Article on dnd.wizards.com
Direct link to PDF

In general I like what I see. I like how the designer put in some fluff about how a Feat can be created; he even provided a "bad" example. It's great that each feat is accompanied by some background info to explain the designer's rationale. I like how there are unique feats for each weapon type. The Tool Feats, though, particularly shine to me: they add a LOT of value to an area of the game that, in my opinion, was ambiguously useful.

I'm not crazy about the +1 bonus for the Weapon feats, though. I feel that it goes against the spirit of the game: getting rid of all the bonuses and penalties. If this is all that there'll be, then I suppose that's okay. But you know what's going to happen: on OBS the floodgates will be opened for thousands of 3rd party "10 new feats!" products, many of which will likely stack on bonuses like these. I hope not...

I think that I would have preferred something else, like "re-roll 1s on damage rolls" or "increase the damage die type by 'one step'".

What do you folks think?

The weapon feats are pretty boring, but I loved the tool feats, especially Gourmand. So flavorful.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;902764...Gourmand... flavorful.

I see what you did there, har har.

The way combat-oriented feats work in 3E, 4E and 5E has to be the thing I dislike the most about the modern era of D&D. I'm totally down with the concept of feats as a mechanism for providing non-magical characters with interesting capabilities beyond those provided by membership in a class. But the way they work is just a mix of grade inflation (50 different ways of saying you get a +1 bonus) and pretty dorky special effects. They are also highly game-able, meaning every rules dork and his cousin has figured out the 'correct' series of feats to give you some maximum combat effectiveness. I think the whole thing kind of sucks, and these new ones don't do anything to change that opinion.

Meh. Indifferent on the weapon feats, but they seem consistent with core.

Alchemist and Burglar sort of step on certain Backgrounds' toes, but I can live with that.

Gourmand has quasi-videogamey healing food which is vaguely dumb, but then hit points are so loosely defined that it may work? Eh, I don't know.

Quote from: WotCJust as importantly, feats shouldn’t add a mechanical layer to parts of the game where we expect the Dungeon Master to make a judgment call or to adjudicate things on the fly...

That whole third paragraph was good advice... I wish they'd followed it when designing the rogue's Assassin archetype. :mad:

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902781That whole third paragraph was good advice... I wish they'd followed it when designing the rogue's Assassin archetype. :mad:

Seriously, yeah. I wish they had hewn to this article throughout the 5e design.

QuoteWhy I Hate This Feat ... The ability to knock aside an opponent's shield is nifty – but that's something any character should be able to attempt.

Edit: After reading the whole thing, I would like to reduce my praise.

I find this all half-ass measures. Either go all the way and make them as mechanically impacting as... SPELLS. Or don't use them.

Second observation is these Feats break with their general guidelines of giving nickel-and-dime bonuses to hit. That works directly against their own core design concept of "Bounded Accuracy" where they even say to avoid giving out these kinds of bonuses due to the impact on it. Thirdly, as I've said in my previous posts about Fighters and the Battle-Master in particular where I think all those abilities they gave the Battle-Master should be available for all classes - here now is my evidence where within the discussion of a Feat WotC outright gives an arbitrary example where they say knocking aside someone's shield should be something any character should be able to attempt? So why not apply that to - Parrying? Riposting? Disarm? etc.

Already they're mucking around in the corner they've painted themselves into. And the Feats still aren't strong enough.

Quote from: tenbones;902813I find this all half-ass measures. Either go all the way and make them as mechanically impacting as... SPELLS. Or don't use them.

Do you not remember the bitching and whining the Wizard class players did over The Book of Nine Swords, man?  Seriously, there's a reason 4e flopped, and it's not just because the OGL killed it, by allowing those very same whiners to stick to a game system that allows them to keep their god characters and lord their in game pretend power over their friends at the table.  They are NEVER going to make feats that will instantly kill a foe(s), which some low level spells can effectively do.  Especially not when you have a race (Variant Human) that optionally can start with said feat, at Level 1.

Quote from: tenbones;902813Second observation is these Feats break with their general guidelines of giving nickel-and-dime bonuses to hit. That works directly against their own core design concept of "Bounded Accuracy" where they even say to avoid giving out these kinds of bonuses due to the impact on it. Thirdly, as I've said in my previous posts about Fighters and the Battle-Master in particular where I think all those abilities they gave the Battle-Master should be available for all classes - here now is my evidence where within the discussion of a Feat WotC outright gives an arbitrary example where they say knocking aside someone's shield should be something any character should be able to attempt? So why not apply that to - Parrying? Riposting? Disarm? etc.

Already they're mucking around in the corner they've painted themselves into. And the Feats still aren't strong enough.

My issue with the feats mirror you on this, though.  I don't like the +1 that the weapons give, it smacks too much of the 'Weapon Specialization' BS that force-focused Fighters in previous editions to sticking with a single weapon forever, which is waaaay too common in waaaaay too much anime.

