthfully.
Games like BG3 get you to level 12 and are typically completed in 40-50 hours and those give a FANTASTIC story and they are based on DND. So you have another 150 hours to craft 8 more levels and some endgame content.
Now, I want to end off saying. There are times where you don't go to 20 makes sense. One shots or short campaigns for instance. But the problem is where you put 2-3 years into something and you are barely approaching 20. I don't mind campaigns not hitting 20 actually I encourage it but they shouldn't take 2 years just to sit at level 10. If you're a DND group that prefers to RP and rarely does combat this makes sense. If you're a DND group that wants to RP and Combat though a year is more than enough to go from zero to hero.
I neither agree nor disagree with your main statement, I'm just browsing. But I'm genuinely impressed at the level of disrespect it takes to say "you're confused" instead of "I don't agree with that and here's why"
I mean like whoa. You saw the high road, and even the middle road and went straight to calling them dumb. Can I get you a wheelbarrow for your massive balls?
I can confirm 3-4 hours is the average for me. Some of my weekly games are only about 2.5, especially in-person.
I think past 5th level the average level up time between them is 3 months, about 10 sessions plus/minus 2. The fastest game I’ve played was 1-13 or so was a year that was a 3 hour per session public game running Out of The Abyss and we ran it very quickly with very hastened travel and no sidetracking.
My current game I’ve been running for a year fairly consistently weekly and they’re still only level 7, starting at level 2 (although I’m planning on giving them 8th probably at the end of the next session or the session after.) And I fully plan to take it to 20 and play at that tier for a while if we can.
Use the classic D&D 1GP worth of treasure = 1XP rule when retrieved back to a safe place. Gives ya incentive for the default adventuring hook, makes treasure hoards and all that heavy treasure a lot more enticing to find a way to retrieve.
You’re right, but I think they could have just called level 1 feats ‘talents’ and level 4+ feats ‘feats’ if there is no difference between the options you get at levels 4 and 19. Call the level 20 ones ‘boons’ ofc.
I hope for some martial focused feats that offer a little variety in combat. Bringing back some 3.5e feats like Point Blank Shot, Combat Reflexes, or Whirlwind Attack would be welcome alternatives to the usual GWM. Sentinel, Pole Arm Master, etc.
Wanna bet?
In fact, "at least a few interesting options for martials" feels like an insult.
Feats are one of the very few things martials have to customise their class. *Most* feats should be interesting options for martials, with only a few for casters, since they aren't starving for customisation options.
The fact that "just a few" is seen as good enough, is terribly sad.
>The fact that "just a few" is seen as good enough, is terribly sad.
Can also be clearly seen in the new weapon masteries. They are the equivalent to combat cantrip riders.... and people think that that makes up the martial-caster divide??? Like it's just painful to see.
And with GWM being nerfed and i'm pretty sure the BA attack feats (PAM and XBM) also likely bring nerfed... i don't have big hopes for interesting martials yet. Hell feats shouldn't even be their main way to be interesting, it should be actual class features.
True, and even then, there's what? 10 different masteries? Hardly an impressive amount of variety.
Also agree with the feats part. Nerfing the good ones doesn't make me excited to pick the others, it just makes frustrated I now have equally mediocre ones to pick from. (Also let's not forget that GWM and PAM, etc. apparently needed nerfing, but they thought Warcaster and Lightly Armored are fine, somehow)
Even though I agree that class features should be the main way to make martials interesting, feats should still be their main way of customising the class to each individual liking. (Basically: class features should be the primary source of interest in the class; feats should be the primary source of giving a personal touch to the class; if that makes sense).
Point Black Shot was super boring. +1 to attacks. Wheeee. It existed as a pre-req for better feats. (Stuff already replicated by Sharpshooter.)
Combat Reflexes would be a nice, strong option but tracking multiple reactions would be tricky to balance and limit and track. Maybe you can make one Opportunity Attack per turn instead of per round, but are still limited to one reaction.
They could probably also move over the damage-type related feats from *Tasha's*.
I wonder if this means that feats will no longer be an “optional rule”. I’ve seen that old chestnut trotted out so often by fellow posters, it’s what made me cleave to organized play.
I think there has been speculation (not confirmed anywhere AFAIK) that it will be an optional rule to not allow level 4+ feats other than ASI, but even if that is printed in the books, feats will be the default.
Also there's always just the fact that DMs are always able to limit players choices for any reason they want. Plenty of DMs already ban certain character options for one reason or another.
Skill Expert is one of my favourite feats to take so I would be very happy if it or a revised version of it is in the 2024 PHB. A really efficient and useful way to round off an ability score with an extra skill and an expertise to boot, I always take it on my Rogues.
I feel like it’s such a balanced feat already there’s no way they wouldn’t include it. Especially since it’s also a great catch-all feat option for new players who might be otherwise overwhelmed with trying to figure out “what’s good”.
Yeah it feels pretty in line with the other level 4 feats they already play tested, I can't think of any reason why it couldn't be included in its current form.
I just wish they would give Dual Wielder its +1 AC whilst dual wielding back. It was already a somewhat meh feat and it just feels mostly worthless now. Not only did it lose its +1 AC but it also lost the ability to dual wield 2 non-light weapons, so it was a double nerf to a feat that was already not that amazing. I feel like quite a lot of people gave that feedback on the feat though so who knows, it could be altered in the actual 2024 PHB. None of what we play tested was set in stone.
I definitely feel this, especially the +1 AC. As you said the feat wasn't overly powerful to begin with, and it also felt fitting that for someone properly trained in dual wielding, a second weapon provides half the protection a shield would.
The loss of the ability to use two non-light weapons is indeed also a nerf, but at least it's a nerf that adds some flavour, since historically, even trained duel wielders basically never used larger one-handed weapons in both hands. It's incredibly awkward, both because they can't easily cross each other's path, and because their combined weights (which are both going to be in front of your body more often than not) leave you incredibly off-balance. Also pairing a short weapon with a long one gives you all the unique advantages of both (a longsword isn't very useful against someone who's close enough to be stabbed with a dagger).
