How long do you think it will take for these feats to be available on DND Beyond? Or are they already available? I have play test turned on, and I’m not seeing them.
How long do you think it will take for these feats to be available on DND Beyond? Or are they already available? I have play test turned on, and I’m not seeing them.
They are probably going to take a while to implement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
How long do you think it will take for these feats to be available on DND Beyond? Or are they already available? I have play test turned on, and I’m not seeing them.
Traditionally, new UA is released on DDB on the Monday following its release by Wizards. In some cases it may take longer, if the UA is difficult or impossible to implement with their current tools (see Class Feature Variants).
For those worried that these feats seem to be fixes for classes, consider the Tunnel Fighter fighting style and Cavalier. Just because these are seeing life as feats now doesn't mean that they'll see life in an offical capacity that way. Feats make an excellent way to test things with current classes without introducing a complete overhaul of a class like the UA Ranger. Also, I'm not saying don't voice your concerns, just to not completely read into this too much.
I think these are not "fixes" to the current classes, but additional customization on top of the proposed Class Feature Variant rules and alterations to the Races.
I don't think the idea is to 'fix' classes. This whole document seems more aimed at codifying some of the most common homebrew options and addressing the idea of the One Level Dip, offering ways to lessen the need for many characters to stray outside their core class and slow their progression. Yes, you CAN 'fix' a couple of classes with them, or at least slap-patch them, but that's clearly not the intent.
To really fix the ranger, sorcerer, and issues with other classes such as the warlock, Wizards would need to issue a new book that effectively replaces the old one. This is among the very last things they're ever going to do, in large part because of ferocious backlash against Eldritch Book Spam from the 3.5e era. Someone who has a set of the first-print runs of the 5e PHB, DMG, and MM is supposed to still have access to what amounts to the full and complete, up-to-date game. Minor errata aside, Wizards refuses to release any 'updates' that require a new book. The absolute best we're going to get is Class Feature Variants, which are likely to see print in the upcoming player options book Wizards has promised, which will give tables that own the new book the option to layer more mechanics over the bog-standard PHB.
The true ideal - an optional 5.5e book that replaces the PHB for tables that desire a deeper, more complex game with better class designs updated from north of five years of in-the-wild playtesting and observation - is never going to materialize. Wizards will never deliberately fragment its customer base, everything has to remain 100% backwards compatible with everything else because that's what's best for the bottom line.
It seems that practiced expert, metamagic adept, and the fighting style feat are a little bit much in terms of power level. Tandem Tactician just breaks action economy and is rediculusly powerful. This UA needs a TON of tweaking before I will allow any of the above
Honestly, I like Tandem Tactician. There's surprisingly little in D&D that promotes real teamplay strategies, especially in combat. Outside of nichey spell-combo circumstances, each player just kinda does their own thing on their turn and then, all too often, checks out until the DM yells their name again. Feats like Tandem Tactician that encourage players to aid each other and actively coordinate team strategies in battle seem like a splendid idea.
Honestly, I like Tandem Tactician. There's surprisingly little in D&D that promotes real teamplay strategies, especially in combat. Outside of nichey spell-combo circumstances, each player just kinda does their own thing on their turn and then, all too often, checks out until the DM yells their name again. Feats like Tandem Tactician that encourage players to aid each other and actively coordinate team strategies in battle seem like a splendid idea.
I also like the idea of Tandem Tactician. The feat itself, however, doesn't feel that tactical. I wish the benefit was something different than just flat out Help, and keyed off of intelligence. (This is partially because of my want for an actually smart fighter, instead of the brutes that is the optimal build. )
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
In all the times I have played I have never seen anyone give a help action instead of attacking cast a spell or what not. Some of these can have a nice little niche like a Wizard with a quarterstaff has an enemy next to him and he knows the enemy has sentinel, if the wizard has mobile he swings then runs away if he has crusher if he hits and knocks the enemy back 5' feet next to an ally and runs away if enemy follows they can be attacked unless they disengaged or what have you. My biggest like about these feats is options for players for there characters so they are not the same as everyone else of the same class.
In all the times I have played I have never seen anyone give a help action instead of attacking cast a spell or what not. Some of these can have a nice little niche like a Wizard with a quarterstaff has an enemy next to him and he knows the enemy has sentinel, if the wizard has mobile he swings then runs away if he has crusher if he hits and knocks the enemy back 5' feet next to an ally and runs away if enemy follows they can be attacked unless they disengaged or what have you. My biggest like about these feats is options for players for there characters so they are not the same as everyone else of the same class.
In any of those times, did anyone get to use Help as a bonus action and at range?
One of the things I do like about these feats is that it just adds a bit of flair to combat, and makes it more cinematic. Imagine a Satyr Bard running across the field giving hurt allies cupcakes and smoothies to boost their energy. Or, a Shadar-Kai assassin rogue quickly adding poison to a crossbow bolt, then hiding behind some shrubs, firing the bolt through a carriage's window at a rival noble, as the Wizard casts Hold Person on the coachman. You could have a raging mountain dwarf barbarian with huge maul, running towards an ogre, leaping into the air and smashing it backwards off a ledge, causing it to fall off a cliff into a river below.
