Heh. The issue with R5e Mage Slayer is that it's superfluous to any of the many multitudinous sources of advantage on save effects. Got a Mantle of Spell Resistance? Whelp - now half your Mage Slayer feat is dead in the water. Are you a satyr, yuan-ti, or gnome? You get a big chunk of Mage Slayer for free-ninety-nine.
This version is useful for everybody. No amount of advantage is equivalent to the ability to simply say "No" once per day. is it weaker for people who didn't already have advantage on saves? Probably, yes. But imagine being a paladin with obscene saving throw bonuses and then taking Mage Slayer on top of it, so that the one time you roll like poopypants and flub a save anyways? No you didn't. I'm a fan of feats that offer a mix of useful always-on traits (such as disadvantaging enemy concentration checks) and punchy, dramatic limited-use stuff where appropriate (being able to say "No." to the BBEG tryin'a brain-blast you). Wanting to keep the advantage is totally valid, but I'm still on the side of the new edition, methinks.
Sorry, why would I take a magic item that was redundant with an ability I already have? I would just give it to another party member.
You might want the other benefits of Mage Slayer but not want the redundancy of magic resistance. And you can't "just give" a racial feature to another party member.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Mage Slayer - I liked the 5e version with the opportunity to retaliate against a creature that cast a spell when you were next to them and advantage on saving throws vs spells. This is nerfed pretty hard in the interest of becoming a half-feat.
Yeah I'm going to disagree with this, I think if anything it was buffed. Mage slayer was a pretty bad feat before, advantage to make a save within 5' is useful if you have a chance in hell of making the save. They will be targeting your weak save, the cleric/wizard etc isn't going to say hmm a raging lunatic is in front of me maybe ill cast a dex spell for meh damage. They are holding you, banishing you etc. So one auto success is far better, the reaction attack is nice I guess but if you are in melee with a caster they are dead already in the vast majority of cases.
Wizards cast damage-dealing spells even when facing rogues and monks. Any spell-caster in danger is going to try to neutralize the most threatening target in the most effective way, true, but damage (and damage against multiple targets) is often the most effective way and the way that their allies can most likely contribute to. "Save or suck" has "suck" in the phrase for a reason, while damage is always progressing towards the goal. And I'd rather have advantage on a difficult save than not - you're right, the more difficult the save the less advantage helps you, but at least it's still on after the first spell.
As a DM I only cast damaging spells at fast looking characters when it either does not use a dex save or I have like no other options, or if the monster/enemy I am playing has some reason to use bad tactics. Maybe sometimes early fight when the enemy isn't at the im 5' from you stage, as I'm not really casting it at the rogue im hitting the whole party, but once it has progressed to that point yeah, fireball is not my go to option. This version is just better for most builds. For a paladin maybe as they will have universally decent saves once their aura gets rocking but even then I kind of doubt it as too much was focused on benefits once you are at 5' and once you are there the fight is probably already over. If the reaction had acted like a counter spell, yeah that would be better but its not its just one attack.
Heh. The issue with R5e Mage Slayer is that it's superfluous to any of the many multitudinous sources of advantage on save effects. Got a Mantle of Spell Resistance? Whelp - now half your Mage Slayer feat is dead in the water. Are you a satyr, yuan-ti, or gnome? You get a big chunk of Mage Slayer for free-ninety-nine.
This version is useful for everybody. No amount of advantage is equivalent to the ability to simply say "No" once per day. is it weaker for people who didn't already have advantage on saves? Probably, yes. But imagine being a paladin with obscene saving throw bonuses and then taking Mage Slayer on top of it, so that the one time you roll like poopypants and flub a save anyways? No you didn't. I'm a fan of feats that offer a mix of useful always-on traits (such as disadvantaging enemy concentration checks) and punchy, dramatic limited-use stuff where appropriate (being able to say "No." to the BBEG tryin'a brain-blast you). Wanting to keep the advantage is totally valid, but I'm still on the side of the new edition, methinks.
