I dislike charger but part of the reason I dislike it is that on a technical level you can use it every round in most cases. You just need to move 10 feet in a straight line, not a straight line at the target. I don't know how to create a visual grid in this post. But lets say there is a monster 20 feet out, you run forward get charger off and are standing right in front of it. Now next round you step 5 feet to the left, you are still within its reach so no AoO, now move 10 feet to the right, you are still within its reach and you have moved 10 feet in a straight line, attack, and you get the charger benefit. And you can still attack twice at level 5. This makes the straight line part a non limit in most cases unless the enemies form a line. so it is mechanically but maybe not thematically balanced around being used every round at all levels. If that makes it balanced, I am fine with that. But rename it to something like acrobatic attacker and drop the straight line component. And describe it as a feat where you excel at using your movement to enhance your attack.
I get what you mean. It seems like they missed in the movement requirement that you have to move in a straight line in the direction of the target.
I don't get what you mean that "you can still attack twice at level 5." The point of my complaint against Charger is that it specifically requires you to take the Dash-action and use a Bonus action. This means you wont get to use your Attack action and thus wont utilize the Extra Attack feature to gain two attacks. It cannot be circumvented by multiclassing Rogue to use Cunning Action to Dash, as Charger itself also uses your Bonus action. You can technically circumvent it by getting Haste, but that comes at the cost of an entire weapon attack as well, so you're weighing 5 flat damage on a maybe-hit for an entire new weapon attack. That's usually a situation where the flat 5 loses out.
I have not found a common enough situation where I want the Charger feat over a +2 to weapon stat or +2 to caster stat (for hybrids).
most feats offer something worth an ASI, (or in one dnd a half asi)its just not always the things players are that interested in focusing on over other options. Also note, because of the stat cap, Asi get less attractive the more you have taken, unless your class is very MAD.
the ones considered 'good' are mostly because players like damage. Each feat should be stronger/more useful than an asi in its specific situation, or its not a great feat. Most are.
The trouble I find is that ASIs grant an increase to your main contribution to the party: STR/DEX = weapon damage, CON = tanking (but hardly ever a primary focus), INT/WIS/CHA = spell casting and supplementary skills (basically moving the plot along in situations that ain't combat). The game is very reliant on the attributes to cover your base actions/functions and also your resistance to negative implications (be it damage, spell afflictions, conditions).
You are right that many feats are quite good in their slice of the world where they can excel. The issue is finding a balance where that situation happens often enough that a generalist improvement (through an ASI) is not better. I often find myself saying "This feat is not bad. But is it worth delaying my main attribute?" - and I often come up with "No, it's not". (This could be made mostly redundant either by separating ASIs and feats or completely combining them all into half-feats - yes for a 6th edition. Basically remove the opportunity cost or intertwine the two choices. As for accommodating new players, you could always make a section of recommended basic feats - so if they don't want to scour the entire feat list, they can select from a list of maybe 15, 20, 30 feats possibly with some tags that can make them quickly disregard feats that doesn't align with their character. And I'd wager most new players quickly wrap their head around their character progression and can move on to consider feats - especially in a time where they can access the information readily from their PC.)
I find that ASIs only gets less attractive once you've hit your stat cap in your main stat (STR/DEX for weapon attackers, INT/WIS/CHA for casters) and basically never for hybrids (half-casters, Hexblades, Bladesingers, Eldritch Knight - possibly others worth mentioning that I don't recall).
'
A couple of reasons for my line of thinking may be because I've mainly played campaigns that are mostly combat focused, the resources I've found online tend to favor combat-orientated improvements, and that spell casters usually can fix many situations through spells and/or their spell casting attribute overlaps with a utility skill that can cover some of the road. One reason why my group mainly has a combat focus is that skill-orientated campaigns are difficult to make that includes all players as valuable assets. If you run an intrigue and investigation-type campaign, then you mainly require DEX, INT, CHA as the primary contributions to the plot. Your Barbarian is unlikely going to have a great time, outside whatever combat do happen. If there is situations that enables the Barbarian through need of grapple/athletic checks there is a risk that it feels shoehorned in. Your players could create their characters based on the campaign setting, but then you're also kinda pigeonholing your players. Another reason for my line of thinking, is that I find many utility skills generally becomes less attractive the higher tier play you get into. The enemy you'd often face at level 10+ is not really someone you can talk to, make diplomacy with - unless the campaign is specifically geared to allow it. You're generally not gonna talk your way out of a Dragon's Hoard or a Lich's Tomb. Neither is it very necessary to stealth for information-gathering or using sleight-of-hand, just to name some. Feats that complement these skills are thus not as impactful at this point. Not to say that these skills are useless in any sense, but the game tend to favor combat as a unifying game mechanic across all classes. Which in turn also tend to make players favor ways to improve their contributions in combat, with a spread across the party to cover for skills - for instance the party can generally get by with one player covering WIS for perception/survival/tracking to notice stuff/alert of ambush, INT for knowledge which can move the plot along, CHA for non-hostile NPC handling also to move the plot along. Most of this can be handled through base ability score, proficiency (often from base class features) and possibly supplemented through spell casting like Guidance, Enhance Ability, Skill Empowerment and Inspiration (like from a Bard). In other words; the party mostly only requires one person to clear the skill check or enable a utility tool (like Teleport), whilst everyone should contribute to combat.
so, I'm not sure if you are aware of the UA or 2024 changes, but charger no longer requires a dash or a bonus action. Its now, if you move 10 feet before you attack you can do d8 additional damage once per turn.
unlike the poster above I have no problem with this. D8 is around the amount of pure damage a dps feat needs to give per round to compete with an ASI.
Also the vast majority of feats they have shown us in the UA for 2024 have a single attribute point attached.
Some of the people discussing here are doing it in the context of all the 2024 phb UA they released
To be clear I do not have a issue with the d8 damage in itself, whatever it is balanced around i am fine with the result. It could end up d6, d10 or d12, or d weapon damage and i'm fine with it. I have just no idea if when they designed its balance they were assuming its use every round or just in the opening round and a rare occurrence in the middle of the fight. So my comment was intended to be more around where they intended it to line up mechanically as opposed to where it is, but i think thematically it was intended to be a once or twice a fight thing. You could like double the damage or scale it a die per 5 levels and a martials damage would still be fine imo. But i like it when the mechanics reinforce the thematic elements of an ability.
Considering that you can use the Charger feat with ranged attacks, I think that it's best to assume that it is expected to be used all the time.