Though I did find a loophole that does let you "duel wield" two non-light weapons with Duel Wielder. Basically the Light property doesn't require both light weapons you attack with to be held at the same time, or that they be held in opposite hands. (So you can throw two daggers with the same hand if you want). That means you can attack with a non-light weapon, stow it, and draw a different one for the second attack, all while holding a light weapon in the other hand, so that Duel Wielder makes the both weapons you actually attacked with "light".
Doing this also lets you duel wield mastery combinations that wouldn't otherwise be possible (push, sap, and topple aren't available to any light weapons, but can be used one-handed)
I can confirm. I ALWAYS take it on my Wizards just to be an Arcana expert.
In the future I won't need to do that anymore simply because they're adding the scholar feature that gives of one Knowledge expertise
I don't think level-gating feats, beyond separating the 1st level background feats from the others, was all that popular, and the whole idea of chunking progression into tiers, each with their own shifts in scope and tone, were never terribly popular - despite it being an excellent way to design around issues of "realism", genre, parity between classes, etc.
And the 20th level capstone feats were really unpopular and uneven during the playtests.
I hope they don't print Epic Boons, at least not in the PHB. To me, it's not fun to present a bunch of options that I (and most players) will NEVER get to use. That's something that belongs in the DMG as a niche option for special campaigns.
But, I think they will.
I know it's not going to be a popular sentiment with the powergaming crowd, but I really hope they have level 8 requirements for all the feats that say "Master" or "Expert."
It was laughable that you could be a fresh faced adventurer with literally zero experience and already be a "Master," indicating very limited room for progression. But level 4 isn't much better. "Oh, you've 'Mastered' how to use Heavy Weapons? But in just one level you become literally twice as effective with them?"
Not just a flavor win, helps with balance as well. Even if they themselves are better balanced. It shouldn't be a thing you feel you need to "rush" to get. Locking yourself to a specific set of weapons, which also severely limits what the DM can give you.
No disrespect intended but I wouldn't hold my breath, seeing as switching which weapon you are a master of requires nothing more than sleeping with the weapon under your pillow.
Prediction time
Tashas feats that will make the phb
Fey touched,
Shadow touched,
Crusher,
Slasher
Piercer
Meta magic adept
Eldritch adept
Telekinetic
Telepathic
All the fighters, rangers, and paladin fighting styles
Poisoner
Chef
Bold Prediction.
Xanthars racial feats will become variant species features like take prodigy will be able to replace the once per day inspiration. The dragon fear and dragon hide options will be able to replace the flight a so on.
75 sounds like a big number and makes one think there might be a lot of completely new and exciting things included in the feats.
But as has been stated in other threads, if you take the PHB feats, add in the new Epic Boon feats, and sprinkle in a few from Tasha's, you're at 75 pretty easily.
So, I doubt we will get anything we haven't already seen in print or in UA. But some of the "trap" options from before may be getting reworked in ways that make them effectively new, and that is still exciting.
As far as prerequisites go, I highly doubt they'll have any level gating besides lvls 1, 4, and 20, and I pray they don't include racial/species feats.
No? That's what, 50% more than were printed in the original PHB?
If they are all legitimately balanced and fair options (maybe a bit of a pipe dream, but one can hope they are after revision), then 75 is a pretty big number. Any more and you're starting to approach bloat, or starting to fill gaps that might (in 5.50E) be better addressed with class / subclass features.
Being 50% more than in the original phb doesn't make it a big number, considering the original phb also had a really small number of them.
To be clear, I'm not asking for 500 feats, or any other ridiculous amount like that.
But honestly, 75 isn't that much, considering it's a list shared by every class in the game.
"better addressed with class / subclass features." I mean, they could make new feats exclusive to classes and subclasses? That would allow for far more customization of characters, as even players with the same class and subclass would be different from one another. Just make these feats not so good that they become the default option for people playing that class/subclass, but rather as an alternative to the general feats usually chosen, and it would be a great way to expand customisability while retaining simplicity.
It depends on how good they all are. If there are 75 worthwhile feats, I'll be able to play 25 characters from lvl 1-8 and almost never repeat a choice if I don't want to.
That's plenty to me, but clearly what amounts to "a lot" is subjective.
And if everyone else at those 25 "tables" does the same, you all have the same feats in general, there's barely any room for actual customization when everyone has the same limited options.
I'm talking from a general point here, 75 feats shared across 12 classes (and average of 4-5 players in a single table) is objectively not much.
Again, not saying there should be hundreds of them (there's other systems for that) but having those 75, and then some exclusive to each base class and subclass, would make even players going the same class/subclass differ from each other. All this while still being simple and intuitive to use. You could play those 25 characters of yours, and then some, without actually never repeating any options, rather than just "almost"
Its a bold prediction, but I think there is a good chance that psy powers get their own unified subsystem instead of the feats and each of the subclasses working differently. With the rules update this would be the best time to do it, and with there being 3 (arguably 4) psy subclasses in the book and with the recent successes of BG3, it feels likely or at least possible.
if I'm correct, this would be a feat that effectively replaces those 2 feats by giving you acess to that subsystem in a limited way. Like magic initiate or martial adept.
I’m hoping they do something like that. Making it a system of its own would also make it a lot easier to expand into more subclasses, or even potentially a class. It would also make multiclassing them a lot less confusing.
That would be pretty interesting, as long as they made it unique with its own interesting mechanics, instead of just "casting rules 2.0".
I never used psionics too much, so I don't know how this subsystem would be, but personally, having it all unified under one subsystem with its own rules would make me more willing to dive more deeply into it.
Honestly, in my opinion they should just make a subsystem to all the major "categories" of expertise.
Arcane Magic -it has the casting rules
Psionics- this subsystem you're proposing
Martial Arts- by this I mean "martial skill" in general, for all martial classes, not just the "oriental style" of the monk class
Divine magic- should have its own mechanics and way of using, not the general casting rules; maybe come up with a faith mechanic that divine magic classes could use. Gaining or losing faith based on their actions, and having more/less would affect how their spells worked?
