I've been playing D&D for 35 years, as has two others in my group (current group makeup has been running for 25+ years overall) and am fully aware of how it all works and the context of Sage Advice: so what we usually want IS the Rules as Intended. If it reaches the stage of us consulting SA we've already discussed it and either disagreed or decided to get a quick fix! So please keep them crunchy and not just say 'whatever works for you' as that goes without saying really!
I feel like a lot of tables like to allow players to start with a feat as it is. Tying the idea of a feat packaged in a background is a good way to explain this both in the system and the characters backstory, which I really like. Although for tables looking for a greater challenge or for new tables who are still learning the rules these options can be a lot.
I've done this in the past, giving players their choice of full feats (i.e. no start increase) during character creation. I'll be changing this in any future games by tying the feat they get to their background, similar to the Strixhaven backgrounds. For example, Spy's will get Skulker, Archaeologists will get Dungeon Delver and so on
The idea of alternate HD usage becomes even more interesting and calculated with Slow Natural Healing. Also, many Players and DMs overlook the RAW option to pick up Feats as a reward during downtime rather than always being stuck waiting for ASI levels. Interesting stuff all around.
IIRC, downtime rules offer learning languages and proficiencies. Not feats. Unless this has been introduced in one of the more recent books, feats and boons have always been purely GM discretion outside of ASIs etc.
There is no RAW option to pick up Feats as a downtime activity, that's why people "overlook" it. Think downtime activities are listed in the phb and expanded upon in Xanathars, but neither allows feats by RAW. Think the only ways to get feats by RAW is passing on a ASI or as one of the suggestions for if the DM wants to award them as quest rewards or the like (and ofc the strixhaven backgrounds).
Everything from allowing Multiclassing or Feats to using a grid for combat is a DM-discretion alternate rule rather than the default settings. DMs making those and other choices (as well as interpreting or changing rules) is core to their role and to the game.
It is always good to hear from Jeremy Crawford - he seems like such a reasonable and kind man, would love to play in one of his games. It is a shame that almost all DM's I have ever played with don't really give out feats as downtime or alternate rewards. I think that a lot of them would feel too powerful or difficult to balance. I kind of feel like perhaps there should be a reworking of many feats and the creation of a new category, especially for feats with less combat utility. Those 'secondary feats' like chef for example, should just be given a section of their own in the handbook with DM's advised to give them out after a number of levels or give some clear examples of how a character could go about getting them. Especially with multiclassed characters it can be frustrating when there is such a long gap of levels before you get an ASI/feat where getting it through an alternate means would help storytelling. 1) There could be an interesting place for feat like traits that cause negative as well as positive effects (a bit like some magical items) that DMs can give out to reflect how the campaign is going or a character's backstory. Looking at Critical role and Caleb's 2) I think there would be a great place (especially for stacking feats) for more feats along the line of crusher, piercer etc. Therefore a character concentrating on a specific weapon could obtain more benefits from using constantly using it and it would help make weapons feel more interesting and different. Maybe even allow players to unlock alternate ways of attack with a weapon (e.g. make rapier attacks either do d8 or the option to poke them and make them bleed doing d6 this turn + d4 next turn) 3) Stacked feats would be great as an alternative to multiclassing Personally, I tend to give all my players a feat at the outset if they can give me a page or something of background that makes the feat make sense for their character. Found it helps get people to know their character better.
I feel like the feat/proficiencies from choosing a background should just be an option for any character in the first place. A lot of people will choose the background that provides feats/stats that line up with their playstyle - even if the background itself makes no sense for their backstory. One free feat.. helps to customize your playstyle and theme without sacrificing stats, or putting some random label on your backstory.
People choosing background for stat proficiencies makes zero sense RAW. Custom backgrounds are the default, you can literally pick 2 skills and 2 languages / tools by default already; this is not homebrew, it is straight PHB. The only thing new here is feats (which were only possible for VHuman)
I would love to see sage advice show up more frequently like this! I really enjoyed seeing behind the curtain of the game's design like this and I am especially excited for what more is going to happen with hit dice. Spending vitality to have access to more powers sounds almost like a "stamina" system
Really happy to see them going towards feats in backgrounds. There are a ton of benefits to this approch: * They still provide all the tools to make custom background. You simply pick proficiencies and a feat as they fit the theme. * Free feat at level 1 is the most common houserule (at least according to what I've seen from online discussions), having that extra level of character customisation at level one is very popular. * It makes perfect sense that someone might start of with a Chef background that includes the Chef feat, or become a Chef during the adventure. Now the two possibilities to learning cooking are covered by one instance of the feature rather that it written twice in different parts of the book * Setting books can easily contain setting specific backgrounds with setting specific feats and groups can still take advantage of those new features as they see fit in ongoing campaigns by picking the feats on level up. * It insentience WotC to write more flavourful character feats over combat feats. I always praise the Chef feat as being peak feat design and love to see more feats like that, les feats like great weapons master or polearm master that are entirely based on combat and should quite frankly have been part of some cross martial class feature system rather than feats.
