One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
Some of the Epic Boons do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I'm with Ophidimancer here. Martials have such a tendency to get siloed into a specific style that it's nice to at least have the option for some versatility. Granted, snagging a bunch of style feats is probably suboptimal, given that you can only benefit from one at a time and they aren't half feats, but at least the option is there.
I gotta say I don’t like that the fighting styles are now feats. Seems… wrong.
Tasha's had already made them into Feats though, they are just moving that into the PHB.
I am just glad that Ranger gets one for free and likely so will all the other Martial that normally have a Fighting Style.
Edit: But these Feats are only available to "Warriors" so non Martial classes will have to Dip into a Warrior class to get them. The current version is available to everyone.
No, Tasha’s made A feat that allowed you to take a fighting style. Now that each fighting style is its own feat, a human fighter can start with 3 fighting styles, a human barbarian or monk can start with 2, and they could all add more as they level up if they choose. I don’t like it. If there was just one fighting style feat that allowed you to pick a single style like in Tasha’s, I wouldn’t be complaining.
Ah, I see.
I honestly think with the "Warrior" UA, there will be better Feats to take than just getting another Fighting Style. I really don't see most Martials having more than 2 which is pretty much where they are now. I think the fact that the Fighting Styles are limited to "Warriors" and those classes being able to be more versatile in the way that they fight is a positive thing. Since it is a Feat, they can choose to either be more broadly skilled, or more focused by taking other Feats.
Of course it is all speculation dependent upon the things said by JC in the Feats video.
I gotta say I don’t like that the fighting styles are now feats. Seems… wrong.
Tasha's had already made them into Feats though, they are just moving that into the PHB.
I am just glad that Ranger gets one for free and likely so will all the other Martial that normally have a Fighting Style.
Edit: But these Feats are only available to "Warriors" so non Martial classes will have to Dip into a Warrior class to get them. The current version is available to everyone.
No, Tasha’s made A feat that allowed you to take a fighting style. Now that each fighting style is its own feat, a human fighter can start with 3 fighting styles, a human barbarian or monk can start with 2, and they could all add more as they level up if they choose. I don’t like it. If there was just one fighting style feat that allowed you to pick a single style like in Tasha’s, I wouldn’t be complaining.
I don't see an inherent problem honestly. We've recently talked about how martials don't get a whole lot of options compared to casters, and this is one way of giving that to them.
Not to mention, each of the fighting styles is so basic that having only one (or two if you sacrifice a feat for it) if you weren't a Champion just felt wrong to me. Why exactly can't a warrior specialize in both archery and two-weapon fighting? Or specialize in both dueling and protection?
I don’t mind the idea of a fighter with 2 fighting styles, or think that letting a barbarian or a monk have a fighting style is a bad thing. Like I said, I didn’t mind the feat in Tasha’s. I do mind them having all of that at 1st-level. A fighter should have to start with 1 and work up to their second one, and everyone else should have to work up to their first to keep having one at 1st level special for fighters. It’s having access to all of them, especially right out the gate that I don’t like.
One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
Some of the Epic Boons do.
But that is level 20. Should have some for lower level for play test. Like the fighting styles are all Warrior. So to have a couple that demonstrate what separates the Expert group.
Making Fighting Styles into individual feats also makes it easier for the Warrior classes to pick new ones when they get the option to make more Fighting Styles. That said.... Ranger and Paladin will probably be stuck with the same ones from the core, if the current Ranger is anything to go by.
One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
You also notice that more than a few feats -grant- Expertise in various skills, which means that almost anyone can be an Expert, which makes the whole Expert group thing extra... open to anyone.
I find it a little annoying that I can't have a rogue pick up FS:2WF but anyone can grab Keen Mind or Observant for Expertise. Mostly just from a fairness perspective, because it feels like a bit of a double standard at play. I don't like double standards.
Making Fighting Styles into individual feats also makes it easier for the Warrior classes to pick new ones when they get the option to make more Fighting Styles. That said.... Ranger and Paladin will probably be stuck with the same ones from the core, if the current Ranger is anything to go by.
One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
You also notice that more than a few feats -grant- Expertise in various skills, which means that almost anyone can be an Expert, which makes the whole Expert group thing extra... open to anyone.
I find it a little annoying that I can't have a rogue pick up FS:2WF but anyone can grab Keen Mind or Observant for Expertise. Mostly just from a fairness perspective, because it feels like a bit of a double standard at play. I don't like double standards.
Agreed and what I am talking about. We should have a fighting style for Experts. I think Experts having a feat for incapacitating foes would be an example. Classic move for stealthy people to knock someone out. That or dagger style. They may have some in later UA but not to have any here is odd
One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
Some of the Epic Boons do.
But that is level 20.