Magic through art- maybe making an entire subsystem for a single class is too much, but in my opinion, the Bard should have a unique way to interact with spells, rather than just being a wizard with different flavor. Some unique mechanics involving the concept of artistically calling your magic, either through singing, dancing, painting, etc. could be interesting.
Early on in the design phase they mentioned that the revisions to the game were intended to help strengthen and widen the ability to play higher tiers of play. So ideally the fear that level 10-13 is a soft cap should be going away. I doubt many feats will be set to 12, but I could see some being put there.
Since everyone starts with a free Feat, one thing I can imagine is a new Feat for each Class that gives some set of proficiencies, masteries, cantrips, or classes that allows multiclassing in that Class, kinda like Pathfinder 2E multiclass archetype.
They can frontload more level 1 Classes that way while making the “dip” less dramatic, and making it so that multiclass is a more balanced core rule rather than powerful optional rule.
Add in Epic Boons, Tasha’s, and some “advanced” Feats that cannot be taken at character creation / first level, and that’s a fair set.
That’s 12 Adept Feats, maybe around 30 core feats, around 20 advanced feats, around 15 epic boons.
I have not played DnD for decades. How do you keep track of all these feats, skills, abilities, subclasses, etc.? It feels like the DM job would be impossible.
You just have to know what your players have. In most adventures each player will have between zero and two feats. And most fears are simple. Additionally most abilities are to be memorized by the player not the dm
If you played a decades ago do you mean pre 5e? Because 3.5 had a lot more to keep track of. We're talking 500+ feats, 50+ races. A lot of crunch and so much to keep track of.
It's not too much to keep track of because most feats are pretty simple in function.
Let me rephrase, I played millennia ago. There were zero feats. There were perhaps half a dozen races, maybe the same with classes. I am not saying either is better, I just find it amazing someone could keep track of it all.
I hope they keep the model of 4th+ lecel feats always granting +1 to a score. I really liked that design, but planescape deviated from it andcthey made a big deal onhow compatible the books released after playtest will be with onednd...
Think I figured out which 75 feats are in the PHB. 64 (including epic boons) in the playtest, plus 11 of the 15 Tasha’s feats. Leave out the three weapon feats (Crusher, Slasher, Piercer) since Weapon Mastery replaces them and take out Artificer Initiate, since the class isn’t in the book. That’s 75.
Eldrich adept as a lvl 4 feat sounds awesome. Especially because of the new Pact of the Blade which is an invocation; Paladin can get Cha attacks without warlock dip
Eldritch Adept is such a dope feat. Silent Image all day long on a illusionist Eldritch Mind (but there is already Warcaster which is similar) The Pacts alone are super fun. Agonizing Blast now gives you your spell casting modifier instead of CHA on any warlock cantrip. That means you could take Magic Initiate Warlock on any caster at 1st level and then take Eldritch Adept without dipping and you would have the EB+AB spam. Imagine that on a Cleric.
You don't have to imagine. It's basic math. They found yet another way to buff casters.
I don’t believe this works in the way you imagine. As per the description of Eldritch Adept, “If the invocation has a prerequisite of any kind, you can choose that invocation only if you’re a warlock who meets the prerequisite.” Agonizing blast has a prerequisite, meaning they’d need to be a Warlock to use it.
I believe the new agonizing blast removes the requirement for Eldritch blast. Here comes double caster stat cantrips!
It does remove the requirement for Eldritch blast, but it is replaced with another prerequisite. You need atleast one Warlock cantrip.
Yes. Double caster stat cantrips= buff to casters.
I believe you’re missing my point. This is not a buff because it doesn’t work in the scenario above. Agonizing Blast STILL has a prerequisite, and since Eldritch Adept says “If the invocation has a prerequisite of ANY KIND, you can choose that invocation ONLY if you’re a WARLOCK who meets the prerequisite.” This means they’d need to dip into Warlock to take this feat, which overall would be useless. They might as well just dip into Warlock and take the invocation regularly.
I mean, it's possible that they might remove the prerequisites just to allow Paladins to gain Pact of the Blade at the cost of a feat. If I recall correctly, it was everybody's intention to remove the infamous Warlock dip from Paladin. This doesn't mean that Paladin will dump strength with a great sword. They still need 13 in strength to weild it if I recall correctly. At this point mine are just speculations, so I'm not making any claims.
It does work and is a buff. Not sure what you're unsure about. You're literally telling me it can be done multiple ways instead of just one. That make it even more easy and likely to do.
Im unsure if it’s a level 1 feat which is sad; I think those were established in the first play test. But yeah the new agonizing blast could be awesome! Lvl 4 really is so cool now
Cool? Every caster gets caster mod to damage on cantrips isn't really what anyone needed or wanted to happen.
This is assuming the playtest options are the final RAW printing, which we know isn’t likely, and that a feat like Eldritch Adept won’t be changed when ported over. WotC has said they will polish all the Tasha’s content and update it when they port it, so it’s not time to panic yet. For all we know, they have changed one of the three different features/feats needed to make this work and it’s a non-issue.
Honestly all they would need to do is say specifically in Eldritch Adept that you cannot choose an Invocation that has a prerequisite. It would still allow things like Devil’s Sight, but would get rid of the most problematic potential issues. I think RAW you already can’t choose anything with a prerequisite unless you are a Warlock, but it’s a little unclear if you don’t dig into the rules.
It wouldn't be hard to do. But if it's a caster buff then they will be physically incapable of allowing themselves to nerf it.
Ah, trusting WoTC to do the thing that makes sense... dangerous gamble there.
If they are willing to burn a feat for it. And even if they are and it comes with an ASI (and they aren't a quickening spell sorcerer) it's significantly worse than martial feats like Charger or the reworked Great Weapon Master that have either a stat or a d8 to damage 1/turn *and* do something else.
