I bet IamSposta wasn't trying to make another godforsaken thread about the nature/nurture divide in DnD (which is already a hugely fraught topic and the cause of many flamewars).
Honestly, I don’t get why Fighting Styles need a pre-req; they’re only particularly useful on classes that already have them.
not true. I don't like the pre req, but barbarians, rogues, monks, and warlocks would probably love fighting styles. They specifically want to lock out certain classes
also i think they wanted to make it a background feat, but only if you are starting as fighter, because thats the current implementation, its a level 1 feat with no attribute bonus. The only class who meets the req at level 1 is fighter. The guys who have fighting styles likely won't take it at 4+ because it requires giving up an attribute point for your 2nd most useful fighting style.
Wow, that’s a lot of responses overnight! Thanks all!!
Yeah, background, general, and epic make sense.
Wouldn’t race species fall under prerequisites like class is supposedly going to do according to the prerequisites description blurb?
so would epic, in that case. prerequisite: be epic in level. the fact that there are or would be a large number of them makes them suitable for a separate category. in light of that, i could see a species category that moved some species traits into a "pick one free at character creation" sort of situation. this would be an extra complication but it would perhaps simplify the mixed-parentage thing where a half-elf-half-orc would be instructed to pick their last perk from the species category, counting as both orcs and elf for prerequisites. or maybe not every kenku is flightless (especially with hadozee and humblewood glide), or maybe not every loxodon can use their trunk for simple tasks, or maybe a satyr could choose via feat whether they're fae rather than humanoid, etc.
...but they likely won't due to backwards compatibility so i'm probably not helping to bring it up.
Those are some interesting ideas regarding the potential uses for species feats. 🤔
It's just mimicking Pathfinder, which probably got it from 3.5 or something. Personally I really hate that design because it again confuses species which is supposed to be inherited traits that are fixed at character creation and are uniform across species, with acquired traits which you can gain over time and vary depending on environment / choices. I would much prefer a clean separation between these two. It hurts my brain to imagine a dragonborn suddenly growing scales because they punched Cloud Giant real hard.
I'd much prefer it if all the species feats were just rolled into subspecies / species customization at 1st level.
Narratively speaking the traits could have been developing for some time, and the feat acquisition simply represents the point where they’ve developed enough to provide their mechanical benefits.
Even if it isn't sudden, it doesn't make sense to me for species traits to develop overtime. It's not a skill you are getting better at using. Why would a dragonborn grow claws in response to adventuring? I could see growing claws as part of the aging process, but adventuring =/= aging. For some of the traits it kinda make sense, like an elf could learn to become more accurate while adventuring, but then it doesn't make sense that only an elf could do so, it's kinda weird for Elven Accuracy to have that 'elven' requirement - I'd rather see Elven Accuracy replace "keen senses" as a species trait. The concept that doing a certain thing can make you more of that species compared to another individual of that species just feels a little icky to me. I could see making all the species traits limited to being required to be your Background feat, or you could replace them as a "Gift of ...." and open them up to any character to take similar to the Dragon "Gift" feats in Fizban.
if you are born with more potential, it doesnt mean you realize that potential without training/experience. You can be born with the potential to be an NBA star, it doesnt mean you were ready for the NBA at 13, or that it didnt requires 1000s of hours to get your ability to make 85% of the shots you take.
that said game design wise, I'm not sure many of the things that are species related feats should still be. Since many of the old feats were based on culture, not innate physical characteristics of the species. They semi separated some cultural and physical difference in the new origins with background traits/feats/skills but some feats still have them.
Honestly, I don’t get why Fighting Styles need a pre-req; they’re only particularly useful on classes that already have them.
not true. I don't like the pre req, but barbarians, rogues, monks, and warlocks would probably love fighting styles. They specifically want to lock out certain classes
also i think they wanted to make it a background feat, but only if you are starting as fighter, because thats the current implementation, its a level 1 feat with no attribute bonus. The only class who meets the req at level 1 is fighter. The guys who have fighting styles likely won't take it at 4+ because it requires giving up an attribute point for your 2nd most useful fighting style.