I hope Sage Advice continues to appear in the written word as that is much easier to discover and understand the design intent for a particular question. I would not want to see that wholesale replaced by this video series. I’d gladly take both!!
I am certainly someone who appreciates an official ruling as it offers clarity on intent - especially on areas where the rules seem unclear. I.e. can I shield bash before or after my attack with the shield Master feat. I really love the recent design choices and think its very elegant and intuitive to apply existing structures in multiple ways. I.e. tying ability uses or strength to PB. Additinaly, regarding player and buid expressiom, I really like this idea of feats in backgrounds. Because of the math of the game's bounded accuracy (which I am a fan of) it makes picking feats very difficult. Giving up those ASI is punishing and many games do not go into high levels so waiting til lvl 12 to pick up a feat you've wanted feels bad. But losing out on a +to hit pr spell save DC as monster strength increases also feels bad. Like adding flexibility to racial ability modifiers, adding a feat into your background opens up a lot of room for play. As a DM who is also a player and loves building characters and customization, I always house rules players get a free level one feat regardless of race. This recent direction feels validating to that player experience and I look forward to it being expanded and adapted further! Thank you Mr. Crawford!
I like this direction for D&D. Just keep adjusting and improving the existing game rather than making something 'new'. Reminds me of what they have been doing with Path of Exile.
“I’m sad when I see rules used as weapons against players.” Mr. Crawford must avoid Adventurers League like the plague for his own emotional stability then.
There’s a reason why wizards backed off of Adventures League a lot, and this is that exact reason. Adventures League is a lot less strict, though some groups still choose to play it insanely strict.
@@mogalixir yes, my Lizardfolk druid being forced to cast Shillelagh on the wooden club he bought from the store instead of the bone club he created he spent a short rest crafting from a giant animal really was going to be the downfall of AL as we knew it. What was I thinking?
@@mogalixir Yeah, I was going to say exactly this. This is also partly why I found that comment during this video a bit distasteful because if D&D players as a whole don't at least agree on MOST of the rules MOST of the time, then there are eventually going to be a LOT less D&D games playing and staying together.
Thank god Sage Advice is back. Don't know why they took it off the podcast, but that show has been running off the rails lately. Just happy to see Jeremy is back and dispensing advice.
Love seeing Sage Advice moving to a video format. How often can we expect these? Monthly would be great. Weekly would be incredible. Keep up the great work and much love!
Jeremy Crawford just totally reformed my opinion of him. I take back every bad thing I've said about him up to this point, and no, that's not an April Fool's joke. He actually does get it. The Pirate Code is really more a bunch of suggestions.
I honestly love the concept of feats as background stuff. Even if backgrounds are things that do come up, sometimes when it's a flavor description it just won't fit for the kind of campaign. Like I love the Gambler background as a concept, but it's feature is basically "ask the DM for a hint which way you should go" which seems boring. Similarly Charlatan is perfect for a fast talking con-man, but the whole having an entirely different identity thing may not even work with some player concepts for that kinda character. I think changing some these to give feats would fit better. Gamblers maybe having the Lucky feat because they need luck to be a successful gambler. (admittedly one can make the case for less powerful feats) Charlatans getting Actor because they have to be able to fool people.
I see ample use of Magical Adept to let someone actually have picked up some practical ability during their time as an Acolyte, Sage, Performer, etc., or any of the various Weapon/Armor/Combat Technique Feats to make it believable that the Wizard or Sorcerer actually spent time as a Soldier.
I actually suggested this to GMs I play with (also ways to make perform useful). Really it should have been there in the beginning. Maybe you start with bonus languages equal to your intelligence bonus.
Wizards and artificers are already super powerful. If you have problems with too many characters dumping INT, then make INT checks a bigger feature in your game. Weird magic stuff? Arcana check. Player forgot important dialogue? History check to remember.