You said they do not provide any feats with Expert as a prerequisite. I provided examples of some that do. You could at least acknowledge that your first statement was incorrect before moving on to your "but."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Making Fighting Styles into individual feats also makes it easier for the Warrior classes to pick new ones when they get the option to make more Fighting Styles. That said.... Ranger and Paladin will probably be stuck with the same ones from the core, if the current Ranger is anything to go by.
One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
You also notice that more than a few feats -grant- Expertise in various skills, which means that almost anyone can be an Expert, which makes the whole Expert group thing extra... open to anyone.
I find it a little annoying that I can't have a rogue pick up FS:2WF but anyone can grab Keen Mind or Observant for Expertise. Mostly just from a fairness perspective, because it feels like a bit of a double standard at play. I don't like double standards.
Provided they errata Skill Expert from Tasha's to be an Expert-only feat (which would only make sense), I don't see this being a huge issue. Keen Mind and Observant offer Expertise to non-experts, but only in a limited selection of skills, just like anyone can take combat feats, just not every combat feat.
Making Fighting Styles into individual feats also makes it easier for the Warrior classes to pick new ones when they get the option to make more Fighting Styles. That said.... Ranger and Paladin will probably be stuck with the same ones from the core, if the current Ranger is anything to go by.
One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
You also notice that more than a few feats -grant- Expertise in various skills, which means that almost anyone can be an Expert, which makes the whole Expert group thing extra... open to anyone.
I find it a little annoying that I can't have a rogue pick up FS:2WF but anyone can grab Keen Mind or Observant for Expertise. Mostly just from a fairness perspective, because it feels like a bit of a double standard at play. I don't like double standards.
Point of order. Classes in the Expert group get expertise as a class feature.
Getting expertise from a feat or another source does not add you to the Expert group if your class wasn't already in there.
So at best a Mage with expertise in Arcana is an expert with a lowercase 'e' as opposed to a Bard who is an Expert.
Provided they errata Skill Expert from Tasha's to be an Expert-only feat (which would only make sense), I don't see this being a huge issue. Keen Mind and Observant offer Expertise to non-experts, but only in a limited selection of skills, just like anyone can take combat feats, just not every combat feat.
Sure. Some feats at playable levels unique to Experts is all I ask for. Or open Fighting Styles to everyone.
Its super weird that there are no expert feats for T1 or T2
One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
Some of the Epic Boons do.
But that is level 20.
You said they do not provide any feats with Expert as a prerequisite. I provided examples of some that do. You could at least acknowledge that your first statement was incorrect before moving on to your "but."
Fine if it will make your life better then I was incorrect. I am just going to say it now you're right about everything. I don't need pages like our other discussion.
Ranger is considered good again! 😃😃😃 FINALLY! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS! LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
What they clearly forgot is that all the epic boon feats that have a prerequisite have Expert as one of them so Experts (such as Rangers) can take any epic boon in the game.
Is it me or NATURE'S VEIL is a waste? I mean what do you gain from it? A lvl2 spell nerfed when you hit level 13? And yes, I already noticed that it says "spell slot", so you could use it with one of your 4 lvl 1 spell slots. But still, gaining invisibility for one turn by spending a spell slot doesn't seem like a big deal to me. . Although maybe it's just me, and I'm not seeing something. In my opinion, that feature cries out to be a number of times equal to your Proficency Bonus without spending a spell slot.
Other than that I like what they've done with the ranger. They already did well at Tasha's, and here they have followed that line.
I also like what they've done with the Bard, though I wish they'd traded Magical Secrets for something else. Why does the bard have access to every spell in the game? Shouldn't that be a wizard thing? I would have at least limited the Magical Secrets to the 4 schools that the bard can choose by default. But really what I would have given him is something that enhances the support role even more, which is what thematically works best for a bard.
Nature's Veil is notable in that it doesn't cast the Invisibility spell on you, with its limitations and caveats, it just makes you invisible for a round as a bonus action with all the perks that come with having that condition. That means advantage on all your attacks that round for the same bonus action you no longer need available to engage in Two-Weapon Fighting, a fighting style also available to Rangers. You can also use it to hide, since that's a little harder now, and it's a handy ability to have if you want the option of being able to utilize invisibility without that spell taking up on of your limited 2nd level prep slots.
something I did not notice before snuck in the influence action is that handle animal now works on monstrosities.
They had too now that they have re-defined alot of Beasts as monstrosities because of using it to control choices(wild shapes, summon spells, beastmaster) even though most of the changed types weren't really problematic choices.
something I did not notice before snuck in the influence action is that handle animal now works on monstrosities.
Under any competent DM it's always worked on monstrosities because it's never been Type based before. The new rule letting you use Animal Handling on e.g. a Yuan-Ti Abomination is incredibly bizarre. Animal Handling should be what you use on a creature that has no languages at all but can still be communicated with - so it should work on some monstrosities, sure, but also on, say, a wyvern, and it shouldn't work on monstrosities you can just talk to, like the aforementioned Yuan-Ti.