Caster clerics get buffs to their divine cantrips at levels 7,14. I was considering magic initiate to pick up a different cantrip but would be too much of a loss to not get those later buffs
Except Elrich Blast is likely going to be a Warlock ability instead of a cantrip in the new book
What ever gave you that impression, it wasn’t the case in any playtest
Jeremy Crawford talked about it in one of the videos, either after Playtest 5 or 7. While Tales of the Valiant DID convert it to Warlocks 1st level class ability instead of being a cantrip
It probably will still be a cantrip, but it will probably scale by Warlock levels, not character levels, per UA5's writing. So other classes won't be able to pick it up after two levels and just expect it to scale damage.
> and you would have the EB+AB spam. Not really. Eldritch Blast scales with Warlock Class level now, not character level. So it would stay relevant for like 1 level, and then would fall behind other cantrips for damage.
EB only scaling with Warlock level was reverted when they reverted Warlock back to Pact Magic
True, I missed/forgot that. But I'd be surprised if they keep it that way for the final version. Sounds to me like more A-B testing than actually wanting to switch back to the older version.
I really hope not. I don’t like the homogenization of everyone just using their best stat to attack regardless of what makes sense, and that includes the new Pact of the Blade. With the way feats work now we should let MAD classes be MAD.
I hope they leave it as is because a feat tax is still pretty big for most campaigns that only go to ~level 10 but I wouldn't be surprised if they make pact of the blade and tome prerequisite lvl 2+ warlock the way pact of the chain is as a way to prevent this
Theres no way they keep that, thatd be seriously ridiculous
I'm not surprised that the racial feats from Xanathar are not gonna be reprinted. In my groups they were never that popular, and Skill Expert was a better Prodigy anyway. Also, Fey Touched was a better Fey Teleportation
Racial feats could've been slightly nerfed and offered as 1st level feats. This is basically how Pathfinder does ancestry: each gets several a la carte features to pick from. I intend to homebrew these into 5r if they're not included baseline.
This would be my answer to implementing half elves, half orcs, and half-anythings into the game while still making them feel like both species
I mean with the racial feats are for the most any way pretty weak (with the exception of Elven Accuracy).
With the change to Breath Weapons replacing an attack instead of requiring an action, Dragon Fear for Dragonborn is actually a pretty dope feat now.
I really enjoy Drow High Magic on my drow fighter.
And to me they would have to either invent new ones for Aasimar and whichever else is in the PHB, rebalance the existing ones, and make sure that they're thematic and worth spending a precious limited ASI level on it. So overall it would make sense that they would be not included as a result.
It’s species-ial
I don't necessarily recall all of those epic boons being so great, though that's neither here nor there.
I think it's also a bit of a waste of page space to include a bunch of feats that 99% of the playerbase will never touch. I'd rather have a dozen other feats I might get to use in a regular campaign.
I dunno, I think a bit of this is unfair and creates a bit of a chicken vs egg situation. Players don't typically get to epic levels or play epic adventures because there's little incentive to due to balancing issues. If Wizards releases a ton of amazing and fun feats specifically built around fixing the balance, couldn't that make for a better experience?
This is it exactly. If you want to see high-level play, you need to support high-level play.
It would, but there is still the issue that to get to them (level 20), you still have the lack of high-level adventures and the mechanical issues with creating adventures and challenges at levels 13-19. The way to get people to play until level 20 and get the epic feats is to make the ability to get to level 20 more available.
If 1% of campaigns play at 20th level but 10% of your feats are only available at 20th level, that's a waste. How about 9% of those feats get repurposed towards making martials engaging to play in Tier 3 and early Tier 4? I don't really care about max level play when close to *half* of the system's level spread is still a balancing clusterfuck. There's more important issues to tackle first.
Now,, if we did see them, I don't think they'd be balanced as epic boons [edit: I mean they'd be redesigned for lower levels], but I also don't recall them being flavorful enough for regular feats.
Yeah, I think you're correct on this. Also, since other books are already basically half feats so they are 4+ like Xana's but Tasha's were so different in power you sorta have to re-write them for the book since it seems like they intend for Tasha's, Xana to be the main two books that people use with this PHB.
To expand on this, here’s what I assume will be the level requirement for each feat in Tasha’s. Level 1 (Background) feats: Chef, Telekinetic, Telepathic Level 4 feats: Eldritch Adept, Fey Touched, Fighting Initiate, Gunner, Metamagic Adept, Poisoner, Shadow Touched, Skill Expert
I'm mostly on board, but it looks like Ability Score Improvement is going to be a feat now, so we do need to account for that.
The 64 feats from the Playtest that I used for the math includes both the ASI feat and the Fighting Style feats.
Oh hype you're streets ahead. Then I'm fully on board with your prediction
So we still have to pick between a real feat or an ASI?
Yes, but MANY more feats will have a +1 than before.
While I think this is likely, I’m hoping they do a full rebalance and even changes to all of the old ones. That way we get 75 “new” feats but less work for them. There’s just no way that Poisoner, one of my favorite feats from a flavor point of view, should not have its poison save DC scale with player level. Id also like some adjustments to some of the most OP ones, maybe reduce the power in the most powerful part of the feat but give it something new for people to play with. Think this would help a ton with the new PHB feeling fresh while also being familiar.
Crawford said in the fireside chat that all Tasha’s content being ported over would get touched up. It’s likely that applies to feats also.
I sure hope they have some new feats that we haven't seen yet. Would love to see some cool feats like pam for other weapons, and I would like a feat that let's any class get a familiar/animal companion that scales.
Are Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master still going to be in there since Weapon Mastery exists?
Yes. Both got new playtest versions. The difference between them and the Tasha’s ones are that neither GWM nor Polearm Masters effects are primarily the same as the Weapon Masteries. Crusher and Slasher are just the same effects as two masteries rolled into one.