I’m not saying they’d be useless, but they don’t move the needle enough that the feats need to be specifically partitioned off from those classes, particularly when I thought part of the point of background feats is to let a class dip a toe into other features.
Do you think they will have species as a category? General (in OP example) and Background (I assume that covers 1st level feats?) seem set
I wonder if they'll bother with species-specific feats this time around? Have they even released any since Xanathar's Guide to Everything?
I could maybe see them releasing some feats tied to features that you might normally get from a race, but I think those would be covered by prerequisites, e.g- "must have an innate flying speed", or "must have darkvision" or such.
Not sure what other categories they might need; I wasn't necessarily opposed to the idea of feats being grouped by "Warrior", "Mage", "Priest" or whatever, but the problem with that idea was for some reason they used it to limit warrior feats to classes that didn't need them. I feel like it might have made more sense to be something like having a fighting style granting you access to the Warrior group of feats (can take one any time you could take a General feat), so if you want to break into that category you need to take a fighting style first if you don't already have one. This would would raise the minimum investment for Polearm Master on non-martial characters (i.e- adding the fighting style makes them "a bit martial").
Epic Boons definitely makes sense, though I guess they could also just use a level prerequisite. They could also do categories for Dark Gifts, Boons, Blessings etc., but I could also just want those because maybe D&D Beyond would finally get their act together and implement them finally. 😝
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think some of what could/would be considered species feats gets covered by the optional rule allowing you to swap weapon/tool proficiencies. At least, in terms of the route similar to pf2e, where things like elf or dwarf weapon training is one of the species feats you can take. As opposed to 5e with the optional rule, so you get those weapons and can swap them for other stuff.
I will say that with pf2e, I don’t love the implementation of species feats. It helps make your character more unique at character creation, but eventually you end up with a situation like battlemaster maneuvers, where you are left with a bunch of choices you already rejected and pick the one you dislike least. At least, ime.
But to answer the OP I got the impression, as others said, the categories are basically going to be feats you can take at char gen, and feats at level 4+. But now that everything’s in internal development, you never know what we’ll end up getting.
I wonder if they'll bother with species-specific feats this time around? Have they even released any since Xanathar's Guide to Everything?
Given that the next big book-o-rules (Tasha's) didn't have any, and almost seemed to be replacing several of Xanathar's racial feats...it seems they're not exploring that any further. But who knows? the new species and background rules also seem to be a step away from that kind of design.
I could maybe see them releasing some feats tied to features that you might normally get from a race, but I think those would be covered by prerequisites, e.g- "must have an innate flying speed", or "must have darkvision" or such.
Do you think they will have species as a category? General (in OP example) and Background (I assume that covers 1st level feats?) seem set
I wonder if they'll bother with species-specific feats this time around? Have they even released any since Xanathar's Guide to Everything?
No, they haven’t. And to answer your question I doubt they will. I personally liked the idea of species feats as a way to represent one’s body adapting physiologically to the rigors of adventuring. Kinda like how people’s bodies adapt to living in hot or cold climates, or lower oxygen atmospheres like high altitudes, or how people who spend a lot of time in the sun develop a sort of permanent tan that prevents them from burning, or if someone walks barefoot a lot on rough ground the soles of their feet get tougher so it doesn’t really hurt. Y’know, actual physical manifestations of adaptation like that, only D&Dified a bit to be somewhat fantastical.
Like, for example, a Tabaxi developing the Keen Senses trait like some monsters have that grants advantage on perception checks that rely on sight/hearing/smell because they are constantly using, and therefore honing their senses over time. Or perhaps an elf’s Keen Senses trait (no relation) could evolve to grant expertise eventually. Or perhaps an Orc’ Relentless Endurance evolves to the point where instead of dropping to 1 HP, they can immediately pend a number of Hit Dice = PB and have that many HP when they use the trait. (I dunno, just some ideas that popped into my head.) I would like to see stuff like that as level 4+ species traits, (obviously with an associated ability bump to keep game balance against the other 4+ feats).
If nothing else they’d have to publish the feats alongside the new races for anything aside from PHB ones, because they try to minimize the degree to which secondary books reference each other.