@@SakraIgor0qNomoko I don't have a problem with people making characters however they want. I want more incentive to use int in a non int build. Wizards are balanced. Artificers are not powerful. Why would I punish my players with unexpected checks or mechanics? That's not solving the problem, it's just penalizing those who aren't playing wizards or artificers. The point is that there is no mechanical reason for having a high int. More meaningful skills, or a core mechanic should be linked to it.
DnD 3.5 had this option and I didn't realize it when I created my wizard for 5th. I had to go back and read things. The other thing I miss is having bonus spells determined on your casting stat. However, this might have been unbalanced to the more martial classes.
I'm a bit wary of the backgrounds with feats and feat stacking. I don't dislike it, in fact I think it could open up powerful, fun and thematic characters, but a problem might arise where things are no longer choices but become almost mandatory to pick up. This concern was already voiced by many people when Strixhaven was released, that they would not allow these backgrounds/feats at their table. The main reasoning behind this is that if you compare it to other options they are so much more powerful, that it's almost like the options that already existed fall off since they're just strictly weaker. Of course D&D isn't all about min/maxing or having a powerful build, but it might become an issue with some things beyond that: - Players who love min/maxing their characters will potentially be MUCH more powerful due to the difference in options being larger - Players who make their character based on an RP idea first, but then optimize it, might feel these options are mandatory, making it less of a choice. - Having a group of players where some use 'regular' options and others use these newer more powerful options creates a big power difference in your group which will most likely mean your DM will have a very difficult time balancing combat encounters. Especially if you have such a difference like regular background features, which might come up a couple of times during a campaign and backgrounds which offer a few spells, which could likely be used every session. So the idea of backgrounds adding more, I like, quite a lot in fact. But then at least make all background features of relative power, otherwise most won't be chosen at all. A similar thing goes for feat stacking, as Jeremy mentions, they can offer more powerful feats because you only get them if you chose the previous option, meaning if you follow the stack, you will be more powerful (at what the feat offers). So likely once a player starts a stack, they'll feel the need to finish it, otherwise they're missing out on powerful options. Which means there's less of a choice in character creation/progression if you're one who likes to optimize your character. A good example of this is are digital games, take WoW talent trees, in the core game each class had 3 talent trees, you could mix and match points in all of them, but because there's extra powerful stuff at the end of a tree, mixing really isn't a very viable option, so you're more or less forced into one of 3 choices. So what's wrong with 3 choices? Well it could be fine, I'd prefer it to be a bit more open ended. And more importantly if you'd have some feats that stack and others that don't, you'd end up with 3 powerful choices and then some things on the side which become more non-choices since they're just too weak. So in short. The concept is cool, but there needs to be some balance in power levels compared to feat stacking and backgrounds, for the sake of character options still being options and also for the sake of encounter building.
I love the beginning of this video. Recently a lot of announcements and released material have angered a lot of people (including me on occasion) however if you don’t like something g they are doing them as the DM don’t put it in your game. For example if you don’t like that they are faxing out the alignments then don’t faze them out and keep them. If you want to out a requirement to be a parading that you have to be LG to play the OG type then that is fine as well.
Would you mind me asking what released material has angered people? I've only been playing TTRPG's for about 4 years now, amd a majority of that time has been in Pathfinder. I haven't been paying much attention to 5e at all, and would love to hear what you have to say on it.
@@noahwesterberg8566 A lot of people have been angered by the changes to Races that were introduced in 2020. Races no longer get a fixed ability score increase (e.g. instead of Rock Gnomes getting a +2 to Intelligence and a +1 to Con, they can choose any two ability scores to get those bonuses) and a lot of the races have had their lore rewritten so that they are no longer "monocultures of evil". And while the 5e team has been removing culturally insensitive material from its old content, that doesn't stop them from producing new culturally insensitive content. Some people have also been annoyed at the number of books that have been targeted at younger players, or that have been based on Magic: The Gathering sets (the very Harry Potter looking Strixhaven book checks both boxes.) In its first few years, 5e started off on a very nostalgic footing. But as its popularity began to eclipse any previous edition of D&D, the focus has shifted to trying new things and attracting ever more new players. D&D is no longer a quiet little subdivision of Hasbro that is only expected to break even; it's become a huge cash cow that has left a lot of long-time fans feeling alienated. TL, DR: Some people are mad that fundamental D&D rules are being changed to give the game a broader appeal (although many people, including myself, feel that many of these changes are long overdue). Also, many of the recently-released books and sets feel like cash-grabs.
