On the Dual Wielder feat, I think it should be noted how fighting with light weapons has changed.
"LIGHT [WEAPON PROPERTY] When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand, and you don’t add your Ability Modifier to the extra attack’s damage. You can make this extra attack only once on each of your turns"
I think this makes the dual weapon fighting still needing one light weapon make more sense because, if I read this right, you're not needing to use a bonus action anymore. This is just automatic.
Rogues getting to do two attempts for sneak attack and still being able to disengage afterwards. Rangers casting Hunters Mark and then making their primary AND offhand attacks.
With those rules in mind, having one of the weapons have to be light makes more sense.
The issue is that the Dual Wielder feat doesn't really do anything.
A typical Light weapon (the Shortsword let's say, since it's a Simple weapon now) has a damage die of 1d6. A typical weapon compatible with the Dual Wielder feat, wielded in one hand, has a damage die of 1d8. An entire one-point average damage boost. The feat gives you the same half-ASI as everything else, and it gives you the ability to...draw two weapons at once. Which every single DM I've ever seen, played with, watched, or heard of allows dual wielders to do already.
You are paying an entire feat to gain an average of a +1 to your damage and no other effects any other feat doesn't give you. There is no reason to take Dual Wielder unless you have an extremely potent non-Light magic weapon you're desperate to dual wield for whatever reason. The feat needs something back. Personally I favor the AC bonus, as getting half a shield's defensive properties seems appropriate for someone with more steel to defend themselves with, but it needs SOMETHING.
I think what they could and should do for dual weilder is 1 add back in the +1 AC while you are duel wielding and, maybe not wearing heavy armor if they want to be more restrictive. And then also have it say "weapons you wield with one hand count as having the light property"
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.
I would kinda think that two weapon fighting and archery should be expert as well. Wouldn't mind dueling and defense as well but not a huge deal. Does seem odd that they were included in the bulk feats section when we cannot utilize them for a month or more.
I did not notice the note on ranger that they can take fighting style feats at higher levels even though they are not warriors. Still think some should be multigroup 1lvl feats.
"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."
So. Savage Attacker vs all the fighting styles. How it looking?
Apologies missed this one before, but I'll give a breakdown.
Savage attacker is still a lower damage increase than most, assuming we are going with the Character Origins UA version.
Archery, +2 attack easily beats out Savage Attacker for any ranged attack, it's not even close. The gap is even larger for Rangers with Hunter's Mark.
Defense, +1 AC is a significant increase for higher AC builds, so it's relative as could be looking at a decrease of 10% incoming damage or more (if your AC is absurd), lower AC builds, Savage Attacker might be more valuable; Such as a barbarian who is continuously recklessly attacking
Dueling adds +2 damage but only if you use 1, 1-handed weapon. For builds focusing on 1, 1-handed weapon, this easily beats savage attacker once you get extra attack. Pre-extra attack, it's barely beating out savage attack on 1d8 weapons but still winning on any other 1 handed weapon.
Great Weapon Fighting, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you get, this is more powerful on greatsword (and greatsword gets the weakest benefit from savage attacker), but savage attacker likely wins on greatclubs and greataxes. A key factor in this is the number of attacks, for a fighter, Great Weapon Fighting likely wins for any 2-handed weapon once you get 2 attacks and action surge. Always better when you have 3+ attacks
Protection: honestly this one is the trashiest of all fighting styles, you can burn a reaction to reduce an attack roll by 2 on another target, it's very situational and requires a shield
Two-weapon fighting: the damage increase while using two light weapons probably beats out savage attacker as soon as you're at a +3 modifier, definitely beats it out once your at +4 or +5.
The one advantage savage attacker has over most of these is it's more versatile, so if you switched from a longsword+shield to a great club, you can get the benefit in both whereas you'd need two different fighting styles on the flip side, so by choosing a fighting style you are more limiting yourself. That said, if you're using any form of armor and have a good AC (likely to avoid 50% of incoming attacks or more), defense is likely to always be a better pick than Savage Attacker.