Maybe, this was the first pass of the feat. I have no idea if the intent was for it to work with ranged attacks or if it was just sloppy wording on their part. Getting more damage while running away and shooting a bow doesn't really mesh well with a feat described as charging headlong into battle. Maybe they answered it in one of their videos and i forgot. It would be far from the only obvious mistake in the play test documents. I don't think it is unbalanced either way though ranged combat doesn't really need a boost imo or at least not a parallel boost to melee, like 1d8 ranged but 2d8 melee i can get behind balance wise. But how they expect it to be used matters for when they are doing their internal play testing with i suspect a lot more moving parts we are aware of currently. If they balance the feat under the assumption is its rarely used but it can be used all the time it likely then is screwy. not in the overall martial vs magic balance but in the must have feat style balance. Heck even if they just thought only melee but didn't clear up the wording, it can skew it by making it must have for ranged characters. Is moving 10 feet in a straight line a limit at all for ranged characters, why even put it in as a limit.
The last thing I want is for the first 1000 sage advices to be clarification on what the heck they meant in the rules because they weren't precise enough in their wording. I got enough of that from 5e for a life time.
I guess we will find out in September if they change the wording, I was just pointing out that as written, it isn't limited to melee attacks. Personally, I like it and have been using it on my rogue for a few months now. Fits well with a skirmisher play style.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Considering that you can use the Charger feat with ranged attacks, I think that it's best to assume that it is expected to be used all the time.
Maybe, this was the first pass of the feat. I have no idea if the intent was for it to work with ranged attacks or if it was just sloppy wording on their part. Getting more damage while running away and shooting a bow doesn't really mesh well with a feat described as charging headlong into battle. Maybe they answered it in one of their videos and i forgot. It would be far from the only obvious mistake in the play test documents. I don't think it is unbalanced either way though ranged combat doesn't really need a boost imo or at least not a parallel boost to melee, like 1d8 ranged but 2d8 melee i can get behind balance wise. But how they expect it to be used matters for when they are doing their internal play testing with i suspect a lot more moving parts we are aware of currently. If they balance the feat under the assumption is its rarely used but it can be used all the time it likely then is screwy. not in the overall martial vs magic balance but in the must have feat style balance. Heck even if they just thought only melee but didn't clear up the wording, it can skew it by making it must have for ranged characters. Is moving 10 feet in a straight line a limit at all for ranged characters, why even put it in as a limit.
The last thing I want is for the first 1000 sage advices to be clarification on what the heck they meant in the rules because they weren't precise enough in their wording. I got enough of that from 5e for a life time.
its possible its an error, but its also the nature of the phb that it replaces via overwriting things with the same name. The new charger feat may not be ideally named, but the old charger feat wasn't really competitive with an ASI. The new charger encourages player movement and positioning.
If you could only use it once or twice per round, its probably worse than An asi for a character with two attacks. An asi would give +1 damage per hit, and +1 accuracy, which is like .6 to 1 damage per hit. Considering most meleers can attack 3 times per round via dual wielding, polearm, reactions or unarmed strikes by level 5, it probably needs to be useful most of the time.
Now, I don't expect every thing to be perfectly balanced, its also kind of a flavor/playstyle choice, but its not really OP being a per turn d8. Its also fairly entertaining, imo as is. That said I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt intend it to be useful for any attack not in a direct line to the target, but it could easily be the other way as well. You could still use it fairly often, it would just require more movement or different synergies, making it less effecient for a rando, but similarly efficient for an optimizer.
as said, we'll see if the book comes out this year if its going to be altered.
Considering that you can use the Charger feat with ranged attacks, I think that it's best to assume that it is expected to be used all the time.
Maybe, this was the first pass of the feat. I have no idea if the intent was for it to work with ranged attacks or if it was just sloppy wording on their part. Getting more damage while running away and shooting a bow doesn't really mesh well with a feat described as charging headlong into battle. Maybe they answered it in one of their videos and i forgot. It would be far from the only obvious mistake in the play test documents. I don't think it is unbalanced either way though ranged combat doesn't really need a boost imo or at least not a parallel boost to melee, like 1d8 ranged but 2d8 melee i can get behind balance wise. But how they expect it to be used matters for when they are doing their internal play testing with i suspect a lot more moving parts we are aware of currently. If they balance the feat under the assumption is its rarely used but it can be used all the time it likely then is screwy. not in the overall martial vs magic balance but in the must have feat style balance. Heck even if they just thought only melee but didn't clear up the wording, it can skew it by making it must have for ranged characters. Is moving 10 feet in a straight line a limit at all for ranged characters, why even put it in as a limit.
The last thing I want is for the first 1000 sage advices to be clarification on what the heck they meant in the rules because they weren't precise enough in their wording. I got enough of that from 5e for a life time.
its possible its an error, but its also the nature of the phb that it replaces via overwriting things with the same name. The new charger feat may not be ideally named, but the old charger feat wasn't really competitive with an ASI. The new charger encourages player movement and positioning.
If you could only use it once or twice per round, its probably worse than An asi for a character with two attacks. An asi would give +1 damage per hit, and +1 accuracy, which is like .6 to 1 damage per hit. Considering most meleers can attack 3 times per round via dual wielding, polearm, reactions or unarmed strikes by level 5, it probably needs to be useful most of the time.
Now, I don't expect every thing to be perfectly balanced, its also kind of a flavor/playstyle choice, but its not really OP being a per turn d8. Its also fairly entertaining, imo as is. That said I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt intend it to be useful for any attack not in a direct line to the target, but it could easily be the other way as well. You could still use it fairly often, it would just require more movement or different synergies, making it less effecient for a rando, but similarly efficient for an optimizer.
as said, we'll see if the book comes out this year if its going to be altered.
I am not particularly concerned about the d8 other than i think the melee boost should be more than the ranged as there should be a benefit for going into melee. But I don't like when the rules feel nonsensical or don't fit the thematic elements. It should fit its name and description. That is important. When things don't they start to become traps.