I'd like to see feats that have an option to upgrade at the next feat level, assuming you take that same feat again.
Like if you took the Tough feat, you could get an additional 2 hp per level, retroactively (so, 4hp per level). This could help those who want to lean into being a meat shield tank. Or the Heavy Armor Master could be taken a second time for a total of 6 DR for b/p/s damage. Or Mobile could give another 10 ft of Movement. (Maybe there would need to be a limit to the number of times you can retake a feat- or the feats would need to be rebalanced?)
In addition to simply "stacking" feats, others could offer "progression". Dual Wielder, if taken a second time, could offer a +1 to hit & damage. Spell Sniper could offer a +1 to Spell Attacks and Save DCs. Polearm Master could upgrade the bonus action attack die from a d4 to a d6 or a d8.
These are just "off the top of my head" ideas, and I think anything like this would require a substantial rework/rebalance of most if not all of the feats. But there is precedent for taking feats multiple times in 5e (Elemental Adept, Skilled). I think having more options for focusing your feats/ASIs toward one kind of specialized playstyle could be fun.
I'd like to see feats that have an option to upgrade at the next feat level, assuming you take that same feat again.
Like if you took the Tough feat, you could get an additional 2 hp per level, retroactively (so, 4hp per level). This could help those who want to lean into being a meat shield tank. Or the Heavy Armor Master could be taken a second time for a total of 6 DR for b/p/s damage. Or Mobile could give another 10 ft of Movement. (Maybe there would need to be a limit to the number of times you can retake a feat- or the feats would need to be rebalanced?)
In addition to simply "stacking" feats, others could offer "progression". Dual Wielder, if taken a second time, could offer a +1 to hit & damage. Spell Sniper could offer a +1 to Spell Attacks and Save DCs. Polearm Master could upgrade the bonus action attack die from a d4 to a d6 or a d8.
These are just "off the top of my head" ideas, and I think anything like this would require a substantial rework/rebalance of most if not all of the feats. But there is precedent for taking feats multiple times in 5e (Elemental Adept, Skilled). I think having more options for focusing your feats/ASIs toward one kind of specialized playstyle could be fun.
i think a "Tough x2" is the point where your table should consider giving not tracking hit points a try (as long as everyone role plays the injuries and spends some healing after).
as for the other things being suggested here, those bonuses aren't better than taking an ASI (and probably shouldn't be). stacking feats (or the 'talent trees' they represent) are a complication that likely wouldn't make it into the PHB. i feel like the devs already consider ability scores to be the definitive 5e PHB expression of that. also, d&d already provides additional access to items/blessings/boons/bonuses outside the PHB via renown, piety, downtime training, magical item creation, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Like if you took the Tough feat, you could get an additional 2 hp per level, retroactively (so, 4hp per level).
This actually kind of already exists as an Epic Boon, IIRC it just straight up gives you an extra 40 hit-points, so since Epic Boons are supposed to be 20th-level only it's the same as 2 per level.
Personally I'm not so sure about "levelling" feats; I could see some feats giving access to others, and those additional feats might double down on some aspects. But as a rule I prefer to see feats unlock something new, so it might be a new way to do something similar.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I'd like to see feats that have an option to upgrade at the next feat level, assuming you take that same feat again.
Like if you took the Tough feat, you could get an additional 2 hp per level, retroactively (so, 4hp per level). This could help those who want to lean into being a meat shield tank. Or the Heavy Armor Master could be taken a second time for a total of 6 DR for b/p/s damage. Or Mobile could give another 10 ft of Movement. (Maybe there would need to be a limit to the number of times you can retake a feat- or the feats would need to be rebalanced?)
In addition to simply "stacking" feats, others could offer "progression". Dual Wielder, if taken a second time, could offer a +1 to hit & damage. Spell Sniper could offer a +1 to Spell Attacks and Save DCs. Polearm Master could upgrade the bonus action attack die from a d4 to a d6 or a d8.
These are just "off the top of my head" ideas, and I think anything like this would require a substantial rework/rebalance of most if not all of the feats. But there is precedent for taking feats multiple times in 5e (Elemental Adept, Skilled). I think having more options for focusing your feats/ASIs toward one kind of specialized playstyle could be fun.