I finally had a chance to sit down and read part of this damned thing. Did anyone else notice the nerf to Sneak Attack?
and evasion
Evasion wasn't nerfed. The only change was that you don't take half damage when you're incapicated. Quite frankly, I think the previous rules make no sense, and this only a minor change not a major nerf anyway.
The rogue lies motionless as fire engulfs their unmoving body since they are unable to dodge out of the way. They take half damage.
One flaw I see in all of this, in a UA about Expert Groups and adding feats that specific to groups, they do not provide any feats that have prerequisite to Expert Class
Some of the Epic Boons do.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I don’t mind the idea of a fighter with 2 fighting styles, or think that letting a barbarian or a monk have a fighting style is a bad thing. Like I said, I didn’t mind the feat in Tasha’s. I do mind them having all of that at 1st-level. A fighter should have to start with 1 and work up to their second one, and everyone else should have to work up to their first to keep having one at 1st level special for fighters. It’s having access to all of them, especially right out the gate that I don’t like.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But that is level 20. Should have some for lower level for play test. Like the fighting styles are all Warrior.
So to have a couple that demonstrate what separates the Expert group.
Making Fighting Styles into individual feats also makes it easier for the Warrior classes to pick new ones when they get the option to make more Fighting Styles. That said.... Ranger and Paladin will probably be stuck with the same ones from the core, if the current Ranger is anything to go by.
You also notice that more than a few feats -grant- Expertise in various skills, which means that almost anyone can be an Expert, which makes the whole Expert group thing extra... open to anyone.
I find it a little annoying that I can't have a rogue pick up FS:2WF but anyone can grab Keen Mind or Observant for Expertise. Mostly just from a fairness perspective, because it feels like a bit of a double standard at play. I don't like double standards.
Agreed and what I am talking about. We should have a fighting style for Experts. I think Experts having a feat for incapacitating foes would be an example.
Classic move for stealthy people to knock someone out. That or dagger style. They may have some in later UA but not to have any here is odd
You said they do not provide any feats with Expert as a prerequisite. I provided examples of some that do. You could at least acknowledge that your first statement was incorrect before moving on to your "but."
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Provided they errata Skill Expert from Tasha's to be an Expert-only feat (which would only make sense), I don't see this being a huge issue. Keen Mind and Observant offer Expertise to non-experts, but only in a limited selection of skills, just like anyone can take combat feats, just not every combat feat.
Point of order. Classes in the Expert group get expertise as a class feature.
Getting expertise from a feat or another source does not add you to the Expert group if your class wasn't already in there.
So at best a Mage with expertise in Arcana is an expert with a lowercase 'e' as opposed to a Bard who is an Expert.
Sure. Some feats at playable levels unique to Experts is all I ask for. Or open Fighting Styles to everyone.
Its super weird that there are no expert feats for T1 or T2
Fine if it will make your life better then I was incorrect. I am just going to say it now you're right about everything. I don't need pages like our other discussion.
Ranger is considered good again! 😃😃😃 FINALLY! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS! LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
What they clearly forgot is that all the epic boon feats that have a prerequisite have Expert as one of them so Experts (such as Rangers) can take any epic boon in the game.
Nature's Veil is notable in that it doesn't cast the Invisibility spell on you, with its limitations and caveats, it just makes you invisible for a round as a bonus action with all the perks that come with having that condition. That means advantage on all your attacks that round for the same bonus action you no longer need available to engage in Two-Weapon Fighting, a fighting style also available to Rangers. You can also use it to hide, since that's a little harder now, and it's a handy ability to have if you want the option of being able to utilize invisibility without that spell taking up on of your limited 2nd level prep slots.
something I did not notice before snuck in the influence action is that handle animal now works on monstrosities.
They had too now that they have re-defined alot of Beasts as monstrosities because of using it to control choices(wild shapes, summon spells, beastmaster) even though most of the changed types weren't really problematic choices.
Under any competent DM it's always worked on monstrosities because it's never been Type based before. The new rule letting you use Animal Handling on e.g. a Yuan-Ti Abomination is incredibly bizarre. Animal Handling should be what you use on a creature that has no languages at all but can still be communicated with - so it should work on some monstrosities, sure, but also on, say, a wyvern, and it shouldn't work on monstrosities you can just talk to, like the aforementioned Yuan-Ti.
and evasion
Evasion wasn't nerfed. The only change was that you don't take half damage when you're incapicated. Quite frankly, I think the previous rules make no sense, and this only a minor change not a major nerf anyway.
The rogue lies motionless as fire engulfs their unmoving body since they are unable to dodge out of the way. They take half damage.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.