Also worth noting: Savage Attacker is available to everyone. Fighting Styles are only available to Warrior classes. Ranger cannot select a Fighting Style as its background feat, but it can select Savage Attacker. Same for someone targeting a Swords/Valor bard or a Bladesinger wizard. Fighting Styles are only valid background picks for characters that start as a Warrior class; Savage Attacker is technically there for anybody who wants to be mildly better at Bonk
Also worth noting: Savage Attacker is available to everyone. Fighting Styles are only available to Warrior classes. Ranger cannot select a Fighting Style as its background feat, but it can select Savage Attacker. Same for someone targeting a Swords/Valor bard or a Bladesinger wizard. Fighting Styles are only valid background picks for characters that start as a Warrior class; Savage Attacker is technically there for anybody who wants to be mildly better at Bonk
That is also true, both Savage Attacker and fighting styles are weaker than most of the level 4s we have seen so far. As far as savage attacker goes, the only fighting style it conflicts with is Great Weapon Fighting, it works with all the rest quiet fine.
Technically even warrior classes can’t pick fighting styles at level 1 as they are all level 4 feats, granted I’m sure that , like the ranger, they will get it at level 2 if not before. Savage attacker doesn’t really conflict with GWF, it just extends it for a single attack. So at L1-4 you use savage attacker for your single attack then from level 5 on you use savage attacker for your first strike and GWF for the subsequent strikes as needed.
Technically even warrior classes can’t pick fighting styles at level 1 as they are all level 4 feats, granted I’m sure that , like the ranger, they will get it at level 2 if not before. Savage attacker doesn’t really conflict with GWF, it just extends it for a single attack. So at L1-4 you use savage attacker for your single attack then from level 5 on you use savage attacker for your first strike and GWF for the subsequent strikes as needed.
Fighting Styles specifically do not have a level gate and are listed as first-level feats.
Something occurred to me. With the changes to Dual Wielder, I won’t be able to dual wield a rapier & whip anymore. I like that combo because I have the d8 die when it’s in reach, and the whip’s reach when the rapier can’t. Not unless they make whips light weapons.
Perhaps one will need to be a warrior to make full use of dual wielding without any light weapons in the mix.
Currently via Fighting Styles you can get 1 longsword and 1 light weapon, which is likely the solution for Warrior but the Dual Wielder feat got nerfed too much. The extra 0.6 damage for each main hand attack just isn't worth picking up that feat for. I can see why they removed the 1AC but they should have given a reaction or something to give a parry AC bonus vs. 1 attack or something in it's place.
You can absolutely wield both a rapier and a whip at the same time. The game doesn't make any distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' hands, despite the name of the TWF effect there's no actual "off hand". If the weapons aren't compatible with TWF, you simply have to choose which one to devote your regular attacks to on any given turn and you don't get the bonus swipe.
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.
Using a reaction to attack a spell caster could have wondrous benefits coupled with the disadvantage on concentration checks. Did that cleric just cast Spirit Guardians? How about a spirit dagger in your face? Maybe I needed to dash to get within 5' of the caster. This let me attack that round.
Not sure how up to date this chart is, it is from 3 years ago, but this shows the number of spells by saving throw - Int, Wis, and Cha saves are only 82/247 spells. This feat has really lost a ton of advantage on a lot of dex saves/saves versus damage. This really sucks because when I think of a mage slayer, I think of rogues and monks in part because of their Evasion abilities. The way the benefits from advantage from Mage Slayer and full damage nullification from Evasion stacked was great.
And on top of that, you can only auto-save ONCE? Do magic-users use more than one spell? Hmmm...yes, being able to auto-save against a critical spell is nice, making the saving throw first is nice, being able to use it at range is nice, but I would take advantage on all saving throws within 5' over it. If I'm a mage slayer, my plan is to be able to get within 5' of them asap.
This feat is more like Enchantress Foe than Mage Slayer. I can't help but think there's going to be a lvl 8 half-feat True Mage Slayer or something that adds more features, and likewise with other feats. I really hope they aren't making effectively skill trees with half-feat part 1 at level 4, then a follow-up half-feat part 2 at level 8.
Now, I liked pairing Mage Slayer and Sentinel before, mostly to stop the spell-casters from running away from me when they realized they were in for a world of hurt. There was some overlap but in a good way where they covered each other's weak spots and gave you choices (to spend your reaction in response to a spell being cast or save it in case they try to run away). They still pair well now, though it feels more necessary to pair them to keep some form of the extra attack. On the plus side, Sentinel getting the Opportunity Attack tag is a bonus because you will halt a spell-caster that hits someone with a spell attack and not have to worry about them running away, plus you don't use your reaction for it, but on the minus side, they have to hit now which is a pretty big nerf to sentinel. Both Mage Slayer and Sentinel lost their dissuasive "taunt"-like elements -they did more than their text. Like for Mage Slayer it used to be *bampfs behind magic-user holding a knife to their back* "Maybe it's time we start talking", or hey, you better attack the hard target first even though it's bad strategy or I'm going to mess you up and for Sentinel it was like hey, you better not even think about hitting anyone but me. Now it's like, carry on as you were, there may situationally be slight repercussions.