Nerdarchy has a product called "Hit Dice to Heroics" that has been out for several years now and explores different ways to use your HD. I'm glad someone "official"is also being looked into.
Looking forward to new uses for hit dice. I've been kinda wanting something like that for a while now, it's an interesting design space that's yet to be really explored.
I’m glad that WOTC is looking to improve backgrounds, but I hope feats isn’t the long term solution. I would prefer out of combat utility abilities to be incorporated into backgrounds because that’s where 5e is lacking. The system doesn’t need another aspect of character creation tied expressly to the combat pillar of play.
My recent game, I banned v. human and custom lineage. I did give everyone a non-combat feat to really try and bring out more RP options for them to use.
There ARE feats tied to exploration/roleplay (about 33% of them, like Actor, Keen Mind, Linguist, etc), but there's plenty of design space to include more. I included in my Dragonlance UA feedback that I'd be more OK with backgrounds generally granting a feat if there were a lot more noncombat feats.
@@8bitadventures that’s true, but characters get too few ASI’s to make it practical to take non combat feats. In most cases either a stat increase or optimal combat feat will make a character 15-20% better. The difference is too massive to take something like Actor. I don’t think players should have to sacrifice their ability to participate in one pillar of play to participate in another.
@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 That's a very narrow CharOp viewpoint. Taking a noncombat feat only "hurts" a character's combat effectiveness by assuming every character is always choosing the most optimal combat feats, when in reality it can help make a more well-rounded character who has fun abilities and tricks for when it's not a combat scene. It's highly dependant on the kind of game you and your group are playing with.
@@8bitadventures I disagree. Every class, every race, nearly every feature, and nearly every spell in the system are designed exclusively for combat. The nice thing about backgrounds currently is that they don’t affect a character’s combat ability at all. There’s no trade off. They only benefit the other pillars of play. If feat’s get tied to backgrounds, then players will have to choose between backgrounds that are optimized for combat or backgrounds that round out their characters, and speaking as a long time GM, I don’t want the system to force my players to make that choice. It’s a very negative incentive structure. Are there players that don’t care about optimization. Yes of course, but a game system shouldn’t mechanically penalize players that care about the math for making well rounded characters, and introducing feats to backgrounds will do just that. That’s not even theory. The backgrounds present in Strixhaven already cause that problem.
Players/DMs would not ask for how a rule is supposed to work if they did not care about playing by the rules. It's that simple. I don't understand why "these are the rules, but play it how you want to" needs to be said when clarifying the RAI.
I love both Sage Advice and discussions about why the game is designed the way it is and the direction it's going. But those are two very different things. These questions were more like Unearthed Arcana questions than they were Sage Advice. In the D&D community, we have tons of known issues that are gray areas in the rules that we would love clarification on. Ask some of those for the next Sage Advice!
One of my favourite 3e starter feats is Hin Wandermage (halfling wanderers get a benefit with travelling spells) and it is great to see that kind of flavour come to 5e backgrounds :)
I like the idea of a background feat. It lends more oomph to the backstory and it can create some interesting character moments, depending on what you've chosen. Plus it lends credence to the different heroic/fight heavy backstories I've read. I'm super excited to see what's to come with regards to using more of the character sheet. I'm always looking forward to the Everything supplements, both for added subclasses and the new and fun additions to the game.
Please address power creep! If you're going to add feats to backgrounds, then revise old feats to be power-compatible. If you're going to give each new subclass extra abilities and powers, then revisit the old ones and balance those, too. And as you're revisiting old options, take a fresh look at monsters and give them more abilities to balance out the players' options! ... Either cut out the power creep or re-balance it across the board!
@@CharalamposKoundourakis Yeah. And knowing that we're getting rebalanced core books in 2024 allows the designers a bit of leeway to experiment in the next couple of years.
I always (well, since 5e was published) that 4e's healing surges worked better, and particularly they worked better as a resource you could use for other things. The difference is that in 5e, the value of each HD is more-or-less fixed, and leveling up gets you more of them; while in 4e the value of each healing surge goes up with level but the number you have is fixed. This means that an ability that says e.g. "You can spend a hit die as a bonus action and heal the appropriate amount" will lose a lot of its power as you level up, while one that says "You can spend a healing surge as a bonus action and heal the appropriate amount" will always remain relevant.