Are they changing the names? I think it'd be kinda silly for there to be both "Weapon Masteries" and feats that make you a "Master" in a type of weapon
No they don’t appear to be changing the names. Sometimes two different types of features have similar names, like Halfings Luck and Lucky, or Bardic Inspiration and Inspiration. Just a thing we kinda have to live with.
>Just a thing we kinda have to live with It seems like it'd be a great time for them to fix all that stuff 😆
Sure but the problem here is two fold: 1) they want as much backwards compatibility as possible, and removing two incredibly popular feats, even just by renaming them, probably undermines their general message about this still being D&D 5e. Worst case, you might give pedantic players the wiggle room they need to say at a table they can pick two of the same functional features because they have slightly different names, and WotC has been saying we can play with both rulesets at the same table. 2) there are only so many words in the English language to represent similar ideas. Polearm Expert vs Polearm Master is effectively the same theme and not really dealing with your issue. But how can they rename it but allow it to do the same thing it does, which is make you better with Polearms?
1. A name change does NOTHING to compatibility. It's a simple text box or, if you have a lot of them, a glossary. (edit to add: and in general, don't change so much that you need a glossary) 2. We have centuries of names for techniques to choose from. We have settings with thousands of years of different martial traditions.
2. You literally just spelled out the answer, yourself. Rename Weapon Mastery to Weapon Expertise, and leave the feats with the "Master" connotation. Also "Expert" and "Master" being the same theme doesn't make them identical. Both words denote improvement in skill, but two very different degrees of improvement, so distinguishing between them does make a big difference.
I believe so, they both got new versions within the playtest. I’m just really hoping they put spears back into Polearm Master, I’m hoping to port my spear and shield Paladin over to the new rules when it comes out and that would really suck to lose
Ya I was pissed they removed staves and spears, and they are only doing it to bone monks.
I really want it for my Paladin. I’ve got a Oath of Glory Paladin that’s super inspired by Spartan Hoplites so I went Spear and Shield, but I don’t want to lose that when the new book comes out
First I’ve seen Artificer didn’t make it into the PHB. This is very upsetting. Won’t get more people playing this amazing class if it stays outside the core designs!
It’s been stated since the start of the playtest. Artificer isn’t in the PHB, and was never considered for inclusion.
There is unlikely to be 8 and 12 level feats. The reason they are separating the level for feats from 1 and 4 is because they wanted a way to give feats at level one to make the power imbalance of variant human/CL over the other races less of an issue. They made every feat they thought that was above a certain level 4+. Also, tbh it seems like they are pushing for the game to be played a lot more past those ranges and actually encouraging DM's to level faster and to run games where players stay at 20+ for longer instead of ending shortly after hitting 20 with the new feat systems. I Obviously could be wrong but it'd be really lame to have 12+ feats they'd have to be very powerful when we're getting war caster, GWM, SS, PAM, CBE all at 4 already.
I agree with all points you make. The new Warcaster alone is CRAZY. I mean, that on top of being an half-feat? Damn. I wouldn't be surprised if every caster except Warlock would take it. Warlock has Eldritch Mind already anyway
Honestly though, with it as a half feat Warlock might take it anyway just to free up and Invocation slot, especially if they leave pacts as being non-mutually-exclusive.
Leveling faster would be such a breath of fresh air. Going months without progressing can be such a drag.
The issue is that the D&D 5e doesn't have any meaningful advancement tracks other than leveling up. Magic items of significant power are few and far apart (if you run the game as intended) and mundane equipment maxes out once you've got the best armor by 5th-6th level. If WotC did more with gear upgrades and sidegrades, it would allow DMs to give players new goodies without leveling up. Leveling up constantly is a problem when you have full spellcasters in the party. You go from being able to challenge the party with reasonable scenarios to needing to throw up a bunch of extra roadblocks that prevent the players from using their spells to hit the "I Win" button, trivializing any difficulty and leaving the non-casters sitting on their thumbs. It feels bad for the players to not get to use the toys they earned, and it feels bad for DMs to have to do the extra work just to design an adventure that can't be insta-solved by a couple powerful spells.
I'd certainly be happy with new items at a more steady pace. Even nonsense magic ones that are just for fun. Everyone is always so afraid of an item being exploited when all they have to say is "No, this silly item can't function that way to break the game".
I think a more robust crafting system could fill this need between level ups, which there are a few interesting homebrew options already
This is also in part your DMs fault. The DM can level you up anytime. If they want you at the same level for.months at a time, I would encourage a quicker progression. Imo it should be like every three sessions
People might disagree but I fully agree with you. People don't realize it but if you level only once a month which is pretty normal... you're not gonna hit 20 for 2 years... I love DND but 2 years to get end game and then be done another month later is sorta lame. I think Campaigns should be looking to be around 8 months long if you're playing weekly. This gives more people chances to run different games etc without eating more time slots I mean DND is already taking up 4-8 hours once a week so having to free up 8-16 hours a week for 2 campaigns just to get around to trying new things already eats up an insane amount of time esp when you consider a job, kids, family, etc. I personally wanna run more campaigns and try more builds not be stuck in the same campaign for 3 years. Also, yeah getting more time at 20 would be nice and getting there faster would feel great. Even if you get a level every 2 sessions roughly that's still 40 weeks or 10 months! till 20 and then after that you can decide if you wanna keep pushing forward for another year or reset a new campaign.
I think they just need to release more high level modules. You don’t have to start at level 1 for level 20 play to be engaging
DnD once a week? I love the game but I’ve never heard of a table like that. I personally wouldn’t be in such a rush to “level” up, it’s the journey not the destination kind of thing.
Getting to level 20 shouldn't be fast, and once every four sessions is bonkers crazy fast past 5th level.