Why have a 10 feet in a straight line limit if it really only limits you when enemies you are in melee with are in formation so any movement creates a AoO. The intent was clearly to create some charging feel to the feat but it doesn't do that, you can charge parallel, with ranged attacks you can aggressively advance the rear flank(run away) and get the benefit. That isn't charging, and it is not a much of a limit so why have it. 10 feet of movement sure, the so called limit would be for use enemies in formation still sure but it would be clear it was more about not being restrained. And call it skirmisher if that is what it ends up being and describe it as being an expert at quickly moving and attacking for maximum damage. And melee should not be a trap option. So sure, let it work with ranged, but make the damage on a melee attack 2d8, or have the ranged a flat 1d8, and melee is 1d8 at level 1, 2d8 at 5, 3d8 at 11, 4d8 at 17.
so, I'm not sure if you are aware of the UA or 2024 changes, but charger no longer requires a dash or a bonus action. Its now, if you move 10 feet before you attack you can do d8 additional damage once per turn.
unlike the poster above I have no problem with this. D8 is around the amount of pure damage a dps feat needs to give per round to compete with an ASI.
Also the vast majority of feats they have shown us in the UA for 2024 have a single attribute point attached.
Some of the people discussing here are doing it in the context of all the 2024 phb UA they released
I guess picking the Charger feat was a mighty poor decision then, as many of the problems I have with the 2014 version seem to be relatively fixed for the 2024 version. To answer your question, no I had forgot they made a new variant of the Charger feat.
As for feats turning half-feats in the UA2, wasn't this pulled back? Alongside the three major spell lists? I was under the impression that all the major experiments in UA2 was eventually pulled back; class groups (warrior, expert, spellcaster, priest), spell lists, and feats (well non-Epic Boon feats).
If that's not the case, I guess I just got a little more excited about the 2024 version, but also do hope that they make quite a few more feats. As for granting more ASIs over the 20 levels... I think that's a pipe dream not coming true for 5.5e but one can always hope for an eventual 6e, or a risky optional ruleset for 5.5e.
To be clear I do not have a issue with the d8 damage in itself, whatever it is balanced around i am fine with the result. It could end up d6, d10 or d12, or d weapon damage and i'm fine with it. I have just no idea if when they designed its balance they were assuming its use every round or just in the opening round and a rare occurrence in the middle of the fight. So my comment was intended to be more around where they intended it to line up mechanically as opposed to where it is, but i think thematically it was intended to be a once or twice a fight thing. You could like double the damage or scale it a die per 5 levels and a martials damage would still be fine imo. But i like it when the mechanics reinforce the thematic elements of an ability.
Considering that you can use the Charger feat with ranged attacks, I think that it's best to assume that it is expected to be used all the time.
I agree that the thematic/flavorful way to use Charger would be to limit it to melee attacks and have a requirement that the 10 ft. movement needs to be toward the creature you hit.
Being usable on a ranged attack with the option to push - direction not included either - so as per RAW, couldn't you use this to pull the creature? A DM would surely not allow it, but yes this feat has quite a few slip ups under a malicious interpretation.
'
As for balance, the 1d8 is equivalent to 4.5 average damage, with account of hit chance, we're likely in the 70% chance to hit area, resulting in ~3 average damage per round. That's not bad when the requirement is so low. However I would have loved if the feat had a bigger requirement (though not back to requiring a Dash action) and a bigger impact with build-around potential. Just to spitball something:
Once per turn when you move in a straight line toward a creature and immediately after make a melee attack against it and hit, you gain the following benefits based on how far you travelled leading up to the attack:
10 ft. +1d8 to the attack's damage roll; or push the target 10 feet straight away from you if they are no more than one size larger than you.
20 ft. +1d8 plus your proficiency bonus to the attack's damage roll; or push the target 15 feet straight away from you if they are no more than one size larger than you.
40 ft. +1d8 plus two times your proficiency bonus to the attack's damage roll; or push the target 20 feet straight away from you if they are no more than one size larger than you.
'
For normal combat, you'd only get access to the 20 ft. version when you move (walk, technically) up to the target, and otherwise the 10 ft. version by moving away, then moving back in again; proc'ing Opportunity Attack when backing away, so there's a trade-off and same damage as the UA2 version. That seem like a fine, isolated interaction. If you have a very mobile species with 40 ft. walking movement (like the optional species Centaur) you could get access to the 20 ft. version in combat (and technically but unlikely the 40 ft. version on first contact) - OR - you could acquire extra movement through class features, feats or spells that enable the higher tiers.
It would work quite well with Rogue with their access to Cunning Action to disengage as a BA to avoid the downside, or shrug it off and go for a BA dash for the bigger bonus (Charger grants +10 speed when Dashing, but it is not walking speed, so you still need +10 speed for the 40 ft. version).
The Bladesinger's Bladesong provides a +10 walking speed to allow the 20 ft. version in normal combat for 30+ ft. walking speed species (most medium creatures), with Haste it can be the 40 ft. version but with the caveat that a hit from an Opportunity Attack could break your concentration and stop your turn. Risk, reward.
The Mobile feat also provides a +10 walking speed and with the Extra Attack feature you could also start by swinging at the enemy to remove the Opportunity Attack as a downside (if it's the only nearby enemy), then go for the 20 ft. version.
I get that it's a bit goofy for a character to essentially power-walk across the battlefield in this manner and that may be the best reason to limit it to a set distance with a scaling benefit based on character stats (like level/proficiency), but the ability to build around features, feats, spells, weapons, basically any system is something I think should be encouraged as it is always fun to find synergies and feel like they are building blocks that fit together very snug, instead of being separate blocks you stack on top or beside each other with indifference to each other.
You can acquire Charger at level 4, meaning you can at maximum at that point with full investment to get the 40 ft. version in combat (most easily done through Rogue's Cunning Action to Dash as a BA and an optional 35 ft. walking speed race, with Charger granting the remaining 10 speed needed), get +1d8 + 2 times 2 damage out of it, for between 5 - 12 damage bonus (or an average of 8.5), and hope you make a hit. That's still quite a bonus, close to getting an additional weapon attack. But it also comes with the downside of a number of opportunity attacks, a specific build-path and the battlefield to accommodate it. I wouldn't fear the 40 ft. version to be problematic. The 10 ft. version is the most commonly accessible version and the one that is in line with the UA2 version in terms of damage. The 20 ft. version grants some initial bonus damage for the first charge-in, and with some investment can become your new baseline for combat. You wont hit every time, so I only would consider it slightly better damage than the UA2's GWM that adds your prof. bonus to a damage roll with a Heavy weapon once per turn (taking advantage of the Extra Attack feature to better secure its application, and with no direct drawback).
