My suspicion on lightly armored is that it is a typo/ transfer error. It was ( I think) initially in the first UA and then got pulled and placed in the second without changing it from a L1 feat to a L4 feat. If you place it as a L4 feat then it looses its power significantly. When you consider the number of errata we have seen from WOTC over the years such a proofreading error is not surprising. Don’t be too surprised if this ends up a ( clearly labeled) L4 feat by the end of all play testing.
The Feats video explicitly talks about this, actually. Which is why I'm answering here rather than redirecting to Golaryn's thread.
While they were in the design phase for this doc, Wizards decided to try merging the Armored feats because they realized there was no real way to make R5e Lightly Armored and R5e Moderately Armored attractive options by themselves. This was originally going to be a leveled feat like everything else, but the notion of making it an Origin feat got lodged in there and the more the thought about it, the more they liked it. So they decided to change it in the document and make 1DD Lightly Armored the only Origin feat in said document (outside of Fighting Styles for Warrior classes, anyways). It was a "let's get some playtesting and see what happens" decision. So of course nobody's actually playtesting it and just kvetching on the forums. Blegh.
RE: Fighting Styles They're not meant to be competitive with regular feats. Especially 1DD regular feats. I'm a little disappointed the fighting styles are almost entirely unchanged outside poor giganerfed Protection, but they've always been meant to be cherries on top for weapon-focused classes to help them weapon better than the squishies. I like the idea of making them available to Warrior-group characters as Origin feats to allow them to really double down on the idea of Warrior Training, but you really shouldn't be grabbing these as leveled feats most of the time. If fighting styles ever get strong enough to do that, we're gonna end up with a lot less access to them.
A feat is a pretty hefty price to pay for a fighting style. How many styles would you give in order to justify the cost of spending a feat on it?
In my opinion there are only 3 fighting styles worth having; Dueling, Archery and Two Weapon Fighting (thanks to the UA changes).
For the characters that I would want these with, I would only need to take one as a Feat since I would get one for free. Ranger with both Archery and Two Weapon Fighting appeals to me while a Sword and Board Fighter would want Dueling and Archery for those times when thing are flying or just out of reach.
Is that worth a Feat? Depends on what I want to do with the character and the up coming weapons changes they hinted at in the Feats video. Right now the answer is a solid Maybe.
Ok so it was a purposefully placed “ let’s see how it plays out “ decision. - I missed that in the videos. I still think it will end up as a L4 feat when all is said and done. Martials don’t needed it, ranger doesn’t need it, rogues and bards already get light armor training so they don’t need it generally. Clerics will get at least the equivalent so they don’t need it and whatever the new bladesinger subclass is will get light armor so they might want it but taking it for medium armor is not as strong as a magic initiate feat to get 2 cantrips and a L1 spell from a different list so most won’t take it.effectively any martial oriented subclass will have at least half the feat built in so it’s there for the non martials. If mage armor is upgraded to give a base AC of 14 instead of 13 it becomes completely useless - you are wasting a feat to wear half plate armour with a +2 max Dex bonus - same as a revised mage armor and +3 Dex bonus.
Fighting styles your right Yurei- since they are limited to warriors (and selected others) leaving them as L1 feats is fine as the others are generally stronger as background feats. If warriors (especially fighters) get one at L1 anyway then they are really superfluous.
It’s a nice third style but would you take it instead of archery or TWF at low levels? I can see possibly taking it as a L1 feat for a ranger then archery/TWF at L2 and the other at L4 but thank L8 you should/ might be getting magic armor that gives that +1.
I don't have issue with these feats the lightly armored feat some will take some wont, a lot of these are just getting rid of the cheese attacks we pretty much all abuse (myself included) all the caster feats on losing the casting a ranged attack spell with someone next to you is just them saying you know you are right you don't need the crossbow feat or the gunner feat if your a wizard. Same with the new Sharpshooter you don't need crossbow or gunner either. losing the -5 to hit +10 dam how many DM's will house rule that back in?
To talk about other feats, As I have said before i think it would be good to remove the +1 from all feats and just make that something oyu get automatically at the levels you gain a feat. This would make gaining another first level feat instead of a 4th level feat less punishing. I think it would be nice to see magic initiate compete with the other +1 feats.