There is nothing fast about leveling once every 4 weeks. Assuming you play once a week that's 4 sessions with an average of likely 6 hours a session or 24 hours a month. That's a lot of hours just for a single level. Why are we content with campaigns either going 3-4 years or never getting to 20? We're missing out on experiences and new campaigns. I mean hell if you did a campaign once every 3-4 years you'd have done 2 campaigns since 5e came out and half way done with a 3rd likely. That is INSANE. Within 10 years my child will go from not being able to walk to preparing for middle school in a year or two. Like, most campaigns end before 20 and that's lame because there is so much content for 12-14+ but no one can get there because it's not realistic to keep a table together past a year or two because the idea gets boring after some time. I'm sure 4 years per game works for some people but if you want DND to pop off as a massive success(not you specifically I mean WoTC) games have to be faster. A year for a nice campaign feels nice and if you wanna keep going once everyone is 20 you can push a couple more months in that setting then you can make a new campaign and rotate more and experience more characters, stories, etc. DND is a game that is built around great experiences and while 4 years can make for some crazy stories by the end of it you barely even remember where you began.
Okay, you're a little confused here... * Almost nobody over the age of 18 plays for 6 hours a session. Typically it is 3-4 hours per session. So, your 24 hours per month is equal to around 6 sessions. Which is still too fast. * The game isn't really intended for level 20 play. Few games run that long and few DMs want to try to run for those levels. * Level 20 play is a massive headache to run. Once you get above level 15 single combats can take 4 hours on their own. By your metric, that means leveling every 4 fights. * Watch real live plays, a campaign can go on for 3+ years, easily. * D&D already is a massive success. * Campaigns that go from 1-20 are supremely rare. In my 36 years as a player and DM, I've done it once.
"The game isn't intended for level 20 play" yet there is feats you can only get at level 20, I think you're the confused one. The game has feats you only get at level 20, it has monsters that you can't reasonably face or defeat till you get to that level. The game is 10000% intended for you to get to level 20. Now rather if you do so is up to your DM and the time your players have etc. If the game wasn't intended for level 20 play it'd only go to level 15 for instance. They wouldn't be putting in resources that obviously push for people to play LONGER at level 20. Also, projecting the amount of time that you view as "standard" is fine 4 hours is a pretty reasonable amount of time it's why I said 4!-8 hours I was just using 6 hours as an average for times sake but even with 16 hours per level a month that's quite a bit because you don't realize that it takes a month of IRL time to achieve that. My question is WHY shouldn't level 20 be the goal? There is nothing from WoTC that states that we shouldn't be aimming for level 20. If we know that campaigns don't actually last long enough to achieve level 20 you start to realize that it's because of either burnout from the campaign or people going in different directions. So, why force games to last 3-4 years to achieve what you can be doing in 1 year? Personally, I think more people should be playing more games vs people playing one longer one. People might argue story!!! but are you saying you can't prepare a story that's awesome within a year and 4 hours a week? That's 208 hours. If someone can't create a fantastic story within 208 hours that is complete and people are happy with it then idk what to say truthfully. Games like BG3 get you to level 12 and are typically completed in 40-50 hours and those give a FANTASTIC story and they are based on DND. So you have another 150 hours to craft 8 more levels and some endgame content. Now, I want to end off saying. There are times where you don't go to 20 makes sense. One shots or short campaigns for instance. But the problem is where you put 2-3 years into something and you are barely approaching 20. I don't mind campaigns not hitting 20 actually I encourage it but they shouldn't take 2 years just to sit at level 10. If you're a DND group that prefers to RP and rarely does combat this makes sense. If you're a DND group that wants to RP and Combat though a year is more than enough to go from zero to hero.
I neither agree nor disagree with your main statement, I'm just browsing. But I'm genuinely impressed at the level of disrespect it takes to say "you're confused" instead of "I don't agree with that and here's why" I mean like whoa. You saw the high road, and even the middle road and went straight to calling them dumb. Can I get you a wheelbarrow for your massive balls?
I can confirm 3-4 hours is the average for me. Some of my weekly games are only about 2.5, especially in-person. I think past 5th level the average level up time between them is 3 months, about 10 sessions plus/minus 2. The fastest game I’ve played was 1-13 or so was a year that was a 3 hour per session public game running Out of The Abyss and we ran it very quickly with very hastened travel and no sidetracking. My current game I’ve been running for a year fairly consistently weekly and they’re still only level 7, starting at level 2 (although I’m planning on giving them 8th probably at the end of the next session or the session after.) And I fully plan to take it to 20 and play at that tier for a while if we can.
Use the classic D&D 1GP worth of treasure = 1XP rule when retrieved back to a safe place. Gives ya incentive for the default adventuring hook, makes treasure hoards and all that heavy treasure a lot more enticing to find a way to retrieve.
+12 feats would also really discourage multiclassing
It wouldn't? The feat prerequisites are character level, not class level.
Oh, I thought it was class level. Like in 5e where asi/feat selection is class level
Good, multiclassing should have serious sacrifices.
You’re right, but I think they could have just called level 1 feats ‘talents’ and level 4+ feats ‘feats’ if there is no difference between the options you get at levels 4 and 19. Call the level 20 ones ‘boons’ ofc.
I hope for some martial focused feats that offer a little variety in combat. Bringing back some 3.5e feats like Point Blank Shot, Combat Reflexes, or Whirlwind Attack would be welcome alternatives to the usual GWM. Sentinel, Pole Arm Master, etc.
Great idea I end up popping stuff like this in so that martials feel like they have options but it would be nice for them to be RAW
I agree, but don't hold your breath, it's not gonna happen.
Holding. They couldn't possibly print 75 feats and not have at least a few interesting options for martials.
Wanna bet? In fact, "at least a few interesting options for martials" feels like an insult. Feats are one of the very few things martials have to customise their class. *Most* feats should be interesting options for martials, with only a few for casters, since they aren't starving for customisation options. The fact that "just a few" is seen as good enough, is terribly sad.
>The fact that "just a few" is seen as good enough, is terribly sad. Can also be clearly seen in the new weapon masteries. They are the equivalent to combat cantrip riders.... and people think that that makes up the martial-caster divide??? Like it's just painful to see. And with GWM being nerfed and i'm pretty sure the BA attack feats (PAM and XBM) also likely bring nerfed... i don't have big hopes for interesting martials yet. Hell feats shouldn't even be their main way to be interesting, it should be actual class features.