With that being said, the changes made to Polearm Master not being an Opportunity Attack when you use your reaction to strike an enemy entering your reach, making any previous synergy with Sentinel that lowers any target's speed to 0, when hit by an Opportunity Attack... kinda gives the impression that WotC don't want synergies in their feats because they feel like they become must-haves. Personally I find this to be more a problem of PAM being an already quite good feat, and that other feat choices are... not that enticing for a martial. Considering these feats were changed to half-feats in the UA2, they clearly couldn't keep their previous power, but one could easily have split PAM in two, so the BA attack either is an upgrade or a separate direction, then you could sprinkle in some other benefit if you must. What we got was a largely unaffected PAM with one ASI (except no quarterstaff/spear users now to disallow stick'n'board that have two attacks and a shield at level 1. WotC could have made the previous list but require the use of two hands) and a nerfed Sentinel with one ASI (The Disengage action triggers the OA and you must be within 5 ft. when they take the action and the Guardian reaction-attack on a nearby ally now only triggers on a hit, instead of attack).
so, I'm not sure if you are aware of the UA or 2024 changes, but charger no longer requires a dash or a bonus action. Its now, if you move 10 feet before you attack you can do d8 additional damage once per turn.
unlike the poster above I have no problem with this. D8 is around the amount of pure damage a dps feat needs to give per round to compete with an ASI.
Also the vast majority of feats they have shown us in the UA for 2024 have a single attribute point attached.
Some of the people discussing here are doing it in the context of all the 2024 phb UA they released
I guess picking the Charger feat was a mighty poor decision then, as many of the problems I have with the 2014 version seem to be relatively fixed for the 2024 version. To answer your question, no I had forgot they made a new variant of the Charger feat.
As for feats turning half-feats in the UA2, wasn't this pulled back? Alongside the three major spell lists? I was under the impression that all the major experiments in UA2 was eventually pulled back; class groups (warrior, expert, spellcaster, priest), spell lists, and feats (well non-Epic Boon feats).
If that's not the case, I guess I just got a little more excited about the 2024 version, but also do hope that they make quite a few more feats. As for granting more ASIs over the 20 levels... I think that's a pipe dream not coming true for 5.5e but one can always hope for an eventual 6e, or a risky optional ruleset for 5.5e.
To be clear I do not have a issue with the d8 damage in itself, whatever it is balanced around i am fine with the result. It could end up d6, d10 or d12, or d weapon damage and i'm fine with it. I have just no idea if when they designed its balance they were assuming its use every round or just in the opening round and a rare occurrence in the middle of the fight. So my comment was intended to be more around where they intended it to line up mechanically as opposed to where it is, but i think thematically it was intended to be a once or twice a fight thing. You could like double the damage or scale it a die per 5 levels and a martials damage would still be fine imo. But i like it when the mechanics reinforce the thematic elements of an ability.
Considering that you can use the Charger feat with ranged attacks, I think that it's best to assume that it is expected to be used all the time.
I agree that the thematic/flavorful way to use Charger would be to limit it to melee attacks and have a requirement that the 10 ft. movement needs to be toward the creature you hit.
Being usable on a ranged attack with the option to push - direction not included either - so as per RAW, couldn't you use this to pull the creature? A DM would surely not allow it, but yes this feat has quite a few slip ups under a malicious interpretation.
'
As for balance, the 1d8 is equivalent to 4.5 average damage, with account of hit chance, we're likely in the 70% chance to hit area, resulting in ~3 average damage per round. That's not bad when the requirement is so low. However I would have loved if the feat had a bigger requirement (though not back to requiring a Dash action) and a bigger impact with build-around potential. Just to spitball something:
Once per turn when you move in a straight line toward a creature and immediately after make a melee attack against it and hit, you gain the following benefits based on how far you travelled leading up to the attack:
10 ft. +1d8 to the attack's damage roll; or push the target 10 feet straight away from you if they are no more than one size larger than you.
20 ft. +1d8 plus your proficiency bonus to the attack's damage roll; or push the target 15 feet straight away from you if they are no more than one size larger than you.
40 ft. +1d8 plus two times your proficiency bonus to the attack's damage roll; or push the target 20 feet straight away from you if they are no more than one size larger than you.
'
For normal combat, you'd only get access to the 20 ft. version when you move (walk, technically) up to the target, and otherwise the 10 ft. version by moving away, then moving back in again; proc'ing Opportunity Attack when backing away, so there's a trade-off and same damage as the UA2 version. That seem like a fine, isolated interaction. If you have a very mobile species with 40 ft. walking movement (like the optional species Centaur) you could get access to the 20 ft. version in combat (and technically but unlikely the 40 ft. version on first contact) - OR - you could acquire extra movement through class features, feats or spells that enable the higher tiers.
It would work quite well with Rogue with their access to Cunning Action to disengage as a BA to avoid the downside, or shrug it off and go for a BA dash for the bigger bonus (Charger grants +10 speed when Dashing, but it is not walking speed, so you still need +10 speed for the 40 ft. version).
The Bladesinger's Bladesong provides a +10 walking speed to allow the 20 ft. version in normal combat for 30+ ft. walking speed species (most medium creatures), with Haste it can be the 40 ft. version but with the caveat that a hit from an Opportunity Attack could break your concentration and stop your turn. Risk, reward.
The Mobile feat also provides a +10 walking speed and with the Extra Attack feature you could also start by swinging at the enemy to remove the Opportunity Attack as a downside (if it's the only nearby enemy), then go for the 20 ft. version.
I get that it's a bit goofy for a character to essentially power-walk across the battlefield in this manner and that may be the best reason to limit it to a set distance with a scaling benefit based on character stats (like level/proficiency), but the ability to build around features, feats, spells, weapons, basically any system is something I think should be encouraged as it is always fun to find synergies and feel like they are building blocks that fit together very snug, instead of being separate blocks you stack on top or beside each other with indifference to each other.
You can acquire Charger at level 4, meaning you can at maximum at that point with full investment to get the 40 ft. version in combat (most easily done through Rogue's Cunning Action to Dash as a BA and an optional 35 ft. walking speed race, with Charger granting the remaining 10 speed needed), get +1d8 + 2 times 2 damage out of it, for between 5 - 12 damage bonus (or an average of 8.5), and hope you make a hit. That's still quite a bonus, close to getting an additional weapon attack. But it also comes with the downside of a number of opportunity attacks, a specific build-path and the battlefield to accommodate it. I wouldn't fear the 40 ft. version to be problematic. The 10 ft. version is the most commonly accessible version and the one that is in line with the UA2 version in terms of damage. The 20 ft. version grants some initial bonus damage for the first charge-in, and with some investment can become your new baseline for combat. You wont hit every time, so I only would consider it slightly better damage than the UA2's GWM that adds your prof. bonus to a damage roll with a Heavy weapon once per turn (taking advantage of the Extra Attack feature to better secure its application, and with no direct drawback).