I have used Hit Dice as a mechanic to allow my Players to preform extraordinary things above and beyond what is standard for the Race/Class they have chosen. When a Player suffers a Critical Hit they may spend a Hit Die to resist that Critical Hit. What I have learned, especially at higher levels, is that my Players where not using Hit Dice. Want to have a spell that is typically only single target? Spend a Hit Die to have it effect multiple targets. This mechanic has saved low level Characters from having to make Death Saving Throws, and has made my Players use resources in new and interesting ways.
On the backgrounds I think the abilities in the early ones were just not useful or too vague whereas a feat-like ability has the mechanics behind the flavor. The problem can be balancing this so that the background doesn't overshadow the other abilities you get as you level up. I would prefer action abilities over proficiencies as the proficiencies could already be covered by your class therefore making it less desirable despite flavor (squire having armor and weapons proficiencies does nothing for a fighter).
one thing with backgrounds, for me, is I like to mix a background with a class which some wouldn't consider. For example, take a sage background for a druid class. All you have to do is have a good reason why someone who had an interest in the arcane switch over to the nature side of things. Having a background granting martial weapons to a wizard would be nice since wizards are so limited in weapons outside of spells.
On the topic of feat trees/stacking: I would say make the trees/stacks no more than 3 long. Most campaigns fizzle out around, what, 12-15? Even a 20th level campaign, most characters only get 5 ASIs, so a 3 deep tree would be the majority of their feats. And yes, I understand fighters and rogues get 1-2 extra ASIs, but that could allow them to invest in 2 different trees along with their class.
I think another interesting way of incorporating hit dice would be to base healing potions off them instead of d4s. 2HD+2, 3HD+4, 6Hd+8, 8HD+20 or some such.
I love experimenting with HD. My favorite use is that HD is a currency for reviving and resurrecting & Ive recently changed all potions from d4 to PC’s HD. It makes them feel way more useful to everyone and takes the burden off a caster who doesn’t want to be a healer. As for the feats, i personally recommend 3 per stack. I know everyone online has an opinion, Its a good number. I do it with magic items for example, giving them 3 tiers, so the magic item “levels up” after unlocking it in the story.
That's an interesting Homebrew for potions, I like it. Also, I can agree with feat stacking no more than 3. And how you were saying for magic items sounds similar to the Vestiges of Divergence in the Critical Role setting books.
@@digifreak90 Not from CR, I dont remember who said it, maybe Colville.. but if you have a really cool idea for a magic item, nerf it a bit when you give it to the PC at "tier1" then have upgrading it to "tier 2" be part of a quest (side or main) it keeps the item fresh for the player, it also adds personal agendas into the weaved campaign. When I first gave my items to my players, I gave them OP magic items, classic, then I nerfed them and told the players that the items can improve over time if you are interested in doing so. You can even go as far as making it a multiple choice evolution for the item- ex (do you want to get fire, cold or radiant damage? if the answer is fire, we need to capture the heart of a fire elemental, guess what, there's an elemental curse at the dungeon you're heading to, that might be your opportunity)
Really glad they are bringing this segment back. With the changes beings with PC races, it makes sent that backgrounds and feats would be brought to the forefront. I think it does what players ultimately want....flexibility. I don't want to beat the Tarrasque in one blow, I just want to build whatever character I want and not feel underpowered compared to the rest of the table.
It makes me so incredibly happy that dungeons and dragons has decided to officially work with you Todd. You are by far my favorite dungeons and dragons interviewer, and honestly I would probably listen to interviews that have nothing to do with dungeons and dragons if you were interviewing. You have a really amazing talent to keep the conversation rolling while also providing great value to it.
To address the first segment: The rules are important to acknowledge, because of those who would incorrectly interpret the rules, and then CLAIM that their interpretation is the absolute interpretation. Those types of toxic people can cause harm in the community by spreading an incorrect interpretation of a rule, which furthers misinformation in an already complicated environment. It's important to be able to refute those arguments with the correct answer, while still acknowledging they are free to play as they wish. But they can't impose their own rules on someone else because they believe it to be true
I hope they eventually add feats to all the backgrounds in the PHB, would be cool to see lesser used feats features that fir the background. like the actor feat for an entertainer, chef feat for an cook guild artisan, etc
Half feats like Actor are problematic because of the ASI, but I think it's a great idea for relevant, flavourful full feats to come with each background
I love how Crawford talks about "Feat Stacking" like it is something "new." He's basically referring to it as a Feat that has a prerequisite. This may be new for 5e, but it is not new for Dungeons & Dragons in general. 3rd Edition had Feats, and had prerequisites, and the best example I can think of is Ambidexterity Feat being required for Two-Weapon Fighting. (aka, Dual-Wield)
being a bit of a grognard, i'm not sure i would say "feats are D&D in general" yes in 3rd ed we had prereq feats [i don't know what 4e had and i don't want to know] but 5e no prereq feats [yet?] but 0, 1st and 2nd did not have any feats let alone prereq feats
He mentions that, though, as something being brought back from the earlier editions, but not to the extent that sparked complaints from players of those editions (where, as you mention, a somewhat uninteresting feat was sometimes required as a prerequisite for the thing you really wanted).