You can absolutely wield both a rapier and a whip at the same time. The game doesn't make any distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' hands, despite the name of the TWF effect there's no actual "off hand". If the weapons aren't compatible with TWF, you simply have to choose which one to devote your regular attacks to on any given turn and you don't get the bonus swipe.
That’s true, but I won’t be able to wield both and benefit from the extra attack. So I’ll have the versatility, just not the additional oomph.
Mage Slayer gains a point to STR or DX, aligning it with every other Level-Gated Feat in the book, and trades passive advantage on saves against magic from enemies you're on top of for the ability to flat-out No Sell one mental save effect per long rest. Vampire Lord tryin'a put the whammy on you? "No" - stab him in the kidney. Archlich tryin'a Hold your Person so he can monologue? "No" - stab him in the kidney. Ancient Dragon tryin'a Fearbomb the party so nobody can fight it properly while it cooks you all with godawful lizard breath? "No" - stab it in the kidney. Mage Slayer gives you one chance to ignore a supernatural creature's supernatural nonsense and get close enough to do uncouth things to its kidneys with your Uncouth Things Implement of choice, which is frankly all any properly built slayer-of-mages should need. You effectively gain a limited single-use Legendary Resistance, which is awesome. A splendid change, and one I dearly hope sticks past the grognards inevitable complaining about it.
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.
Using a reaction to attack a spell caster could have wondrous benefits coupled with the disadvantage on concentration checks. Did that cleric just cast Spirit Guardians? How about a spirit dagger in your face? Maybe I needed to dash to get within 5' of the caster. This let me attack that round.
Not sure how up to date this chart is, it is from 3 years ago, but this shows the number of spells by saving throw - Int, Wis, and Cha saves are only 82/247 spells. This feat has really lost a ton of advantage on a lot of dex saves/saves versus damage. This really sucks because when I think of a mage slayer, I think of rogues and monks in part because of their Evasion abilities. The way the benefits from advantage from Mage Slayer and full damage nullification from Evasion stacked was great.
And on top of that, you can only auto-save ONCE? Do magic-users use more than one spell? Hmmm...yes, being able to auto-save against a critical spell is nice, making the saving throw first is nice, being able to use it at range is nice, but I would take advantage on all saving throws within 5' over it. If I'm a mage slayer, my plan is to be able to get within 5' of them asap.
This feat is more like Enchantress Foe than Mage Slayer. I can't help but think there's going to be a lvl 8 half-feat True Mage Slayer or something that adds more features, and likewise with other feats. I really hope they aren't making effectively skill trees with half-feat part 1 at level 4, then a follow-up half-feat part 2 at level 8.
Now, I liked pairing Mage Slayer and Sentinel before, mostly to stop the spell-casters from running away from me when they realized they were in for a world of hurt. There was some overlap but in a good way where they covered each other's weak spots and gave you choices (to spend your reaction in response to a spell being cast or save it in case they try to run away). They still pair well now, though it feels more necessary to pair them to keep some form of the extra attack. On the plus side, Sentinel getting the Opportunity Attack tag is a bonus because you will halt a spell-caster that hits someone with a spell attack and not have to worry about them running away, plus you don't use your reaction for it, but on the minus side, they have to hit now which is a pretty big nerf to sentinel. Both Mage Slayer and Sentinel lost their dissuasive "taunt"-like elements -they did more than their text. Like for Mage Slayer it used to be *bampfs behind magic-user holding a knife to their back* "Maybe it's time we start talking", or hey, you better attack the hard target first even though it's bad strategy or I'm going to mess you up and for Sentinel it was like hey, you better not even think about hitting anyone but me. Now it's like, carry on as you were, there may situationally be slight repercussions.
You were saying Yurei? Should we get our “Uncouth Things Implements” ready? Kidneys beware. 😜 🤣😂🤣
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.
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.