But I disagree with the Battlemaster.  The class' powers are bloated crap that does nothing but add fiddly bits for too little gain.  Besides, the Rogue has a better mechanic anyway.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;902821Do you not remember the bitching and whining the Wizard class players did over The Book of Nine Swords, man?  Seriously, there's a reason 4e flopped, and it's not just because the OGL killed it, by allowing those very same whiners to stick to a game system that allows them to keep their god characters and lord their in game pretend power over their friends at the table.  They are NEVER going to make feats that will instantly kill a foe(s), which some low level spells can effectively do.  Especially not when you have a race (Variant Human) that optionally can start with said feat, at Level 1.

Heh I remember it! It was the cherry on the shit-cake of 3e that made me feel good about retiring it. I think this cat has been skinned (Fantasy Craft) - and I think Fantasy Craft could be successfully slimmed down keeping the exact same premise. But that's a different thread and likely an entirely different game. Bo9S was, imo, a really clumsy and convoluted way to express the ideas they attempted.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;902821My issue with the feats mirror you on this, though.  I don't like the +1 that the weapons give, it smacks too much of the 'Weapon Specialization' BS that force-focused Fighters in previous editions to sticking with a single weapon forever, which is waaaay too common in waaaaay too much anime.

But I disagree with the Battlemaster.  The class' powers are bloated crap that does nothing but add fiddly bits for too little gain.  Besides, the Rogue has a better mechanic anyway.

It's bloated crap mainly because it kind of juts out like a vestigial leg on the back of 5e. And it's that way *because* it exists only to point at as a wink to 4e fans. Otherwise I'm with you. This UA post is starting to show that their own internal consistency is creaking. There is an *awful lot* of 5e tied up in Bounded Accuracy (which I think is a good thing and should remain a 5e Sacred Cow) - but could still be designed around with relative ease. I'm taking this as some small evidence they still don't know what they want 5e to be.

Still as kludge-y as ever. Also throwing +1s about in the face of bounded accuracy and stepping on bqckground's toes... Still terrible design and looks like flailing to comprehend its supposed niche.

Look, Weapon Proficiencies were to open other classes to previously restricted weapons, but it also ended up at the expense of the fighter's previous breadth. Workable, but as an optional rule it needed further enticements to really bring WP into something interesting.

NWPS were professional level skills, to do the profitable as everyday and the remarkable with the effort of a roll. They were to Fire Starting what it means to light a fire in a lean-to during a rainstorm with wet materials and the power of love. They too ended up being read as permission-based over time.

And now here we are with a kludge hobbling along that's trying to keep pace with spells after they untethered casting from being interruptable (among other things). It ain't gonna work. You screwed up both design spaces royally during 3e and the only solution to re-open this "kludge-space" is to undo the previous foundations for feats (notice I didn't say WP/NWP,) and know why you are undoing them.

The only utility from this article I found was in the first column of the first page, their supposed mission statement for the role of feats.

Quote from: tenbones;902813Second observation is these Feats break with their general guidelines of giving nickel-and-dime bonuses to hit.

I hope they're getting stern feedback about this.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;902867I hope they're getting stern feedback about this.

Me too Ship. But I have a sneaking suspicion they're going to screw it up further. They need to take a hard turn-around and acknowledge what the players want. As it is now - they're just teasing everyone behind the banner of "Optional rules" layered with UA as "unofficial". So they can always say "It's okay everyone, it doesn't count." And they'd be right. But then why even post it?

It wouldn't be so bad if they hadn't directly crossed their own boundaries. Bounded Accuracy is one of the best things in 5e. While it's not broken, this is a very big step over the line in my opinion. But ultimately, it's the tip of a large iceberg for me. I'm on hiatus with 5e.

Quote from: Opaopajr;902866Still as kludge-y as ever. Also throwing +1s about in the face of bounded accuracy and stepping on bqckground's toes... Still terrible design and looks like flailing to comprehend its supposed niche.

Keep in mind that the UA stuff is mostly playtest stage to get feedback. Get on the site and TELL THEM what you think is wrong with the feats presented and hope someone listens.

So far none of the UA stuff has made it into an official book. And the Elemental Evil one doesnt count as it was originally to be published and then shunted to UA when they dropped that idea. Rather than starting in UA and moving out.

Quote from: Omega;902920Keep in mind that the UA stuff is mostly playtest stage to get feedback. Get on the site and TELL THEM what you think is wrong with the feats presented and hope someone listens.

So far none of the UA stuff has made it into an official book. And the Elemental Evil one doesnt count as it was originally to be published and then shunted to UA when they dropped that idea. Rather than starting in UA and moving out.

Actually, some of the UA material (Swashbuckler, Storm Sorcerer) appeared in the Sword Coast Guide.

Regarding feedback, WOTC always follows up on UA articles with an online survey to gauge reactions of their audience. Everyone will have an opportunity to tell them how much they dislike this material, and why. I'm rather looking forward to it.