For those thinking "doesn't giving Feats to new Backgrounds make existing Feats weaker?": yes, probably. Which is why a gaming group should, if they feel this way, give a free Feat to all PCs if one of them takes a Background that comes with a Feat. And that free Feat can be tied into their own Background. Like the Soldier Background, for example, might give Feats like Shield Master, Lightly/Moderately/Heavily Armoured, War Caster, etc. Whatever makes sense for PC's Race, Background, and Class. That way, no one is necessarily getting an unfair advantage, just because they chose a new Background while others chose an old one. (The DM should obviously, as always, use discretion over which Feats they allow at 1st level. They may also prefer to disallow the Variant Human, because they also get a "free" Feat. And because extra Feats may make the party as a whole stronger, the DM may elect to raise the CR of encounters slightly. But these are all considerations that should be may as appropriate to the gaming group.)
As a fan of humans myself, I'd be pretty disappointed if I was not allowed to play literally the most common class in the game because other people are getting feats. Let humans have 2 feats, 1 free and 1 restrained (as you said, background feats could be something more tame, instead of Sharpshooter / Crossbow expert).
@@Bluecho4 Are you seriously suggesting someone to play the normal human? Literally worst race in the game that gives you almost nothing useful - no lore, no traits, not even a single skill or tool proficiency, no +2 on any stat, just a non descrit mess of a painfully bland race that knows one language besides common? It is the worst not only mechanically, but from design perspective, or any perspective at all - it is almost as not having a race, so bad it is.
I don't think background features should include feats. I see backgrounds and boons that comes that come with it as flavor. Backgrounds features are prompts for the developing the story of who this character was before the adventure began. If backgrounds do support feats, I hope these are feats that support the pillars of play besides combat(exploration and roleplay).
For feat stacking, I didn't like when it was over done like in 3.5. When you have stacking feats unless they are highly customizable any 2 characters who want the same feat have to go in the same chain. It leads to less diverse characters if to many feats are in chains.
As much as I miss the feat chains\trees of 3.5, I can see where they got a bit long. Point Blank Shot was notorious for being long and multiple branches. I would say maybe no more than 3 feats in the chain. These feats would also be the half-feats so you don't lose out on the ASI.
I personally would love more stuff to do past level 20. Yeah having an end goal and a cap to an adventure is great but one of my least favorite things in 4e was how the late game lost me because it was just done. That and necromancer support so far is non existent. They get the fewest spells except maybe divination. They get a spell they can take any time after 5th level as there 6th level subclass feature and are limited to humanoid corpses when creating undead to serve them. So no giants or monstrous creatures. No wolves or dragons or other undead that have stat blocks in the game but pc necromancers are bared by RAW from being able to use.
I definitely agree that level 20+ content would be great, but it's so rare that a group makes it that high, that an "Epic Level Handbook" dedicated to it would simply not sell. They could probably do it as a 2nd-party DMs Guild pdf, but not as a 1st-party book. Maybe as a single page in another book, though; something like more boons would always be nice to see.
I love feats to help shape the direction a character is going or being taken based on events that may have happened in the course of the game. That is why I feel a bit cheated on having to decide between a feat (sometimes) or a stat increase as the stat increase is important for being able to feel you are contributing to the game. It is disheartening as you advance in level to being consistently unable to succeed in casting a spell only because your stat isn't on par with the increasing difficulty in creatures you face. What they did in Strixhaven was a real boon to spellcasters in customizing them. It adds more mechanical significance to the background and to also reinforce narratively where you want the character to go and become.
So you would the in favor of the 'half-feat" that are out there where you still get a +1 to a given stat. I expect many of the more recent feats are that way now.
But then, boom to spellcasters, and non spellcasters are yet again left to dust... no significant new options since the PHB. Just a few semi magical subclasses here and there, but nothing really different, no different sets of actions to take... even the new feats they get in Tasha, like piercer or slasher, are weak. Compare Slasher vs Fey touched, the difference is brutal...