The problem as those above have pointed out is that none of these are good enough to be worth spending your precious ASI on. 5e is extremely ASI/feat starved, which is why so many feats already are almost never used / taken.
Feat Categories may allow more Fighting Style type feat groups so things like 'martial feats' or even 'monk feats' where a class gives you access to an extra feat but from a limited pool of choice. So the feat itself isn't limited based on prerequisites, like how anyone could now take a Fighting Style as their Level 12 Feat if they wanted to, but a class saying 'free feat at level 2' can restrict that bonus to something with a predictable power level (without having to tie feats to lots of different character/class level prerequisites, like warlocks' invocations, as that gets complicated though I expect that character level/tiers will remain a prerequisite for balance purposes) as well as a theme.
Something like 'Thief Feats': Alert, Lucky, Skilled, see better in darkness, cast Disguise Self once for free per long rest, get tremor sense 15ft, climb at full speed, etc. - Alone none is unbalancing, especially if you get it for free at say 6th level (they're mostly level 1 available feats or invocations already), but as a group they make the 'thief' more customizable so yours and mine have a slight difference and we didn't use our free/class feat on another ASI. It also makes new classes slightly easier to build since I don't have to think of so many different but equivalent class characteristics. You can just throw in a couple of 'take a Category X or Y feat for free' at levels where you don't have anything else and let the player flesh out their character (do the designer's work for them) while feeling empowered with free agency. And many players would probably prefer that to 'I like this character concept but I wold love to change this ability for another of a similar level'.
Of course, used that way a pool of leveled categorized feats could just replace subclasses, and we all know how much we all love to buy books with new (sub)classes in them. So I don't expect this implementation is where we'll end up. :-)
Do you think they will have species as a category? General (in OP example) and Background (I assume that covers 1st level feats?) seem set
I wonder if they'll bother with species-specific feats this time around? Have they even released any since Xanathar's Guide to Everything?
I could maybe see them releasing some feats tied to features that you might normally get from a race, but I think those would be covered by prerequisites, e.g- "must have an innate flying speed", or "must have darkvision" or such.
Not sure what other categories they might need; I wasn't necessarily opposed to the idea of feats being grouped by "Warrior", "Mage", "Priest" or whatever, but the problem with that idea was for some reason they used it to limit warrior feats to classes that didn't need them. I feel like it might have made more sense to be something like having a fighting style granting you access to the Warrior group of feats (can take one any time you could take a General feat), so if you want to break into that category you need to take a fighting style first if you don't already have one. This would would raise the minimum investment for Polearm Master on non-martial characters (i.e- adding the fighting style makes them "a bit martial").
Epic Boons definitely makes sense, though I guess they could also just use a level prerequisite. They could also do categories for Dark Gifts, Boons, Blessings etc., but I could also just want those because maybe D&D Beyond would finally get their act together and implement them finally. 😝
I kind of expect the species specific feats to be quietly swept under the carpet. I think they open cans of worms that WOTC would prefer to just not deal with. In general, I don't think the added flavor is worth any potential headaches be they balance or perceptive that might come from having them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
I kind of expect the species specific feats to be quietly swept under the carpet. I think they open cans of worms that WOTC would prefer to just not deal with. In general, I don't think the added flavor is worth any potential headaches be they balance or perceptive that might come from having them.
Part of the problem for me was that once you tie to them one specific species you start to raise questions of "well why can't Y also do this?". Like Flames of Phlegathos is a neat idea, but it could also suit a fire genasi, or a gold/red dragonborn, or any other fire themed character.
So yeah, I think if anything like these ever make a come-back it might be tied to more general purpose features, e.g- Flames of Phlegathos could become "Prerequisite: Resistant to fire damage" or such. That way can be up to the player if it's from lineage, bestowed gift or something else. They could rename it "Hot Stuff" while they're at it. 😉
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Well, the context of Flames of Phlegathos is that you’re specifically tapping into something like Hellfire, which is not exactly in the wheelhouse of those others. Plus there’s a certain degree of false equivalence in the underlying premise; just because races share say a fire association or a scaly hide doesn’t mean those characteristics will/can develop along the same track; just because a chameleon can actively change its coloration doesn’t mean every small four-legged reptile can.