I agree with Yurie on this: the previous version of Mage Slayer meant that, for people with magic resistance, it was redundant and less powerful. Having a once-per-day use of Legendary Resistance against Int, Cha, & Wis saves seems much, much cooler than just getting to make an extra attack if you're within 5' of someone who casts a spell. If the big Martial is in melee range with a spellcaster, said spellcaster probably already has greater problems. Having an automatic success is really cool and can be a life-saver.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
I am starting to wonder if it wouldn't be better to scrap armor training entirely. It realy is just a feat tax for wizard and sorcerer at this point. The strength requirements for heavy is usually enough to keep most out of it and stealth penalties of medium are reasons to have light.
Also I noticed a distinct lack of feats that required expert.
The current UA feats that require Expert (and Warrior or Mage) are all Epic Boons.
That is what I mean by distinct lack (also warrior has fighting style lvl 1 feats in the expert play test.)
I am just saying this is the expert class playtest. A few generic feats and some low level expert feats would have been nice to be able to test.
Well they had to include the fighting styles because the Ranger gets one. And the Epic boons (that Experts can get) because of the new capstones.
But yeah, I agree it would have be nice to see more Expert feats for levels below 20.
So I thought I would share some additional thoughts at this point. Had to give it some time to marinate with me, and for me to test some stuff out.
First at this point I do not know why Armor training exists. Just get rid of it, allow everyone to wear what ever armor. Medium armor already has disadvantage to stealth and heavy already has a strength requirement. If the excuse as to why lightly armored gives shields and medium armor as will is people are just going to multiclass anyway, just do away with the need for armor training.
Second, just get rid of the +1 aspect to the feats. Make each time you would gain a feat at level up just give you a +1 the ASI feat can give another +1. This would be effectively the same as it is now except you could take a first level feat and still get the +1 making feat selection more interesting.
With this there are a few feats that should be bumped down to level 1, in my opinion. Actor feat, Elemental Adept (which is weak in general and even if it was a level 1 feat would need help), Keen mind (still weak, but the expertise in a single skill and being able to use that skill in combat for some info isn't horrible).Observant (in its UA state this isn't particularly powerful for a first level feat without the +1 ASI) Weapon training. These are all fairly generic and I feel they would be fine as first level feats.
With everyone being able to cast ritual spells without needing a feature Ritual spell caster needs WAY more than just giving you 2 ritual spells that you can quick cast once. The book needs to come back.
Why is Skulker not an expert feat? It seems like a solid candidate for one.
Epic boons do not feel very epic, in fact most of them feel weaker than some of the first level feats.
Feats with issues.
Charger (it does not say melee attack, so you can somehow push someone 10 feet after moving 10 feet with an arrow, so wording fix needed) Duel Wielder, not only does it not let you use 2 one-handed weapons it provides little other benefits. The +1 AC and 2 one-handed weapons was fine. Just let them do that.
Second, just get rid of the +1 aspect to the feats. Make each time you would gain a feat at level up just give you a +1 the ASI feat can give another +1. This would be effectively the same as it is now except you could take a first level feat and still get the +1 making feat selection more interesting.
Crazy idea WotC would never do: Have the option to pick 2 feats, without the ASIs. It wouldn't actually be that complicated, every 4 levels (or whenever) you get to pick twice from +1 ASI or the texty part of the UA feats. No further shenanigans required to have: +2 ASIs, +1 ASI & a feat, or 2 feats. Level 1 could be limited to just a feat, with a much wider array of choices. You could also make it 1 pick every 2 levels to smooth the power level of the character / get to your concept slightly faster.
In general feat vs magic item, both require separate "picks" by the PC or if the GM is assigning most if not all items as treasure you may not have the option vs the GM who says you get 1 green item, 2 blue items or 4 yellow items and 6 purple items (note colors do not match D&D and are just as an example of how a home brew magic items system might work for a game).
Being a good actor does not make one a better liar, if it did celebrities today would not be hated so much for their takes on issues.
Performance is what acting is about. Acting requires a suspension of disbelief. If you want to represent yourself as a member of the social class you are portraying that is simple performance. If you want to convince someone you are someone else and fool them to actually believing you that is going to require a good performance to pull off the act and a good deception roll to tell the lie.