With that being said, the changes made to Polearm Master not being an Opportunity Attack when you use your reaction to strike an enemy entering your reach, making any previous synergy with Sentinel that lowers any target's speed to 0, when hit by an Opportunity Attack... kinda gives the impression that WotC don't want synergies in their feats because they feel like they become must-haves. Personally I find this to be more a problem of PAM being an already quite good feat, and that other feat choices are... not that enticing for a martial. Considering these feats were changed to half-feats in the UA2, they clearly couldn't keep their previous power, but one could easily have split PAM in two, so the BA attack either is an upgrade or a separate direction, then you could sprinkle in some other benefit if you must. What we got was a largely unaffected PAM with one ASI (except no quarterstaff/spear users now to disallow stick'n'board that have two attacks and a shield at level 1. WotC could have made the previous list but require the use of two hands) and a nerfed Sentinel with one ASI (The Disengage action triggers the OA and you must be within 5 ft. when they take the action and the Guardian reaction-attack on a nearby ally now only triggers on a hit, instead of attack).
feats have not, at this point been revised much, other than them saying you wont get epic feats at 20 anymore. some changes with fighting styles prereqs, and they made your level 19 feats allow you to break the level 20 cap.
they probably have some changes, and they said they have new feats they havent tested. It seems likely the half feat for level 4 feats will be staying around.
Feats/ASIs should never have been tied to class. In whole, 5E desperately needs a core progression element that allows for some growth in width, and not just height, without the silly Skilled feat. You should be able to pick up a new skill or language as you level up without devoting four levels of effort to suddenly gain multiple.
Feats/ASIs should never have been tied to class. In whole, 5E desperately needs a core progression element that allows for some growth in width, and not just height, without the silly Skilled feat. You should be able to pick up a new skill or language as you level up without devoting four levels of effort to suddenly gain multiple.
While I agree I do not think its something they can change while sticking with their backwards compatibility plan, it wold have to be a whole new edition.
Personally I think it's fine as-is; you've got your expert classes and several others that go wide with skills, but it's pretty much impossible for one character to cover all the major skills, which is a good thing because it prevents a single player from dominating scenes in play. Growth in width is good for single player games where one person really is doing everything; in multiplayer it's better to not make it easy for someone to start filling all the lanes.
Personally I think it's fine as-is; you've got your expert classes and several others that go wide with skills, but it's pretty much impossible for one character to cover all the major skills, which is a good thing because it prevents a single player from dominating scenes in play. Growth in width is good for single player games where one person really is doing everything; in multiplayer it's better to not make it easy for someone to start filling all the lanes.
They could have achieved that by keeping a skill point system. If as you leveled you'd have a choice between improving a skill or learning a new one. It kind of feels weird that you can level up to learn how to bring down meteors faster than you can learn how to cook a decent meal. And you can level to 20 and never learn a new skill unless you take a feat in which case you suddenly know 3 or 1 skill, language, tool with expertise in one skill etc. Pat of the weirdness comes from how rapid leveling is compared to their learn a tool/language rules are. Unless your campaign has unusually long downtime you will probably end the campaign leveling a dozen times before you can learn to cook. Which as an aside assuming they don't fix people wanting to play to level 20, maybe they should slow down advancement a decent chunk. If the game is levels 1-10 on average let it last instead of running through new characters every 6 months or so.
But part of this is not skills. Feats/asis being tied to class level works as the game functions as is. But im not sure its the best option, it sort of creates a dead level for classes where they are not getting something as the class but something generic instead. I think separating them and putting in a interesting feature that fits the class would work better.. But you can't really fix it as multi classing is effected by is quite a bit and fighter/rogue get them as a class gimmick. The latter point is fairly easy to work around. Just give them something different of equal value, or having them as bonus feats outside normal asi progression is fine as well. But multi class balancing is bad enough as is, they would need a fix for this. Personally I think they need a full redo of multi classing anyways, but i doubt that will happen.
Personally I think it's fine as-is; you've got your expert classes and several others that go wide with skills, but it's pretty much impossible for one character to cover all the major skills, which is a good thing because it prevents a single player from dominating scenes in play. Growth in width is good for single player games where one person really is doing everything; in multiplayer it's better to not make it easy for someone to start filling all the lanes.
They could have achieved that by keeping a skill point system. If as you leveled you'd have a choice between improving a skill or learning a new one. It kind of feels weird that you can level up to learn how to bring down meteors faster than you can learn how to cook a decent meal. And you can level to 20 and never learn a new skill unless you take a feat in which case you suddenly know 3 or 1 skill, language, tool with expertise in one skill etc. Pat of the weirdness comes from how rapid leveling is compared to their learn a tool/language rules are. Unless your campaign has unusually long downtime you will probably end the campaign leveling a dozen times before you can learn to cook. Which as an aside assuming they don't fix people wanting to play to level 20, maybe they should slow down advancement a decent chunk. If the game is levels 1-10 on average let it last instead of running through new characters every 6 months or so.
But part of this is not skills. Feats/asis being tied to class level works as the game functions as is. But im not sure its the best option, it sort of creates a dead level for classes where they are not getting something as the class but something generic instead. I think separating them and putting in a interesting feature that fits the class would work better.. But you can't really fix it as multi classing is effected by is quite a bit and fighter/rogue get them as a class gimmick. The latter point is fairly easy to work around. Just give them something different of equal value, or having them as bonus feats outside normal asi progression is fine as well. But multi class balancing is bad enough as is, they would need a fix for this. Personally I think they need a full redo of multi classing anyways, but i doubt that will happen.
1) There's downtime training for acquiring tool profs, plus as you pointed out there's feats for skills. So you have ample opportunity to acquire cooking tools prof before you learn Meteor Swarm.
2) The game is not a reality simulator, ergo expecting a realistic rendition of how skills are acquired is itself unrealistic.
3) Every leveling system I can think of has "dead levels" so it's not notably bad design that you get 1 every 4th level that's not even actually dead.
Personally I think it's fine as-is; you've got your expert classes and several others that go wide with skills, but it's pretty much impossible for one character to cover all the major skills, which is a good thing because it prevents a single player from dominating scenes in play. Growth in width is good for single player games where one person really is doing everything; in multiplayer it's better to not make it easy for someone to start filling all the lanes.