In addition, I believe there are a few feats that would need help after this. Feats like Keen mind and actor I feel would be much more interesting as level 1 options. The Duel Wielding feat really is missing the extra armor and while two weapon fighting feels so much better now, two weapon fighting feat now somehow feels worse. Also the idea that people are making complaints without playing these changes is ludicrous. I am sure most everyone here is actually trying these changes out in games when they can.
Notice who can get dual wielding vs TWF - Rangers are specifically allowed TWF but they are the only expert class that gets it as a class. All other classes are limited to dual wielding only.
Someone got me thinking that the nerfs to some of the more commonly used feats like Sharp Shooter, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, etc. might be a bad thing because did Martials really need these nerfs? They were overpowered when you only look at Martials that had them and Martials that didn't have them, but when you considered casters, they weren't that overpowered. Maybe there is a better solution for this, but Martials should get something more to compensate if these nerfs stick especially since the caster feats were basically unchanged or buffed.
Someone got me thinking that the nerfs to some of the more commonly used feats like Sharp Shooter, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, etc. might be a bad thing because did Martials really need these nerfs? They were overpowered when you only look at Martials that had them and Martials that didn't have them, but when you considered casters, they weren't that overpowered. Maybe there is a better solution for this, but Martials should get something more to compensate if these nerfs stick especially since the caster feats were basically unchanged or buffed.
They should have saved those Feats to go with the Warrior UA or which ever UA is going to showcase the weapon changes that they hinted at. People are panicking because WotC released the UA in the wrong order.
For the Mage Slayer feat, would it be too powerful to replace one of the features with a "sentinel-esque" ability where you could make an opportunity attack against a creature who is attempting to change position using teleportation magic? I feel like being able to hurt (or potentially stop) a caster from escaping with a teleport would make the Mage Slayer feat very appealing to martial characters
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Keep in mind that we only saw the L4 feats and the expert classes. The only “martial” affected so far is the ranger. Rogues are actually boosted with the dual weapon feat and light weapons and rangers never really got GWF/GWM, Polearm Master. Theses and the the others sentinel, SS, CBE, etc) now seem balanced across at least the expert classes. We have to avoid panic until we se the warrior UA and see what they do with class/subclass abilities and L8/L12 feats..
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A feat is a pretty hefty price to pay for a fighting style. How many styles would you give in order to justify the cost of spending a feat on it?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The Feats video explicitly talks about this, actually. Which is why I'm answering here rather than redirecting to Golaryn's thread.
While they were in the design phase for this doc, Wizards decided to try merging the Armored feats because they realized there was no real way to make R5e Lightly Armored and R5e Moderately Armored attractive options by themselves. This was originally going to be a leveled feat like everything else, but the notion of making it an Origin feat got lodged in there and the more the thought about it, the more they liked it. So they decided to change it in the document and make 1DD Lightly Armored the only Origin feat in said document (outside of Fighting Styles for Warrior classes, anyways). It was a "let's get some playtesting and see what happens" decision. So of course nobody's actually playtesting it and just kvetching on the forums. Blegh.
RE: Fighting Styles
They're not meant to be competitive with regular feats. Especially 1DD regular feats. I'm a little disappointed the fighting styles are almost entirely unchanged outside poor giganerfed Protection, but they've always been meant to be cherries on top for weapon-focused classes to help them weapon better than the squishies. I like the idea of making them available to Warrior-group characters as Origin feats to allow them to really double down on the idea of Warrior Training, but you really shouldn't be grabbing these as leveled feats most of the time. If fighting styles ever get strong enough to do that, we're gonna end up with a lot less access to them.
Please do not contact or message me.
In my opinion there are only 3 fighting styles worth having; Dueling, Archery and Two Weapon Fighting (thanks to the UA changes).
For the characters that I would want these with, I would only need to take one as a Feat since I would get one for free. Ranger with both Archery and Two Weapon Fighting appeals to me while a Sword and Board Fighter would want Dueling and Archery for those times when thing are flying or just out of reach.