Someone acting like they are the mayor of a city in a play or on the street in small talk is easy. Tryiing to portray yourself as the mayor of the next town over to someone familiar with the town but ignorant of what that mayor looks like, that is going to take more than just an act. The Acting is important but the quality and believability of the lie is another.
I am not sure ho9w the cheese mechanic of it all works in game but making Performance the go to ability for an Actor seems to me to be common sense. A con arttist needs acting and conning people.
The problem is skill bloat for social skills. You have persuasion, deception, intimidate and now performance all to do roughly the same thing just getting to the end result in different ways. They could knock it down to two skills. Influence for persuade/intimidate, performance for deception/performance.
The problem is skill bloat for social skills. You have persuasion, deception, intimidate and now performance all to do roughly the same thing just getting to the end result in different ways. They could knock it down to two skills. Influence for persuade/intimidate, performance for deception/performance.
Ya know, you're not really wrong about that. Honestly I kinda hate you for pointing it out though. Those two sets have a large amount of overlap.
On a different topic, the Ritual spellcaster doesn't seem so bad to me. Additional spells prepared which may be very useful. Non spellcadters being able to ritual cast spells is always cool to me. The monk spending some time meditating to allow them to detect magic. The Barbarian doing a Sacred dance to summon a messenger of the gods. The quick cast is a nice feature that is a bonus, not the primary feature.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
The problem is skill bloat for social skills. You have persuasion, deception, intimidate and now performance all to do roughly the same thing just getting to the end result in different ways. They could knock it down to two skills. Influence for persuade/intimidate, performance for deception/performance.
Ya know, you're not really wrong about that. Honestly I kinda hate you for pointing it out though. Those two sets have a large amount of overlap.
On a different topic, the Ritual spellcaster doesn't seem so bad to me. Additional spells prepared which may be very useful. Non spellcadters being able to ritual cast spells is always cool to me. The monk spending some time meditating to allow them to detect magic. The Barbarian doing a Sacred dance to summon a messenger of the gods. The quick cast is a nice feature that is a bonus, not the primary feature.
What it is missing is a spell book and the ability to add ritual spells to it. Especially since all casters are ritual casters now this should be targeted at non casters and how they can expand their knowledge, but its just two spells. I love the idea behind ritual caster but it needs something to help that barbarian doing the sacred dance past just two spells forever.
First at this point I do not know why Armor training exists. Just get rid of it, allow everyone to wear what ever armor. Medium armor already has disadvantage to stealth and heavy already has a strength requirement. If the excuse as to why lightly armored gives shields and medium armor as will is people are just going to multiclass anyway, just do away with the need for armor training.
They need to figure out if armor is a balancing factor among classes. If it is, then it should not be easy to bypass, if its not they should just remove or perhaps give unrealistic benefits like variants on the monks unarmored defense to all classes so each style basically balances out.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
Charger seems more powerful than identified in the breakdown.
as written it seems to be able to push or add 1d8 with ranged attacks too.
it also seems to be written in a way to allow another chance to land the damage/push so long as the player make he’s another 10ft first and is utilizing the attack action.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
Hard Disagree. I do not see the Feat as an auto add just because I choose Wizard or Sorcerer. Maybe if there is nothing else to take; but as of right now? I would rather take Magic Initiate to further extend my prepared spell list.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
Not at all. I currently have a 16th-level wizard whose base AC is 12. She doesn't wear armor, she doesn't cast Mage Armor. Her AC is immaterial. At lower levels it would be neat, sure, but canny mages need armor less than Bonkliners. There's plenty of other things I'd consider over Armor Training.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
I’m currently playing a 9th level Bard who still relies on mage armor. Armor proficiency is by no means an automatic take.
The problem is skill bloat for social skills. You have persuasion, deception, intimidate and now performance all to do roughly the same thing just getting to the end result in different ways. They could knock it down to two skills. Influence for persuade/intimidate, performance for deception/performance.
Ya know, you're not really wrong about that. Honestly I kinda hate you for pointing it out though. Those two sets have a large amount of overlap.