Edit addendum: That’s not to say I’m opposed to a more flexible setup, but I don’t think the premise that the Xanathar’s feats are so limited is particularly egregious. Tieflings, Genasi, and Dragonborn all come from very distinct magical heritages; there’s no reason to expect the ways their underlying magic manifests to be homogeneous.
Well, the context of Flames of Phlegathos is that you’re specifically tapping into something like Hellfire, which is not exactly in the wheelhouse of those others. Plus there’s a certain degree of false equivalence in the underlying premise; just because races share say a fire association or a scaly hide doesn’t mean those characteristics will/can develop along the same track; just because a chameleon can actively change its coloration doesn’t mean every small four-legged reptile can.
The "context" of Flames of Phlegathos is that they wanted to do race specific feats in Xanathar's Guide and only came up with some for the races they had at the time and then immediately abandoned the idea. They can easily be spun out to be more inclusive and flexible for players, without the baggage of the past, so I'm not sure why you'd not want them to?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Well, the context of Flames of Phlegathos is that you’re specifically tapping into something like Hellfire, which is not exactly in the wheelhouse of those others. Plus there’s a certain degree of false equivalence in the underlying premise; just because races share say a fire association or a scaly hide doesn’t mean those characteristics will/can develop along the same track; just because a chameleon can actively change its coloration doesn’t mean every small four-legged reptile can.
The "context" of Flames of Phlegathos is that they wanted to do race specific feats in Xanathar's Guide and only came up with some for the races they had at the time and then immediately abandoned the idea. They can easily be spun out to be more inclusive and flexible for players, without the baggage of the past, so I'm not sure why you'd not want them to?
Actually, they stuck with PHB races because they’ve been making a point to not have secondary sourcebooks reference each other too much (obviously they’ve since broadened that a little for the sets, but the general intent stands).
Thank you. 🙏
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
not true. I don't like the pre req, but barbarians, rogues, monks, and warlocks would probably love fighting styles. They specifically want to lock out certain classes
also i think they wanted to make it a background feat, but only if you are starting as fighter, because thats the current implementation, its a level 1 feat with no attribute bonus. The only class who meets the req at level 1 is fighter. The guys who have fighting styles likely won't take it at 4+ because it requires giving up an attribute point for your 2nd most useful fighting style.
if you are born with more potential, it doesnt mean you realize that potential without training/experience. You can be born with the potential to be an NBA star, it doesnt mean you were ready for the NBA at 13, or that it didnt requires 1000s of hours to get your ability to make 85% of the shots you take.
that said game design wise, I'm not sure many of the things that are species related feats should still be. Since many of the old feats were based on culture, not innate physical characteristics of the species. They semi separated some cultural and physical difference in the new origins with background traits/feats/skills but some feats still have them.
I’m not saying they’d be useless, but they don’t move the needle enough that the feats need to be specifically partitioned off from those classes, particularly when I thought part of the point of background feats is to let a class dip a toe into other features.
I wonder if they'll bother with species-specific feats this time around? Have they even released any since Xanathar's Guide to Everything?
I could maybe see them releasing some feats tied to features that you might normally get from a race, but I think those would be covered by prerequisites, e.g- "must have an innate flying speed", or "must have darkvision" or such.
Not sure what other categories they might need; I wasn't necessarily opposed to the idea of feats being grouped by "Warrior", "Mage", "Priest" or whatever, but the problem with that idea was for some reason they used it to limit warrior feats to classes that didn't need them. I feel like it might have made more sense to be something like having a fighting style granting you access to the Warrior group of feats (can take one any time you could take a General feat), so if you want to break into that category you need to take a fighting style first if you don't already have one. This would would raise the minimum investment for Polearm Master on non-martial characters (i.e- adding the fighting style makes them "a bit martial").