They could have achieved that by keeping a skill point system. If as you leveled you'd have a choice between improving a skill or learning a new one. It kind of feels weird that you can level up to learn how to bring down meteors faster than you can learn how to cook a decent meal. And you can level to 20 and never learn a new skill unless you take a feat in which case you suddenly know 3 or 1 skill, language, tool with expertise in one skill etc. Pat of the weirdness comes from how rapid leveling is compared to their learn a tool/language rules are. Unless your campaign has unusually long downtime you will probably end the campaign leveling a dozen times before you can learn to cook. Which as an aside assuming they don't fix people wanting to play to level 20, maybe they should slow down advancement a decent chunk. If the game is levels 1-10 on average let it last instead of running through new characters every 6 months or so.
But part of this is not skills. Feats/asis being tied to class level works as the game functions as is. But im not sure its the best option, it sort of creates a dead level for classes where they are not getting something as the class but something generic instead. I think separating them and putting in a interesting feature that fits the class would work better.. But you can't really fix it as multi classing is effected by is quite a bit and fighter/rogue get them as a class gimmick. The latter point is fairly easy to work around. Just give them something different of equal value, or having them as bonus feats outside normal asi progression is fine as well. But multi class balancing is bad enough as is, they would need a fix for this. Personally I think they need a full redo of multi classing anyways, but i doubt that will happen.
1) There's downtime training for acquiring tool profs, plus as you pointed out there's feats for skills. So you have ample opportunity to acquire cooking tools prof before you learn Meteor Swarm.
2) The game is not a reality simulator, ergo expecting a realistic rendition of how skills are acquired is itself unrealistic.
3) Every leveling system I can think of has "dead levels" so it's not notably bad design that you get 1 every 4th level that's not even actually dead.
1) I know which is why i pointed out it will take your whole campaign to learn how to cook while you mysteriously leveled 19 times and picked up the power to grant wishes.
2) No one is asking for reality, but internal consistency is nice.
Personally I think it's fine as-is; you've got your expert classes and several others that go wide with skills, but it's pretty much impossible for one character to cover all the major skills, which is a good thing because it prevents a single player from dominating scenes in play. Growth in width is good for single player games where one person really is doing everything; in multiplayer it's better to not make it easy for someone to start filling all the lanes.
"Grow in width a bit" != "Grow to cover *all* the width"
Feats/ASIs should never have been tied to class. In whole, 5E desperately needs a core progression element that allows for some growth in width, and not just height, without the silly Skilled feat. You should be able to pick up a new skill or language as you level up without devoting four levels of effort to suddenly gain multiple.
While I agree I do not think its something they can change while sticking with their backwards compatibility plan, it wold have to be a whole new edition.
Not sure... I think they could do it. If they can get Bastions in, they can do this, too. Only it would be kind of inelegant, to have a "BTW, ignore the ASIs in the class descriptions" for older stuff...
They altered the balance in one dnd, but part of the reasoning is to have a simple effective option for players who aren't interested in feats. Also feats were an optional system to begin with in 5e.
The game is already overly simply and boring. Simplification is a terrible reason. Outside of spells, you make 4 choices from lvls 1-20 with your character - asi for feat (which is usually worse than asi). Thats it. All characters are so blandly similar because there are no customization options.
They altered the balance in one dnd, but part of the reasoning is to have a simple effective option for players who aren't interested in feats. Also feats were an optional system to begin with in 5e.
The game is already overly simply and boring. Simplification is a terrible reason. Outside of spells, you make 4 choices from lvls 1-20 with your character - asi for feat (which is usually worse than asi). Thats it. All characters are so blandly similar because there are no customization options.
I simply do not agree with any of this statement. The game is not bland nor boring.
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.
Feats/ASIs should never have been tied to class. In whole, 5E desperately needs a core progression element that allows for some growth in width, and not just height, without the silly Skilled feat. You should be able to pick up a new skill or language as you level up without devoting four levels of effort to suddenly gain multiple.
While I agree I do not think its something they can change while sticking with their backwards compatibility plan, it wold have to be a whole new edition.
Not sure... I think they could do it. If they can get Bastions in, they can do this, too. Only it would be kind of inelegant, to have a "BTW, ignore the ASIs in the class descriptions" for older stuff...
Bastions are apples to oranges to rearranging the feat/ASI structure. For one, Bastions will be an optional feature, not a standard part of character progression. And for another they are at a significant remove from the PC's on a day-to-day basis.
They altered the balance in one dnd, but part of the reasoning is to have a simple effective option for players who aren't interested in feats. Also feats were an optional system to begin with in 5e.
The game is already overly simply and boring. Simplification is a terrible reason. Outside of spells, you make 4 choices from lvls 1-20 with your character - asi for feat (which is usually worse than asi). Thats it. All characters are so blandly similar because there are no customization options.
having a simple option doesnt mean its simple overall, And feats are generally not weaker than asi, they are more specific and varied. For a person who likes choices, you dont really seem interested in having choices if you evaluate feats at being bad. An ASI is simply an increase of about 5% accuracy and sometimes a slight damage boost. If you find that objectively better than expertise, absorbing damage, parrying attacks, area denial, spells, etc, you arent really looking for choices.
Also, your claim is a major oversimplification.
onednd
level 1 you choose class, race, subrace abilities, feats and skills
there are 5 ASi for most classes. = 5 choices,
melee choose weapons, and weapon masteries
you choose subclasses
of the subclasses, there are generally ones which contain extra choices.
and you can use multiclassing if you really want to have a huge amount of variation.
The game is actually very complex, that doesnt necessarily mean its good, but the game has about 900 pages for the core experience, with multiple add on books.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
To be clear I do not have a issue with the d8 damage in itself, whatever it is balanced around i am fine with the result. It could end up d6, d10 or d12, or d weapon damage and i'm fine with it. I have just no idea if when they designed its balance they were assuming its use every round or just in the opening round and a rare occurrence in the middle of the fight. So my comment was intended to be more around where they intended it to line up mechanically as opposed to where it is, but i think thematically it was intended to be a once or twice a fight thing. You could like double the damage or scale it a die per 5 levels and a martials damage would still be fine imo. But i like it when the mechanics reinforce the thematic elements of an ability.