@@limaTheNoob Piercer is fantastic. Re-rolling your damage die every turn is a significant boon. Plus another die if you get a crit. It is totally worth a feat choice when you have an odd numbered stat. I would take it on a dex based fighter in a heartbeat followed by resilient. Not all feats are supposed to be created equal. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish with your build. If I was a fighter or barbarian I would take fey touched if I really wanted misty step to get into combat more quickly. Hex as your first level enchantment choice would get you more damage per attack so could be worth it if you can manage to keep concentration without whiffing a roll. But fey touched does nothing for stats you would want to increase as either class whereas slasher can while offering something extra depending what might be giving you grief, and if you crit, disadvantage on all its attack rolls. Nice for a champion if you have increased crit range. I tend not to play spellcasters. I prefer the non-magic classes.
@@cloudstone123 I'm sorry, but feats that add numerical bonuses can be evaluated objectively, by math, and piercer is just terrible. A reroll for a rogue (the class that will most benefit from it, because of the many die) will add like 1, 2 points of damage on average, when you take probabilities into account. The extra dice on crit is extremely irrelevant for damage output as well. You can say a feat feels good, but, when it is literally only damage, without any utility baked in, it is just math - and math shows piercer is terrible, just bad. A case may be made for Slasher, for the extra effects, but I still think it is just weak. Different, but still weak. It is not about making the feats equal, but competitive.
If you are browsing character sheet to build on what's there: could we please please pretty please get something out of tool proficiencies? Let's be honest, thieves tools are used by far the most, artificers use their respective tools as spell focus, herbalist / alchemy kits for the seldom brewing of healing potions (that can take weeks, months or even years to make), and then there is big void. XGE suggests some uses, TCoE made shy attempts in that direction too in the form of Chef of Poisoner feats - these all are baby steps, but in the right direction. Fun fact, Artificers make the best use of their Tool Expertise - you guessed it - for picking locks; as opposed to their subclass' abilities tied to signature toolkit :)
YES!!! Crafting mechanics are the hot new thing in video game fantasy right now, but it's not really something you can do easily at the tabletop. Wizards of the Coast is very, very, VERY slow at following trends in fantasy, this is something they absolutely need to jump on before it's too late. Every group will have at least one player that would love this.
I never understood the point of having tool proficiency. I guess it would be up to the DM to have a need of them but even the thief tools are practically worthless if you have a wizard who knows knock.
@@DoinItforNewCommTech They could honestly just reuse most of 3.5's crafting system with a few minor adjustments, that system was extremely well built. I would buy an entire book that brought that content into 5e.
@@DoinItforNewCommTech I know a lot of people in the professional freelance game design sphere (some who have credits in physical Hasbro-published 5e books) have tried and failed to build a satisfying crafting system for 5e. If it's just a matter of money and time, then the rules are already there. But if you're trying to replicate the video game experience of hunting for raw materials (finding rare ores and plants in the environment and/or harvesting body parts of specific monsters) in a way where the action is unfolding in the foreground (and not just rolling on some random tables to determine the results of harvesting as a downtime activity) then you need everyone to be on board. I think the player base of 5e is wide enough now that you could organize groups of people who were interested in playing that style of game, but when you're committed to playing with a group of your closest friends, then you really need for the crafting system to be something that doesn't take over the entire campaign.
While I appreciate the change to backgrounds I do wish there were more ways to customize your character further into play. So many choices are front ended, with very few significant ones happening after 3rd level.
I don't expect we'll see that change in 2024. In the 2014 PH, some subclasses (like the Path of the Totem Barbarian or the Hunter Ranger) get significant choice points at higher levels. But in Tasha's, similar choices can be made on a case by case basis. For example, if the Totem Barbarian chooses eagle vision at level 6, they can never use bear strength and wolf hunting. But the Beast Barbarian can freely change the special movement they get at level 6. They can swim one day and climb the next. They're trying to make D&D strategy be less about "how do I build my character?" and more about "how do I play my character?" I think I prefer the former, but I do see the advantages of the latter (prevents long-term buyer's remorse, enables characters to be more adaptable.)
@@daviddalrymple2284 I didn't make any predictions about the 2024 update, I made a statement about where I think their design is weak. I think the longer they had their current fan base that weakness is going to become more apparent, because their audience is going to become even more frustrated with how playing any given subclass feels basically identical to anyone else playing it because they have made basically no choices after 3rd level.