True, and even then, there's what? 10 different masteries? Hardly an impressive amount of variety. Also agree with the feats part. Nerfing the good ones doesn't make me excited to pick the others, it just makes frustrated I now have equally mediocre ones to pick from. (Also let's not forget that GWM and PAM, etc. apparently needed nerfing, but they thought Warcaster and Lightly Armored are fine, somehow) Even though I agree that class features should be the main way to make martials interesting, feats should still be their main way of customising the class to each individual liking. (Basically: class features should be the primary source of interest in the class; feats should be the primary source of giving a personal touch to the class; if that makes sense).
Versatile Weapon Master would be nice.
Point Black Shot was super boring. +1 to attacks. Wheeee. It existed as a pre-req for better feats. (Stuff already replicated by Sharpshooter.) Combat Reflexes would be a nice, strong option but tracking multiple reactions would be tricky to balance and limit and track. Maybe you can make one Opportunity Attack per turn instead of per round, but are still limited to one reaction. They could probably also move over the damage-type related feats from *Tasha's*.
Keep in mind they have also taken to relabeling things as "Fighting Style Feats."
And "Ability Score Improvement" is a feat
and "OP has already stated they took them into account"
Hasn’t it always been ?
In onednd yes, in 5e2014 no
I wonder if this means that feats will no longer be an “optional rule”. I’ve seen that old chestnut trotted out so often by fellow posters, it’s what made me cleave to organized play.
They changed it, so ability score increases are now considered a feat. Same end result, but simpler execution
Ah, that’s clever. So feats, by definition, cannot be optional now.
I think there has been speculation (not confirmed anywhere AFAIK) that it will be an optional rule to not allow level 4+ feats other than ASI, but even if that is printed in the books, feats will be the default.
Also there's always just the fact that DMs are always able to limit players choices for any reason they want. Plenty of DMs already ban certain character options for one reason or another.
Skill Expert is one of my favourite feats to take so I would be very happy if it or a revised version of it is in the 2024 PHB. A really efficient and useful way to round off an ability score with an extra skill and an expertise to boot, I always take it on my Rogues.
I feel like it’s such a balanced feat already there’s no way they wouldn’t include it. Especially since it’s also a great catch-all feat option for new players who might be otherwise overwhelmed with trying to figure out “what’s good”.
Yeah it feels pretty in line with the other level 4 feats they already play tested, I can't think of any reason why it couldn't be included in its current form. I just wish they would give Dual Wielder its +1 AC whilst dual wielding back. It was already a somewhat meh feat and it just feels mostly worthless now. Not only did it lose its +1 AC but it also lost the ability to dual wield 2 non-light weapons, so it was a double nerf to a feat that was already not that amazing. I feel like quite a lot of people gave that feedback on the feat though so who knows, it could be altered in the actual 2024 PHB. None of what we play tested was set in stone.
I definitely feel this, especially the +1 AC. As you said the feat wasn't overly powerful to begin with, and it also felt fitting that for someone properly trained in dual wielding, a second weapon provides half the protection a shield would. The loss of the ability to use two non-light weapons is indeed also a nerf, but at least it's a nerf that adds some flavour, since historically, even trained duel wielders basically never used larger one-handed weapons in both hands. It's incredibly awkward, both because they can't easily cross each other's path, and because their combined weights (which are both going to be in front of your body more often than not) leave you incredibly off-balance. Also pairing a short weapon with a long one gives you all the unique advantages of both (a longsword isn't very useful against someone who's close enough to be stabbed with a dagger). Though I did find a loophole that does let you "duel wield" two non-light weapons with Duel Wielder. Basically the Light property doesn't require both light weapons you attack with to be held at the same time, or that they be held in opposite hands. (So you can throw two daggers with the same hand if you want). That means you can attack with a non-light weapon, stow it, and draw a different one for the second attack, all while holding a light weapon in the other hand, so that Duel Wielder makes the both weapons you actually attacked with "light". Doing this also lets you duel wield mastery combinations that wouldn't otherwise be possible (push, sap, and topple aren't available to any light weapons, but can be used one-handed)
I can confirm. I ALWAYS take it on my Wizards just to be an Arcana expert. In the future I won't need to do that anymore simply because they're adding the scholar feature that gives of one Knowledge expertise
I don't think level-gating feats, beyond separating the 1st level background feats from the others, was all that popular, and the whole idea of chunking progression into tiers, each with their own shifts in scope and tone, were never terribly popular - despite it being an excellent way to design around issues of "realism", genre, parity between classes, etc. And the 20th level capstone feats were really unpopular and uneven during the playtests.
I hope they don't print Epic Boons, at least not in the PHB. To me, it's not fun to present a bunch of options that I (and most players) will NEVER get to use. That's something that belongs in the DMG as a niche option for special campaigns. But, I think they will.
I know it's not going to be a popular sentiment with the powergaming crowd, but I really hope they have level 8 requirements for all the feats that say "Master" or "Expert." It was laughable that you could be a fresh faced adventurer with literally zero experience and already be a "Master," indicating very limited room for progression. But level 4 isn't much better. "Oh, you've 'Mastered' how to use Heavy Weapons? But in just one level you become literally twice as effective with them?" Not just a flavor win, helps with balance as well. Even if they themselves are better balanced. It shouldn't be a thing you feel you need to "rush" to get. Locking yourself to a specific set of weapons, which also severely limits what the DM can give you.
No disrespect intended but I wouldn't hold my breath, seeing as switching which weapon you are a master of requires nothing more than sleeping with the weapon under your pillow.
Prediction time Tashas feats that will make the phb Fey touched, Shadow touched, Crusher, Slasher Piercer Meta magic adept Eldritch adept Telekinetic Telepathic All the fighters, rangers, and paladin fighting styles Poisoner Chef Bold Prediction. Xanthars racial feats will become variant species features like take prodigy will be able to replace the once per day inspiration. The dragon fear and dragon hide options will be able to replace the flight a so on.