This whole half-feat thing seems to miss the idea of having even numbers for stats - half the time, +1 to a stat does effectively nothing, at least for 4 more levels. Focusing on half-feats penalizes point buy, or at least I always had my primary stats as an even number when using point buy. Feats in general are what I would call character defining, and locking out certain feats locks out character concepts. Skills like Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper and Grappler aren't really different than Tavern Brawling and the fighting styles which are 1st level feats, and even then fighting styles being restricted to the warrior classes (outside of class features) is dumb. A rogue should be able to be a duelist, no? Then you have innate qualities like keen mind not being available until level 4, representing that it is a trained skill? And apparently you can't start as a speedster, either, without running all the way to level 4, no matter how much you may have ran before the adventure started. I am not enamored with the concepts for leveled feats, as it seems to arbitrarily choose what you could and could not have trained in, and puts decisions more on the rails.
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.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I think what they could and should do for dual weilder is 1 add back in the +1 AC while you are duel wielding and, maybe not wearing heavy armor if they want to be more restrictive. And then also have it say "weapons you wield with one hand count as having the light property"
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.
I would kinda think that two weapon fighting and archery should be expert as well. Wouldn't mind dueling and defense as well but not a huge deal. Does seem odd that they were included in the bulk feats section when we cannot utilize them for a month or more.
I did not notice the note on ranger that they can take fighting style feats at higher levels even though they are not warriors. Still think some should be multigroup 1lvl feats.
"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."
Apologies missed this one before, but I'll give a breakdown.
Savage attacker is still a lower damage increase than most, assuming we are going with the Character Origins UA version.
Archery, +2 attack easily beats out Savage Attacker for any ranged attack, it's not even close. The gap is even larger for Rangers with Hunter's Mark.
Defense, +1 AC is a significant increase for higher AC builds, so it's relative as could be looking at a decrease of 10% incoming damage or more (if your AC is absurd), lower AC builds, Savage Attacker might be more valuable; Such as a barbarian who is continuously recklessly attacking
Dueling adds +2 damage but only if you use 1, 1-handed weapon. For builds focusing on 1, 1-handed weapon, this easily beats savage attacker once you get extra attack. Pre-extra attack, it's barely beating out savage attack on 1d8 weapons but still winning on any other 1 handed weapon.
Great Weapon Fighting, you can reroll any 1 or 2 you get, this is more powerful on greatsword (and greatsword gets the weakest benefit from savage attacker), but savage attacker likely wins on greatclubs and greataxes. A key factor in this is the number of attacks, for a fighter, Great Weapon Fighting likely wins for any 2-handed weapon once you get 2 attacks and action surge. Always better when you have 3+ attacks
Protection: honestly this one is the trashiest of all fighting styles, you can burn a reaction to reduce an attack roll by 2 on another target, it's very situational and requires a shield
Two-weapon fighting: the damage increase while using two light weapons probably beats out savage attacker as soon as you're at a +3 modifier, definitely beats it out once your at +4 or +5.
The one advantage savage attacker has over most of these is it's more versatile, so if you switched from a longsword+shield to a great club, you can get the benefit in both whereas you'd need two different fighting styles on the flip side, so by choosing a fighting style you are more limiting yourself. That said, if you're using any form of armor and have a good AC (likely to avoid 50% of incoming attacks or more), defense is likely to always be a better pick than Savage Attacker.
Also worth noting: Savage Attacker is available to everyone. Fighting Styles are only available to Warrior classes. Ranger cannot select a Fighting Style as its background feat, but it can select Savage Attacker. Same for someone targeting a Swords/Valor bard or a Bladesinger wizard. Fighting Styles are only valid background picks for characters that start as a Warrior class; Savage Attacker is technically there for anybody who wants to be mildly better at Bonk
Please do not contact or message me.
That is also true, both Savage Attacker and fighting styles are weaker than most of the level 4s we have seen so far. As far as savage attacker goes, the only fighting style it conflicts with is Great Weapon Fighting, it works with all the rest quiet fine.
Technically even warrior classes can’t pick fighting styles at level 1 as they are all level 4 feats, granted I’m sure that , like the ranger, they will get it at level 2 if not before. Savage attacker doesn’t really conflict with GWF, it just extends it for a single attack. So at L1-4 you use savage attacker for your single attack then from level 5 on you use savage attacker for your first strike and GWF for the subsequent strikes as needed.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Fighting Styles specifically do not have a level gate and are listed as first-level feats.
Please do not contact or message me.