I'd suggest to just fuse deception and performance and call it acting. After all, actors are professional liars. Pretense is in the heart of both skills.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
Not at all. I currently have a 16th-level wizard whose base AC is 12. She doesn't wear armor, she doesn't cast Mage Armor. Her AC is immaterial. At lower levels it would be neat, sure, but canny mages need armor less than Bonkliners. There's plenty of other things I'd consider over Armor Training.
you can build a totally unoptimized character still. That doesn't change that it is a no brainer pick for anyone who optimizes in the slightest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You might want the other benefits of Mage Slayer but not want the redundancy of magic resistance. And you can't "just give" a racial feature to another party member.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
As a DM I only cast damaging spells at fast looking characters when it either does not use a dex save or I have like no other options, or if the monster/enemy I am playing has some reason to use bad tactics. Maybe sometimes early fight when the enemy isn't at the im 5' from you stage, as I'm not really casting it at the rogue im hitting the whole party, but once it has progressed to that point yeah, fireball is not my go to option. This version is just better for most builds. For a paladin maybe as they will have universally decent saves once their aura gets rocking but even then I kind of doubt it as too much was focused on benefits once you are at 5' and once you are there the fight is probably already over. If the reaction had acted like a counter spell, yeah that would be better but its not its just one attack.
I agree with Yurie on this: the previous version of Mage Slayer meant that, for people with magic resistance, it was redundant and less powerful. Having a once-per-day use of Legendary Resistance against Int, Cha, & Wis saves seems much, much cooler than just getting to make an extra attack if you're within 5' of someone who casts a spell. If the big Martial is in melee range with a spellcaster, said spellcaster probably already has greater problems. Having an automatic success is really cool and can be a life-saver.
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.Well they had to include the fighting styles because the Ranger gets one. And the Epic boons (that Experts can get) because of the new capstones.
But yeah, I agree it would have be nice to see more Expert feats for levels below 20.
So I thought I would share some additional thoughts at this point. Had to give it some time to marinate with me, and for me to test some stuff out.
First at this point I do not know why Armor training exists. Just get rid of it, allow everyone to wear what ever armor. Medium armor already has disadvantage to stealth and heavy already has a strength requirement. If the excuse as to why lightly armored gives shields and medium armor as will is people are just going to multiclass anyway, just do away with the need for armor training.
Second, just get rid of the +1 aspect to the feats. Make each time you would gain a feat at level up just give you a +1 the ASI feat can give another +1. This would be effectively the same as it is now except you could take a first level feat and still get the +1 making feat selection more interesting.
With this there are a few feats that should be bumped down to level 1, in my opinion.
Actor feat, Elemental Adept (which is weak in general and even if it was a level 1 feat would need help), Keen mind (still weak, but the expertise in a single skill and being able to use that skill in combat for some info isn't horrible).Observant (in its UA state this isn't particularly powerful for a first level feat without the +1 ASI) Weapon training. These are all fairly generic and I feel they would be fine as first level feats.
With everyone being able to cast ritual spells without needing a feature Ritual spell caster needs WAY more than just giving you 2 ritual spells that you can quick cast once. The book needs to come back.
Why is Skulker not an expert feat? It seems like a solid candidate for one.
Epic boons do not feel very epic, in fact most of them feel weaker than some of the first level feats.
Feats with issues.
Charger (it does not say melee attack, so you can somehow push someone 10 feet after moving 10 feet with an arrow, so wording fix needed)
Duel Wielder, not only does it not let you use 2 one-handed weapons it provides little other benefits. The +1 AC and 2 one-handed weapons was fine. Just let them do that.
Crazy idea WotC would never do: Have the option to pick 2 feats, without the ASIs. It wouldn't actually be that complicated, every 4 levels (or whenever) you get to pick twice from +1 ASI or the texty part of the UA feats. No further shenanigans required to have: +2 ASIs, +1 ASI & a feat, or 2 feats. Level 1 could be limited to just a feat, with a much wider array of choices. You could also make it 1 pick every 2 levels to smooth the power level of the character / get to your concept slightly faster.