Considering that you can use the Charger feat with ranged attacks, I think that it's best to assume that it is expected to be used all the time.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Maybe, this was the first pass of the feat. I have no idea if the intent was for it to work with ranged attacks or if it was just sloppy wording on their part. Getting more damage while running away and shooting a bow doesn't really mesh well with a feat described as charging headlong into battle. Maybe they answered it in one of their videos and i forgot. It would be far from the only obvious mistake in the play test documents. I don't think it is unbalanced either way though ranged combat doesn't really need a boost imo or at least not a parallel boost to melee, like 1d8 ranged but 2d8 melee i can get behind balance wise. But how they expect it to be used matters for when they are doing their internal play testing with i suspect a lot more moving parts we are aware of currently. If they balance the feat under the assumption is its rarely used but it can be used all the time it likely then is screwy. not in the overall martial vs magic balance but in the must have feat style balance. Heck even if they just thought only melee but didn't clear up the wording, it can skew it by making it must have for ranged characters. Is moving 10 feet in a straight line a limit at all for ranged characters, why even put it in as a limit.
The last thing I want is for the first 1000 sage advices to be clarification on what the heck they meant in the rules because they weren't precise enough in their wording. I got enough of that from 5e for a life time.
I guess we will find out in September if they change the wording, I was just pointing out that as written, it isn't limited to melee attacks. Personally, I like it and have been using it on my rogue for a few months now. Fits well with a skirmisher play style.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
its possible its an error, but its also the nature of the phb that it replaces via overwriting things with the same name. The new charger feat may not be ideally named, but the old charger feat wasn't really competitive with an ASI. The new charger encourages player movement and positioning.
If you could only use it once or twice per round, its probably worse than An asi for a character with two attacks. An asi would give +1 damage per hit, and +1 accuracy, which is like .6 to 1 damage per hit. Considering most meleers can attack 3 times per round via dual wielding, polearm, reactions or unarmed strikes by level 5, it probably needs to be useful most of the time.
Now, I don't expect every thing to be perfectly balanced, its also kind of a flavor/playstyle choice, but its not really OP being a per turn d8. Its also fairly entertaining, imo as is. That said I wouldn't be surprised if they didnt intend it to be useful for any attack not in a direct line to the target, but it could easily be the other way as well. You could still use it fairly often, it would just require more movement or different synergies, making it less effecient for a rando, but similarly efficient for an optimizer.
as said, we'll see if the book comes out this year if its going to be altered.
I am not particularly concerned about the d8 other than i think the melee boost should be more than the ranged as there should be a benefit for going into melee. But I don't like when the rules feel nonsensical or don't fit the thematic elements. It should fit its name and description. That is important. When things don't they start to become traps.
Why have a 10 feet in a straight line limit if it really only limits you when enemies you are in melee with are in formation so any movement creates a AoO. The intent was clearly to create some charging feel to the feat but it doesn't do that, you can charge parallel, with ranged attacks you can aggressively advance the rear flank(run away) and get the benefit. That isn't charging, and it is not a much of a limit so why have it. 10 feet of movement sure, the so called limit would be for use enemies in formation still sure but it would be clear it was more about not being restrained. And call it skirmisher if that is what it ends up being and describe it as being an expert at quickly moving and attacking for maximum damage. And melee should not be a trap option. So sure, let it work with ranged, but make the damage on a melee attack 2d8, or have the ranged a flat 1d8, and melee is 1d8 at level 1, 2d8 at 5, 3d8 at 11, 4d8 at 17.
I guess picking the Charger feat was a mighty poor decision then, as many of the problems I have with the 2014 version seem to be relatively fixed for the 2024 version. To answer your question, no I had forgot they made a new variant of the Charger feat.
As for feats turning half-feats in the UA2, wasn't this pulled back? Alongside the three major spell lists? I was under the impression that all the major experiments in UA2 was eventually pulled back; class groups (warrior, expert, spellcaster, priest), spell lists, and feats (well non-Epic Boon feats).
If that's not the case, I guess I just got a little more excited about the 2024 version, but also do hope that they make quite a few more feats. As for granting more ASIs over the 20 levels... I think that's a pipe dream not coming true for 5.5e but one can always hope for an eventual 6e, or a risky optional ruleset for 5.5e.
I agree that the thematic/flavorful way to use Charger would be to limit it to melee attacks and have a requirement that the 10 ft. movement needs to be toward the creature you hit.
Being usable on a ranged attack with the option to push - direction not included either - so as per RAW, couldn't you use this to pull the creature? A DM would surely not allow it, but yes this feat has quite a few slip ups under a malicious interpretation.
'
As for balance, the 1d8 is equivalent to 4.5 average damage, with account of hit chance, we're likely in the 70% chance to hit area, resulting in ~3 average damage per round. That's not bad when the requirement is so low. However I would have loved if the feat had a bigger requirement (though not back to requiring a Dash action) and a bigger impact with build-around potential. Just to spitball something:
Once per turn when you move in a straight line toward a creature and immediately after make a melee attack against it and hit, you gain the following benefits based on how far you travelled leading up to the attack:
'
For normal combat, you'd only get access to the 20 ft. version when you move (walk, technically) up to the target, and otherwise the 10 ft. version by moving away, then moving back in again; proc'ing Opportunity Attack when backing away, so there's a trade-off and same damage as the UA2 version. That seem like a fine, isolated interaction. If you have a very mobile species with 40 ft. walking movement (like the optional species Centaur) you could get access to the 20 ft. version in combat (and technically but unlikely the 40 ft. version on first contact) - OR - you could acquire extra movement through class features, feats or spells that enable the higher tiers.
It would work quite well with Rogue with their access to Cunning Action to disengage as a BA to avoid the downside, or shrug it off and go for a BA dash for the bigger bonus (Charger grants +10 speed when Dashing, but it is not walking speed, so you still need +10 speed for the 40 ft. version).
The Bladesinger's Bladesong provides a +10 walking speed to allow the 20 ft. version in normal combat for 30+ ft. walking speed species (most medium creatures), with Haste it can be the 40 ft. version but with the caveat that a hit from an Opportunity Attack could break your concentration and stop your turn. Risk, reward.
The Mobile feat also provides a +10 walking speed and with the Extra Attack feature you could also start by swinging at the enemy to remove the Opportunity Attack as a downside (if it's the only nearby enemy), then go for the 20 ft. version.
I get that it's a bit goofy for a character to essentially power-walk across the battlefield in this manner and that may be the best reason to limit it to a set distance with a scaling benefit based on character stats (like level/proficiency), but the ability to build around features, feats, spells, weapons, basically any system is something I think should be encouraged as it is always fun to find synergies and feel like they are building blocks that fit together very snug, instead of being separate blocks you stack on top or beside each other with indifference to each other.