It just makes it seem a lot cooler, and to me also adds a bit of realism to the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
One of the things I do like about these feats is that it just adds a bit of flair to combat, and makes it more cinematic. Imagine a Satyr Bard running across the field giving hurt allies cupcakes and smoothies to boost their energy. Or, a Shadar-Kai assassin rogue quickly adding poison to a crossbow bolt, then hiding behind some shrubs, firing the bolt through a carriage's window at a rival noble, as the Wizard casts Hold Person on the coachman. You could have a raging mountain dwarf barbarian with huge maul, running towards an ogre, leaping into the air and smashing it backwards off a ledge, causing it to fall off a cliff into a river below.
It just makes it seem a lot cooler, and to me also adds a bit of realism to the game.
Well yeah. Characters should get to be more than just their race + background + class + subclass.
I don't see anyone upset by that. I see plenty of people upset that for years whenever Sorcerer players have commented that they feel the class is mechanically underpowered, the Wizard sitting at the table throws a tantrum about how the Sorcerer has Metamagic and that solves all their problems, and now the Wizard gets to use Metamagic too.
I definitely agree with Yurei that this UA is primarily to eliminate 1 level class dips. That's why Eldritch Adept, Metamagic Adept, Fighting Initiate, and Tracker are here. But 2 of those (Metamagic Adept, Tracker) are the defining features of the class at issue (Sorcerer, Ranger -- and it's not even base Ranger, it's the CFV Ranger) that has been repeatedly pushed into the face of anyone looking for enhancements for the base class as to why they are already too powerful to get anything else.
I agree. It should be a goal of WotC to get rid of level one-dips as much as possible, but in the process, you will get people complaining it allows other classes to step on the toes of another class/assimilate the purpose of other classes that are less played (Sorcerer, Ranger, etc).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
One easy way to put this issue (if you consider it an issue; I personally don't) to rest is giving the Tracker and Metamagic Adept feats a class prerequisite. Metamagic Adept, for example, can have the Sorcerer class with the Metamagic feature unlocked as a prerequisite, which means you can take it at Level 4.
One easy way to put this issue (if you consider it an issue; I personally don't) to rest is giving the Tracker and Metamagic Adept feats a class prerequisite. Metamagic Adept, for example, can have the Sorcerer class with the Metamagic feature unlocked as a prerequisite, which means you can take it at Level 4.
That would kind of get rid of the point of these feats.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
That completely and entirely defeats the purpose of those feats being feats, and not bolt-ons for their respective classes. The point being made is that people don't like MM Adept or Tracker because the margin on what makes their original classes worth playing at all is razor thin, and any time anyone tries to fix that they get told to sit and spin. As was stated, whenever somebody brings up the fact that sorcerers are the weakest of the full casters by a significant margin and maybe that should be addressed, wizard players throw an absolute tantrum and scream about how metamagic is absolutely gamebreakingly overpowered and so long as the sorcerer retains exclusive access to metamagic, the sorcerer is just fine.
Well all right then. Sorcerers no longer have exclusive access to metamagic. Ergo, the sorcerer is no longer fine. So fix it. Improve the base class such that losing exclusive access to metamagic does not automatically invalidate them from any serious consideration for use.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How long do you think it will take for these feats to be available on DND Beyond? Or are they already available? I have play test turned on, and I’m not seeing them.
They are probably going to take a while to implement.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Traditionally, new UA is released on DDB on the Monday following its release by Wizards. In some cases it may take longer, if the UA is difficult or impossible to implement with their current tools (see Class Feature Variants).
Please do not contact or message me.
For those worried that these feats seem to be fixes for classes, consider the Tunnel Fighter fighting style and Cavalier. Just because these are seeing life as feats now doesn't mean that they'll see life in an offical capacity that way. Feats make an excellent way to test things with current classes without introducing a complete overhaul of a class like the UA Ranger. Also, I'm not saying don't voice your concerns, just to not completely read into this too much.
I think folks are reading a whole lot of implied intention into a list of 16 feats.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think these are not "fixes" to the current classes, but additional customization on top of the proposed Class Feature Variant rules and alterations to the Races.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't think the idea is to 'fix' classes. This whole document seems more aimed at codifying some of the most common homebrew options and addressing the idea of the One Level Dip, offering ways to lessen the need for many characters to stray outside their core class and slow their progression. Yes, you CAN 'fix' a couple of classes with them, or at least slap-patch them, but that's clearly not the intent.
To really fix the ranger, sorcerer, and issues with other classes such as the warlock, Wizards would need to issue a new book that effectively replaces the old one. This is among the very last things they're ever going to do, in large part because of ferocious backlash against Eldritch Book Spam from the 3.5e era. Someone who has a set of the first-print runs of the 5e PHB, DMG, and MM is supposed to still have access to what amounts to the full and complete, up-to-date game. Minor errata aside, Wizards refuses to release any 'updates' that require a new book. The absolute best we're going to get is Class Feature Variants, which are likely to see print in the upcoming player options book Wizards has promised, which will give tables that own the new book the option to layer more mechanics over the bog-standard PHB.