Epic Boons definitely makes sense, though I guess they could also just use a level prerequisite. They could also do categories for Dark Gifts, Boons, Blessings etc., but I could also just want those because maybe D&D Beyond would finally get their act together and implement them finally. 😝
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I think some of what could/would be considered species feats gets covered by the optional rule allowing you to swap weapon/tool proficiencies. At least, in terms of the route similar to pf2e, where things like elf or dwarf weapon training is one of the species feats you can take. As opposed to 5e with the optional rule, so you get those weapons and can swap them for other stuff.
I will say that with pf2e, I don’t love the implementation of species feats. It helps make your character more unique at character creation, but eventually you end up with a situation like battlemaster maneuvers, where you are left with a bunch of choices you already rejected and pick the one you dislike least. At least, ime.
But to answer the OP I got the impression, as others said, the categories are basically going to be feats you can take at char gen, and feats at level 4+. But now that everything’s in internal development, you never know what we’ll end up getting.
Given that the next big book-o-rules (Tasha's) didn't have any, and almost seemed to be replacing several of Xanathar's racial feats...it seems they're not exploring that any further. But who knows? the new species and background rules also seem to be a step away from that kind of design.
That does seem more likely.
No, they haven’t. And to answer your question I doubt they will. I personally liked the idea of species feats as a way to represent one’s body adapting physiologically to the rigors of adventuring. Kinda like how people’s bodies adapt to living in hot or cold climates, or lower oxygen atmospheres like high altitudes, or how people who spend a lot of time in the sun develop a sort of permanent tan that prevents them from burning, or if someone walks barefoot a lot on rough ground the soles of their feet get tougher so it doesn’t really hurt. Y’know, actual physical manifestations of adaptation like that, only D&Dified a bit to be somewhat fantastical.
Like, for example, a Tabaxi developing the Keen Senses trait like some monsters have that grants advantage on perception checks that rely on sight/hearing/smell because they are constantly using, and therefore honing their senses over time. Or perhaps an elf’s Keen Senses trait (no relation) could evolve to grant expertise eventually. Or perhaps an Orc’ Relentless Endurance evolves to the point where instead of dropping to 1 HP, they can immediately pend a number of Hit Dice = PB and have that many HP when they use the trait. (I dunno, just some ideas that popped into my head.) I would like to see stuff like that as level 4+ species traits, (obviously with an associated ability bump to keep game balance against the other 4+ feats).
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
If nothing else they’d have to publish the feats alongside the new races for anything aside from PHB ones, because they try to minimize the degree to which secondary books reference each other.
I'd like to see feats that have an option to upgrade at the next feat level, assuming you take that same feat again.
Like if you took the Tough feat, you could get an additional 2 hp per level, retroactively (so, 4hp per level). This could help those who want to lean into being a meat shield tank. Or the Heavy Armor Master could be taken a second time for a total of 6 DR for b/p/s damage. Or Mobile could give another 10 ft of Movement. (Maybe there would need to be a limit to the number of times you can retake a feat- or the feats would need to be rebalanced?)
In addition to simply "stacking" feats, others could offer "progression". Dual Wielder, if taken a second time, could offer a +1 to hit & damage. Spell Sniper could offer a +1 to Spell Attacks and Save DCs. Polearm Master could upgrade the bonus action attack die from a d4 to a d6 or a d8.
These are just "off the top of my head" ideas, and I think anything like this would require a substantial rework/rebalance of most if not all of the feats. But there is precedent for taking feats multiple times in 5e (Elemental Adept, Skilled). I think having more options for focusing your feats/ASIs toward one kind of specialized playstyle could be fun.
i think a "Tough x2" is the point where your table should consider giving not tracking hit points a try (as long as everyone role plays the injuries and spends some healing after).
as for the other things being suggested here, those bonuses aren't better than taking an ASI (and probably shouldn't be). stacking feats (or the 'talent trees' they represent) are a complication that likely wouldn't make it into the PHB. i feel like the devs already consider ability scores to be the definitive 5e PHB expression of that. also, d&d already provides additional access to items/blessings/boons/bonuses outside the PHB via renown, piety, downtime training, magical item creation, etc.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
This actually kind of already exists as an Epic Boon, IIRC it just straight up gives you an extra 40 hit-points, so since Epic Boons are supposed to be 20th-level only it's the same as 2 per level.