You can acquire Charger at level 4, meaning you can at maximum at that point with full investment to get the 40 ft. version in combat (most easily done through Rogue's Cunning Action to Dash as a BA and an optional 35 ft. walking speed race, with Charger granting the remaining 10 speed needed), get +1d8 + 2 times 2 damage out of it, for between 5 - 12 damage bonus (or an average of 8.5), and hope you make a hit.
That's still quite a bonus, close to getting an additional weapon attack. But it also comes with the downside of a number of opportunity attacks, a specific build-path and the battlefield to accommodate it. I wouldn't fear the 40 ft. version to be problematic.
The 10 ft. version is the most commonly accessible version and the one that is in line with the UA2 version in terms of damage.
The 20 ft. version grants some initial bonus damage for the first charge-in, and with some investment can become your new baseline for combat. You wont hit every time, so I only would consider it slightly better damage than the UA2's GWM that adds your prof. bonus to a damage roll with a Heavy weapon once per turn (taking advantage of the Extra Attack feature to better secure its application, and with no direct drawback).
With that being said, the changes made to Polearm Master not being an Opportunity Attack when you use your reaction to strike an enemy entering your reach, making any previous synergy with Sentinel that lowers any target's speed to 0, when hit by an Opportunity Attack... kinda gives the impression that WotC don't want synergies in their feats because they feel like they become must-haves. Personally I find this to be more a problem of PAM being an already quite good feat, and that other feat choices are... not that enticing for a martial. Considering these feats were changed to half-feats in the UA2, they clearly couldn't keep their previous power, but one could easily have split PAM in two, so the BA attack either is an upgrade or a separate direction, then you could sprinkle in some other benefit if you must. What we got was a largely unaffected PAM with one ASI (except no quarterstaff/spear users now to disallow stick'n'board that have two attacks and a shield at level 1. WotC could have made the previous list but require the use of two hands) and a nerfed Sentinel with one ASI (The Disengage action triggers the OA and you must be within 5 ft. when they take the action and the Guardian reaction-attack on a nearby ally now only triggers on a hit, instead of attack).
feats have not, at this point been revised much, other than them saying you wont get epic feats at 20 anymore. some changes with fighting styles prereqs, and they made your level 19 feats allow you to break the level 20 cap.
they probably have some changes, and they said they have new feats they havent tested. It seems likely the half feat for level 4 feats will be staying around.
Feats/ASIs should never have been tied to class.
In whole, 5E desperately needs a core progression element that allows for some growth in width, and not just height, without the silly Skilled feat. You should be able to pick up a new skill or language as you level up without devoting four levels of effort to suddenly gain multiple.
While I agree I do not think its something they can change while sticking with their backwards compatibility plan, it wold have to be a whole new edition.
Personally I think it's fine as-is; you've got your expert classes and several others that go wide with skills, but it's pretty much impossible for one character to cover all the major skills, which is a good thing because it prevents a single player from dominating scenes in play. Growth in width is good for single player games where one person really is doing everything; in multiplayer it's better to not make it easy for someone to start filling all the lanes.
They could have achieved that by keeping a skill point system. If as you leveled you'd have a choice between improving a skill or learning a new one. It kind of feels weird that you can level up to learn how to bring down meteors faster than you can learn how to cook a decent meal. And you can level to 20 and never learn a new skill unless you take a feat in which case you suddenly know 3 or 1 skill, language, tool with expertise in one skill etc. Pat of the weirdness comes from how rapid leveling is compared to their learn a tool/language rules are. Unless your campaign has unusually long downtime you will probably end the campaign leveling a dozen times before you can learn to cook. Which as an aside assuming they don't fix people wanting to play to level 20, maybe they should slow down advancement a decent chunk. If the game is levels 1-10 on average let it last instead of running through new characters every 6 months or so.
But part of this is not skills. Feats/asis being tied to class level works as the game functions as is. But im not sure its the best option, it sort of creates a dead level for classes where they are not getting something as the class but something generic instead. I think separating them and putting in a interesting feature that fits the class would work better.. But you can't really fix it as multi classing is effected by is quite a bit and fighter/rogue get them as a class gimmick. The latter point is fairly easy to work around. Just give them something different of equal value, or having them as bonus feats outside normal asi progression is fine as well. But multi class balancing is bad enough as is, they would need a fix for this. Personally I think they need a full redo of multi classing anyways, but i doubt that will happen.
1) There's downtime training for acquiring tool profs, plus as you pointed out there's feats for skills. So you have ample opportunity to acquire cooking tools prof before you learn Meteor Swarm.
2) The game is not a reality simulator, ergo expecting a realistic rendition of how skills are acquired is itself unrealistic.
3) Every leveling system I can think of has "dead levels" so it's not notably bad design that you get 1 every 4th level that's not even actually dead.
1) I know which is why i pointed out it will take your whole campaign to learn how to cook while you mysteriously leveled 19 times and picked up the power to grant wishes.
2) No one is asking for reality, but internal consistency is nice.
3) not bad means it can get better
"Grow in width a bit" != "Grow to cover *all* the width"
Not sure... I think they could do it. If they can get Bastions in, they can do this, too.
Only it would be kind of inelegant, to have a "BTW, ignore the ASIs in the class descriptions" for older stuff...
The game is already overly simply and boring. Simplification is a terrible reason. Outside of spells, you make 4 choices from lvls 1-20 with your character - asi for feat (which is usually worse than asi). Thats it. All characters are so blandly similar because there are no customization options.
I simply do not agree with any of this statement. The game is not bland nor boring.
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
Bastions are apples to oranges to rearranging the feat/ASI structure. For one, Bastions will be an optional feature, not a standard part of character progression. And for another they are at a significant remove from the PC's on a day-to-day basis.
having a simple option doesnt mean its simple overall, And feats are generally not weaker than asi, they are more specific and varied. For a person who likes choices, you dont really seem interested in having choices if you evaluate feats at being bad. An ASI is simply an increase of about 5% accuracy and sometimes a slight damage boost. If you find that objectively better than expertise, absorbing damage, parrying attacks, area denial, spells, etc, you arent really looking for choices.
Also, your claim is a major oversimplification.
onednd
level 1 you choose class, race, subrace abilities, feats and skills
there are 5 ASi for most classes. = 5 choices,
melee choose weapons, and weapon masteries
you choose subclasses
of the subclasses, there are generally ones which contain extra choices.
and you can use multiclassing if you really want to have a huge amount of variation.
The game is actually very complex, that doesnt necessarily mean its good, but the game has about 900 pages for the core experience, with multiple add on books.