Perhaps one will need to be a warrior to make full use of dual wielding without any light weapons in the mix.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Something occurred to me. With the changes to Dual Wielder, I won’t be able to dual wield a rapier & whip anymore. I like that combo because I have the d8 die when it’s in reach, and the whip’s reach when the rapier can’t. Not unless they make whips light weapons.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Currently via Fighting Styles you can get 1 longsword and 1 light weapon, which is likely the solution for Warrior but the Dual Wielder feat got nerfed too much. The extra 0.6 damage for each main hand attack just isn't worth picking up that feat for. I can see why they removed the 1AC but they should have given a reaction or something to give a parry AC bonus vs. 1 attack or something in it's place.
You can absolutely wield both a rapier and a whip at the same time. The game doesn't make any distinction between 'strong' and 'weak' hands, despite the name of the TWF effect there's no actual "off hand". If the weapons aren't compatible with TWF, you simply have to choose which one to devote your regular attacks to on any given turn and you don't get the bonus swipe.
Please do not contact or message me.
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.
Using a reaction to attack a spell caster could have wondrous benefits coupled with the disadvantage on concentration checks. Did that cleric just cast Spirit Guardians? How about a spirit dagger in your face? Maybe I needed to dash to get within 5' of the caster. This let me attack that round.
Not sure how up to date this chart is, it is from 3 years ago, but this shows the number of spells by saving throw - Int, Wis, and Cha saves are only 82/247 spells. This feat has really lost a ton of advantage on a lot of dex saves/saves versus damage. This really sucks because when I think of a mage slayer, I think of rogues and monks in part because of their Evasion abilities. The way the benefits from advantage from Mage Slayer and full damage nullification from Evasion stacked was great.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mattcolville/comments/bgj6p3/spells_by_saving_throw_and_effect/
And on top of that, you can only auto-save ONCE? Do magic-users use more than one spell? Hmmm...yes, being able to auto-save against a critical spell is nice, making the saving throw first is nice, being able to use it at range is nice, but I would take advantage on all saving throws within 5' over it. If I'm a mage slayer, my plan is to be able to get within 5' of them asap.
This feat is more like Enchantress Foe than Mage Slayer. I can't help but think there's going to be a lvl 8 half-feat True Mage Slayer or something that adds more features, and likewise with other feats. I really hope they aren't making effectively skill trees with half-feat part 1 at level 4, then a follow-up half-feat part 2 at level 8.
Now, I liked pairing Mage Slayer and Sentinel before, mostly to stop the spell-casters from running away from me when they realized they were in for a world of hurt. There was some overlap but in a good way where they covered each other's weak spots and gave you choices (to spend your reaction in response to a spell being cast or save it in case they try to run away). They still pair well now, though it feels more necessary to pair them to keep some form of the extra attack. On the plus side, Sentinel getting the Opportunity Attack tag is a bonus because you will halt a spell-caster that hits someone with a spell attack and not have to worry about them running away, plus you don't use your reaction for it, but on the minus side, they have to hit now which is a pretty big nerf to sentinel. Both Mage Slayer and Sentinel lost their dissuasive "taunt"-like elements -they did more than their text. Like for Mage Slayer it used to be *bampfs behind magic-user holding a knife to their back* "Maybe it's time we start talking", or hey, you better attack the hard target first even though it's bad strategy or I'm going to mess you up and for Sentinel it was like hey, you better not even think about hitting anyone but me. Now it's like, carry on as you were, there may situationally be slight repercussions.
That’s true, but I won’t be able to wield both and benefit from the extra attack. So I’ll have the versatility, just not the additional oomph.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You were saying Yurei? Should we get our “Uncouth Things Implements” ready? Kidneys beware. 😜 🤣😂🤣
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
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.
Please do not contact or message me.
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.
This whole half-feat thing seems to miss the idea of having even numbers for stats - half the time, +1 to a stat does effectively nothing, at least for 4 more levels. Focusing on half-feats penalizes point buy, or at least I always had my primary stats as an even number when using point buy. Feats in general are what I would call character defining, and locking out certain feats locks out character concepts. Skills like Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper and Grappler aren't really different than Tavern Brawling and the fighting styles which are 1st level feats, and even then fighting styles being restricted to the warrior classes (outside of class features) is dumb. A rogue should be able to be a duelist, no? Then you have innate qualities like keen mind not being available until level 4, representing that it is a trained skill? And apparently you can't start as a speedster, either, without running all the way to level 4, no matter how much you may have ran before the adventure started. I am not enamored with the concepts for leveled feats, as it seems to arbitrarily choose what you could and could not have trained in, and puts decisions more on the rails.
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.
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.