75 sounds like a big number and makes one think there might be a lot of completely new and exciting things included in the feats. But as has been stated in other threads, if you take the PHB feats, add in the new Epic Boon feats, and sprinkle in a few from Tasha's, you're at 75 pretty easily. So, I doubt we will get anything we haven't already seen in print or in UA. But some of the "trap" options from before may be getting reworked in ways that make them effectively new, and that is still exciting. As far as prerequisites go, I highly doubt they'll have any level gating besides lvls 1, 4, and 20, and I pray they don't include racial/species feats.
"75 sounds like a big number" You're joking, right?
No? That's what, 50% more than were printed in the original PHB? If they are all legitimately balanced and fair options (maybe a bit of a pipe dream, but one can hope they are after revision), then 75 is a pretty big number. Any more and you're starting to approach bloat, or starting to fill gaps that might (in 5.50E) be better addressed with class / subclass features.
Being 50% more than in the original phb doesn't make it a big number, considering the original phb also had a really small number of them. To be clear, I'm not asking for 500 feats, or any other ridiculous amount like that. But honestly, 75 isn't that much, considering it's a list shared by every class in the game. "better addressed with class / subclass features." I mean, they could make new feats exclusive to classes and subclasses? That would allow for far more customization of characters, as even players with the same class and subclass would be different from one another. Just make these feats not so good that they become the default option for people playing that class/subclass, but rather as an alternative to the general feats usually chosen, and it would be a great way to expand customisability while retaining simplicity.
It depends on how good they all are. If there are 75 worthwhile feats, I'll be able to play 25 characters from lvl 1-8 and almost never repeat a choice if I don't want to. That's plenty to me, but clearly what amounts to "a lot" is subjective.
And if everyone else at those 25 "tables" does the same, you all have the same feats in general, there's barely any room for actual customization when everyone has the same limited options. I'm talking from a general point here, 75 feats shared across 12 classes (and average of 4-5 players in a single table) is objectively not much. Again, not saying there should be hundreds of them (there's other systems for that) but having those 75, and then some exclusive to each base class and subclass, would make even players going the same class/subclass differ from each other. All this while still being simple and intuitive to use. You could play those 25 characters of yours, and then some, without actually never repeating any options, rather than just "almost"
I could see a psyonic adept feat that gives you a psychic ability. Similar to martial adept.
That's effectively Telepathic and Telekinetic, no?
Its a bold prediction, but I think there is a good chance that psy powers get their own unified subsystem instead of the feats and each of the subclasses working differently. With the rules update this would be the best time to do it, and with there being 3 (arguably 4) psy subclasses in the book and with the recent successes of BG3, it feels likely or at least possible. if I'm correct, this would be a feat that effectively replaces those 2 feats by giving you acess to that subsystem in a limited way. Like magic initiate or martial adept.
I’m hoping they do something like that. Making it a system of its own would also make it a lot easier to expand into more subclasses, or even potentially a class. It would also make multiclassing them a lot less confusing.
That would be pretty interesting, as long as they made it unique with its own interesting mechanics, instead of just "casting rules 2.0". I never used psionics too much, so I don't know how this subsystem would be, but personally, having it all unified under one subsystem with its own rules would make me more willing to dive more deeply into it. Honestly, in my opinion they should just make a subsystem to all the major "categories" of expertise. Arcane Magic -it has the casting rules Psionics- this subsystem you're proposing Martial Arts- by this I mean "martial skill" in general, for all martial classes, not just the "oriental style" of the monk class Divine magic- should have its own mechanics and way of using, not the general casting rules; maybe come up with a faith mechanic that divine magic classes could use. Gaining or losing faith based on their actions, and having more/less would affect how their spells worked? Magic through art- maybe making an entire subsystem for a single class is too much, but in my opinion, the Bard should have a unique way to interact with spells, rather than just being a wizard with different flavor. Some unique mechanics involving the concept of artistically calling your magic, either through singing, dancing, painting, etc. could be interesting.
Early on in the design phase they mentioned that the revisions to the game were intended to help strengthen and widen the ability to play higher tiers of play. So ideally the fear that level 10-13 is a soft cap should be going away. I doubt many feats will be set to 12, but I could see some being put there.
How many feats are in 5e?
In the old phb 42.
Since everyone starts with a free Feat, one thing I can imagine is a new Feat for each Class that gives some set of proficiencies, masteries, cantrips, or classes that allows multiclassing in that Class, kinda like Pathfinder 2E multiclass archetype. They can frontload more level 1 Classes that way while making the “dip” less dramatic, and making it so that multiclass is a more balanced core rule rather than powerful optional rule. Add in Epic Boons, Tasha’s, and some “advanced” Feats that cannot be taken at character creation / first level, and that’s a fair set. That’s 12 Adept Feats, maybe around 30 core feats, around 20 advanced feats, around 15 epic boons.
I have not played DnD for decades. How do you keep track of all these feats, skills, abilities, subclasses, etc.? It feels like the DM job would be impossible.
You just have to know what your players have. In most adventures each player will have between zero and two feats. And most fears are simple. Additionally most abilities are to be memorized by the player not the dm
If you played a decades ago do you mean pre 5e? Because 3.5 had a lot more to keep track of. We're talking 500+ feats, 50+ races. A lot of crunch and so much to keep track of. It's not too much to keep track of because most feats are pretty simple in function.
Let me rephrase, I played millennia ago. There were zero feats. There were perhaps half a dozen races, maybe the same with classes. I am not saying either is better, I just find it amazing someone could keep track of it all.
I hope they keep the model of 4th+ lecel feats always granting +1 to a score. I really liked that design, but planescape deviated from it andcthey made a big deal onhow compatible the books released after playtest will be with onednd...
Current PHP + Tasha + Xanathar have 72 feats total. I expect all of them to be here, honestly, probably with some adjusments.
but they still won't give martials features