The true ideal - an optional 5.5e book that replaces the PHB for tables that desire a deeper, more complex game with better class designs updated from north of five years of in-the-wild playtesting and observation - is never going to materialize. Wizards will never deliberately fragment its customer base, everything has to remain 100% backwards compatible with everything else because that's what's best for the bottom line.
No matter how bad that is for the game.
Please do not contact or message me.
It seems that practiced expert, metamagic adept, and the fighting style feat are a little bit much in terms of power level. Tandem Tactician just breaks action economy and is rediculusly powerful. This UA needs a TON of tweaking before I will allow any of the above
I exist, and I guess so does this
That was my first judgment at least
I exist, and I guess so does this
Really? Hm.
Honestly, I like Tandem Tactician. There's surprisingly little in D&D that promotes real teamplay strategies, especially in combat. Outside of nichey spell-combo circumstances, each player just kinda does their own thing on their turn and then, all too often, checks out until the DM yells their name again. Feats like Tandem Tactician that encourage players to aid each other and actively coordinate team strategies in battle seem like a splendid idea.
Please do not contact or message me.
I also like the idea of Tandem Tactician. The feat itself, however, doesn't feel that tactical. I wish the benefit was something different than just flat out Help, and keyed off of intelligence. (This is partially because of my want for an actually smart fighter, instead of the brutes that is the optimal build. )
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
In all the times I have played I have never seen anyone give a help action instead of attacking cast a spell or what not. Some of these can have a nice little niche like a Wizard with a quarterstaff has an enemy next to him and he knows the enemy has sentinel, if the wizard has mobile he swings then runs away if he has crusher if he hits and knocks the enemy back 5' feet next to an ally and runs away if enemy follows they can be attacked unless they disengaged or what have you. My biggest like about these feats is options for players for there characters so they are not the same as everyone else of the same class.
In any of those times, did anyone get to use Help as a bonus action and at range?
One of the things I do like about these feats is that it just adds a bit of flair to combat, and makes it more cinematic. Imagine a Satyr Bard running across the field giving hurt allies cupcakes and smoothies to boost their energy. Or, a Shadar-Kai assassin rogue quickly adding poison to a crossbow bolt, then hiding behind some shrubs, firing the bolt through a carriage's window at a rival noble, as the Wizard casts Hold Person on the coachman. You could have a raging mountain dwarf barbarian with huge maul, running towards an ogre, leaping into the air and smashing it backwards off a ledge, causing it to fall off a cliff into a river below.
It just makes it seem a lot cooler, and to me also adds a bit of realism to the game.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Well yeah. Characters should get to be more than just their race + background + class + subclass.
But that's the ONLY thing Sorcerers get. And frankly, they don't get enough of it. But sure, we can pass it around as a Feat too. No worries! /s
I don't see anyone upset by that. I see plenty of people upset that for years whenever Sorcerer players have commented that they feel the class is mechanically underpowered, the Wizard sitting at the table throws a tantrum about how the Sorcerer has Metamagic and that solves all their problems, and now the Wizard gets to use Metamagic too.
I definitely agree with Yurei that this UA is primarily to eliminate 1 level class dips. That's why Eldritch Adept, Metamagic Adept, Fighting Initiate, and Tracker are here. But 2 of those (Metamagic Adept, Tracker) are the defining features of the class at issue (Sorcerer, Ranger -- and it's not even base Ranger, it's the CFV Ranger) that has been repeatedly pushed into the face of anyone looking for enhancements for the base class as to why they are already too powerful to get anything else.
It's a double standard.
I agree. It should be a goal of WotC to get rid of level one-dips as much as possible, but in the process, you will get people complaining it allows other classes to step on the toes of another class/assimilate the purpose of other classes that are less played (Sorcerer, Ranger, etc).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Sorcerers are less played?
One easy way to put this issue (if you consider it an issue; I personally don't) to rest is giving the Tracker and Metamagic Adept feats a class prerequisite. Metamagic Adept, for example, can have the Sorcerer class with the Metamagic feature unlocked as a prerequisite, which means you can take it at Level 4.
Yes.
That would kind of get rid of the point of these feats.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
That completely and entirely defeats the purpose of those feats being feats, and not bolt-ons for their respective classes. The point being made is that people don't like MM Adept or Tracker because the margin on what makes their original classes worth playing at all is razor thin, and any time anyone tries to fix that they get told to sit and spin. As was stated, whenever somebody brings up the fact that sorcerers are the weakest of the full casters by a significant margin and maybe that should be addressed, wizard players throw an absolute tantrum and scream about how metamagic is absolutely gamebreakingly overpowered and so long as the sorcerer retains exclusive access to metamagic, the sorcerer is just fine.
Well all right then. Sorcerers no longer have exclusive access to metamagic. Ergo, the sorcerer is no longer fine. So fix it. Improve the base class such that losing exclusive access to metamagic does not automatically invalidate them from any serious consideration for use.
Please do not contact or message me.