Personally I'm not so sure about "levelling" feats; I could see some feats giving access to others, and those additional feats might double down on some aspects. But as a rule I prefer to see feats unlock something new, so it might be a new way to do something similar.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
The problem as those above have pointed out is that none of these are good enough to be worth spending your precious ASI on. 5e is extremely ASI/feat starved, which is why so many feats already are almost never used / taken.
Feat Categories may allow more Fighting Style type feat groups so things like 'martial feats' or even 'monk feats' where a class gives you access to an extra feat but from a limited pool of choice. So the feat itself isn't limited based on prerequisites, like how anyone could now take a Fighting Style as their Level 12 Feat if they wanted to, but a class saying 'free feat at level 2' can restrict that bonus to something with a predictable power level (without having to tie feats to lots of different character/class level prerequisites, like warlocks' invocations, as that gets complicated though I expect that character level/tiers will remain a prerequisite for balance purposes) as well as a theme.
Something like 'Thief Feats': Alert, Lucky, Skilled, see better in darkness, cast Disguise Self once for free per long rest, get tremor sense 15ft, climb at full speed, etc. - Alone none is unbalancing, especially if you get it for free at say 6th level (they're mostly level 1 available feats or invocations already), but as a group they make the 'thief' more customizable so yours and mine have a slight difference and we didn't use our free/class feat on another ASI. It also makes new classes slightly easier to build since I don't have to think of so many different but equivalent class characteristics. You can just throw in a couple of 'take a Category X or Y feat for free' at levels where you don't have anything else and let the player flesh out their character (do the designer's work for them) while feeling empowered with free agency. And many players would probably prefer that to 'I like this character concept but I wold love to change this ability for another of a similar level'.
Of course, used that way a pool of leveled categorized feats could just replace subclasses, and we all know how much we all love to buy books with new (sub)classes in them. So I don't expect this implementation is where we'll end up. :-)
I kind of expect the species specific feats to be quietly swept under the carpet. I think they open cans of worms that WOTC would prefer to just not deal with. In general, I don't think the added flavor is worth any potential headaches be they balance or perceptive that might come from having them.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Part of the problem for me was that once you tie to them one specific species you start to raise questions of "well why can't Y also do this?". Like Flames of Phlegathos is a neat idea, but it could also suit a fire genasi, or a gold/red dragonborn, or any other fire themed character.
So yeah, I think if anything like these ever make a come-back it might be tied to more general purpose features, e.g- Flames of Phlegathos could become "Prerequisite: Resistant to fire damage" or such. That way can be up to the player if it's from lineage, bestowed gift or something else. They could rename it "Hot Stuff" while they're at it. 😉
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Well, the context of Flames of Phlegathos is that you’re specifically tapping into something like Hellfire, which is not exactly in the wheelhouse of those others. Plus there’s a certain degree of false equivalence in the underlying premise; just because races share say a fire association or a scaly hide doesn’t mean those characteristics will/can develop along the same track; just because a chameleon can actively change its coloration doesn’t mean every small four-legged reptile can.
Edit addendum: That’s not to say I’m opposed to a more flexible setup, but I don’t think the premise that the Xanathar’s feats are so limited is particularly egregious. Tieflings, Genasi, and Dragonborn all come from very distinct magical heritages; there’s no reason to expect the ways their underlying magic manifests to be homogeneous.
The "context" of Flames of Phlegathos is that they wanted to do race specific feats in Xanathar's Guide and only came up with some for the races they had at the time and then immediately abandoned the idea. They can easily be spun out to be more inclusive and flexible for players, without the baggage of the past, so I'm not sure why you'd not want them to?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Actually, they stuck with PHB races because they’ve been making a point to not have secondary sourcebooks reference each other too much (obviously they’ve since broadened that a little for the sets, but the general intent stands).
honestly, i can see a post-feat 5e. the more i read/write about feats online, the less i enjoy feats in game. they're optional but ubiquitous.
...would blessings and charms become boring and cookie-cutter if DDB finally grew some better tracking of supernatural gifts?
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!