Is that worth a Feat? Depends on what I want to do with the character and the up coming weapons changes they hinted at in the Feats video. Right now the answer is a solid Maybe.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You don’t like the defense fighting style?
Ok so it was a purposefully placed “ let’s see how it plays out “ decision. - I missed that in the videos. I still think it will end up as a L4 feat when all is said and done. Martials don’t needed it, ranger doesn’t need it, rogues and bards already get light armor training so they don’t need it generally. Clerics will get at least the equivalent so they don’t need it and whatever the new bladesinger subclass is will get light armor so they might want it but taking it for medium armor is not as strong as a magic initiate feat to get 2 cantrips and a L1 spell from a different list so most won’t take it.effectively any martial oriented subclass will have at least half the feat built in so it’s there for the non martials. If mage armor is upgraded to give a base AC of 14 instead of 13 it becomes completely useless - you are wasting a feat to wear half plate armour with a +2 max Dex bonus - same as a revised mage armor and +3 Dex bonus.
Fighting styles
your right Yurei- since they are limited to warriors (and selected others) leaving them as L1 feats is fine as the others are generally stronger as background feats. If warriors (especially fighters) get one at L1 anyway then they are really superfluous.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
No, +1 AC isn't worth a Feat to me by itself.
Edit: If they merged Defense and Protection together, maybe.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It’s a nice third style but would you take it instead of archery or TWF at low levels? I can see possibly taking it as a L1 feat for a ranger then archery/TWF at L2 and the other at L4 but thank L8 you should/ might be getting magic armor that gives that +1.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
I don't have issue with these feats the lightly armored feat some will take some wont, a lot of these are just getting rid of the cheese attacks we pretty much all abuse (myself included) all the caster feats on losing the casting a ranged attack spell with someone next to you is just them saying you know you are right you don't need the crossbow feat or the gunner feat if your a wizard. Same with the new Sharpshooter you don't need crossbow or gunner either. losing the -5 to hit +10 dam how many DM's will house rule that back in?
To talk about other feats, As I have said before i think it would be good to remove the +1 from all feats and just make that something oyu get automatically at the levels you gain a feat. This would make gaining another first level feat instead of a 4th level feat less punishing. I think it would be nice to see magic initiate compete with the other +1 feats.
In addition, I believe there are a few feats that would need help after this. Feats like Keen mind and actor I feel would be much more interesting as level 1 options. The Duel Wielding feat really is missing the extra armor and while two weapon fighting feels so much better now, two weapon fighting feat now somehow feels worse. Also the idea that people are making complaints without playing these changes is ludicrous. I am sure most everyone here is actually trying these changes out in games when they can.
Notice who can get dual wielding vs TWF - Rangers are specifically allowed TWF but they are the only expert class that gets it as a class. All other classes are limited to dual wielding only.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Someone got me thinking that the nerfs to some of the more commonly used feats like Sharp Shooter, Great Weapon Master, Polearm Master, etc. might be a bad thing because did Martials really need these nerfs? They were overpowered when you only look at Martials that had them and Martials that didn't have them, but when you considered casters, they weren't that overpowered. Maybe there is a better solution for this, but Martials should get something more to compensate if these nerfs stick especially since the caster feats were basically unchanged or buffed.
They should have saved those Feats to go with the Warrior UA or which ever UA is going to showcase the weapon changes that they hinted at. People are panicking because WotC released the UA in the wrong order.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
For the Mage Slayer feat, would it be too powerful to replace one of the features with a "sentinel-esque" ability where you could make an opportunity attack against a creature who is attempting to change position using teleportation magic? I feel like being able to hurt (or potentially stop) a caster from escaping with a teleport would make the Mage Slayer feat very appealing to martial characters
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Keep in mind that we only saw the L4 feats and the expert classes. The only “martial” affected so far is the ranger. Rogues are actually boosted with the dual weapon feat and light weapons and rangers never really got GWF/GWM, Polearm Master. Theses and the the others sentinel, SS, CBE, etc) now seem balanced across at least the expert classes. We have to avoid panic until we se the warrior UA and see what they do with class/subclass abilities and L8/L12 feats..
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.