In general feat vs magic item, both require separate "picks" by the PC or if the GM is assigning most if not all items as treasure you may not have the option vs the GM who says you get 1 green item, 2 blue items or 4 yellow items and 6 purple items (note colors do not match D&D and are just as an example of how a home brew magic items system might work for a game).
Acting is not deception.
Being a good actor does not make one a better liar, if it did celebrities today would not be hated so much for their takes on issues.
Performance is what acting is about. Acting requires a suspension of disbelief. If you want to represent yourself as a member of the social class you are portraying that is simple performance. If you want to convince someone you are someone else and fool them to actually believing you that is going to require a good performance to pull off the act and a good deception roll to tell the lie.
Someone acting like they are the mayor of a city in a play or on the street in small talk is easy. Tryiing to portray yourself as the mayor of the next town over to someone familiar with the town but ignorant of what that mayor looks like, that is going to take more than just an act. The Acting is important but the quality and believability of the lie is another.
I am not sure ho9w the cheese mechanic of it all works in game but making Performance the go to ability for an Actor seems to me to be common sense. A con arttist needs acting and conning people.
The problem is skill bloat for social skills. You have persuasion, deception, intimidate and now performance all to do roughly the same thing just getting to the end result in different ways. They could knock it down to two skills. Influence for persuade/intimidate, performance for deception/performance.
Ya know, you're not really wrong about that. Honestly I kinda hate you for pointing it out though. Those two sets have a large amount of overlap.
On a different topic, the Ritual spellcaster doesn't seem so bad to me. Additional spells prepared which may be very useful. Non spellcadters being able to ritual cast spells is always cool to me. The monk spending some time meditating to allow them to detect magic. The Barbarian doing a Sacred dance to summon a messenger of the gods. The quick cast is a nice feature that is a bonus, not the primary feature.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
What it is missing is a spell book and the ability to add ritual spells to it. Especially since all casters are ritual casters now this should be targeted at non casters and how they can expand their knowledge, but its just two spells. I love the idea behind ritual caster but it needs something to help that barbarian doing the sacred dance past just two spells forever.
They need to figure out if armor is a balancing factor among classes. If it is, then it should not be easy to bypass, if its not they should just remove or perhaps give unrealistic benefits like variants on the monks unarmored defense to all classes so each style basically balances out.
Armor is a balancing factor on classes. Bypassing it requires investment. Generally to the tune opf a feat or two, or a multiclass level.
Armor not being a critical investment doesn't mean it's not an investment. Armor being relatively straightforward to acquire if one wants it does not make the acquisition free. Wizards is giving people who play battlemages an option to invest in some Battle for their Mage. I see no reason to make that any harder - or easier - than it currently is.
Please do not contact or message me.
Charger seems more powerful than identified in the breakdown.
as written it seems to be able to push or add 1d8 with ranged attacks too.
it also seems to be written in a way to allow another chance to land the damage/push so long as the player make he’s another 10ft first and is utilizing the attack action.
So you are ok with just permanently having a feat tax. Because if you even remotely care about optimizing your wizard or sorc, you are automatically taking lightly armored at first level, nothing else even comes close.
Hard Disagree. I do not see the Feat as an auto add just because I choose Wizard or Sorcerer. Maybe if there is nothing else to take; but as of right now? I would rather take Magic Initiate to further extend my prepared spell list.
Not at all. I currently have a 16th-level wizard whose base AC is 12. She doesn't wear armor, she doesn't cast Mage Armor. Her AC is immaterial. At lower levels it would be neat, sure, but canny mages need armor less than Bonkliners. There's plenty of other things I'd consider over Armor Training.
Please do not contact or message me.
I’m currently playing a 9th level Bard who still relies on mage armor. Armor proficiency is by no means an automatic take.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'd suggest to just fuse deception and performance and call it acting. After all, actors are professional liars. Pretense is in the heart of both skills.
you can build a totally unoptimized character still. That doesn't change that it is a no brainer pick for anyone who optimizes in the slightest.