I think the best solution regarding "Character Customization" is to: A. Remake most background features. B. Make more backgrounds like Monster Hunter, Farmer, Miner, Hunter etc (Ofc players can make the backgrounds themselves, but is necessary to add fitting features). C. Maybe on Character Creation have the option to pick one feat depending on race (for racial feats specifically) or background. D. Add more feats! Especially for martial classes since casters always are more powerful than martial classes on higher levels. Honestly, just more feats would be more than enough.
Or maybe adopt some ideas from Traveller but with more “friendly” features (namely not getting killed in character rolls). I mean like instead of Dwarf who have free warhammer proficiency, maybe like Dwarf who enlisted in the army. But DnD tends to be streamlined even in its original form, so not sure that would be featured.
I usually forgo backgrounds and just let players pick any two proficiencies. Everything else is better done by a backstory since I usually ask to structure it in a way that lets me incorporate it into the story(couple NPCs, what you know without history check, your main quest, your reputation) I feel like stacking evocations should go our of UA too. I like the idea of hexblades improving pact weapon, but I feel like improved pact weapon 2 shouldn't be a stat increase, but rather let you make magical weapons(up to +2 or smth) into pact weapons
I know a few tables that have been giving feats at level 1 for years to limit the attraction to variant human. It also balances with supernatural gifts from MOoT and VGtR. Not sure I'm a fan of feat stacking but I guess it's pretty consistent with previous game design and shouldn't be too egregious.
Honestly these feat background ideas help with specific ideas I have in mind but it sort of encourages me to not just take human for the feat that fits the character idea.
I'm a fan of adding a mechanical bonus to the backgrounds, but I'd prefer if the feats are more generic than the incredibly setting-specific Strixhaven and UA background-feats we currently have. For instance, if the Soldier background offered a choice between the Shield Master and Polearm Master feat that would help reinforce the flavor of the background while also promoting feats that can be difficult to fit into builds otherwise. Power creep could be a major issue, though; instead, maybe Background feats should be equivalent in power to a half-feat and have the text "If you took this feat in place of an Ability Score Increase, increase your XXXXX score by 1, to a maximum of 20." Reaaaaaalllly not a fan of the return of feat chains. They take creative freedom away from build-as-you-go players, and they take decision points away from optimizers. I like how 5e feats are always distinct from one another and never require class features, with benefits that may build off what you already have or add entirely new capabilities - that helps give me a sense that feats are something extra your PC has learned to do, instead of being just another part of your class/build. I think the better option would be to add more feats that are good on their own but add synergies with other feats/classes, like Sentinel/Polearm Master or Rogue/Dungeon Delver. Excited to see what they have planned for Hit Dice. It would be nice to have alternative ways for back-line characters to use unspent HD, but they should take care not to make HD yet another way frontline martials get punished for only being able to hit and get hit.
Well that is annoying. He is saying that the characters from MTG universes are more powerful then those from the classing D&D worlds like Forgotten Realms. As much as I love the passion Jeremy puts into D&D, it is the power creep that kills DMs. Many players pull from multiple books when creating characters and having to exclude books because they are just OP sucks.
My feeling is that it's *wide* power creep, not *high* power creep. You get a bunch of new tools to play with, but it doesn't make you able to dish out or receive more *damage*. It just means you have more choices. I don't think that's the same as being OP.
Hit dice are already an important resource that they shouldn't mess with. UNLESS the plan is to retool game balance and specifically encounters per day. I do think the community is leaning towards gameplay that only has 1 or 2 encounters per day, so they should first address this b4 giving more uses to hit die.
I like the idea of feat chains, but feats are so rare to get, that if you are going down this feat chain, youll really have to dedicate. That being said I do like characters being able to become more specialized
Honestly they should make feats a more common part of the leveling period. Everyone starts off with a feat and gets one every 5 levels maybe? You can still trade your ASI for a feat, but it'd make it where you don't have to do it for a build.
13th Age did a nice job dealing with the problem of too many full heals. If that's something that bothers you, check out how 13th does it and apply what you like to 5e.
I like the Background feats. I like the stacked feats, especially for choices at level 1 and 4 and then you go custom thereafter. It completes the first arc of your character’s story in Tier 1. Will there be similar Backgrounds in Journeys through the Radiant citadel? I feel like the Defenders and Dawn Incarnate lore could make for good character backgrounds.
Not a fan of tying pre-requisites for feats to 1 specific background, we've seen how annoyed people were about bladesingers needing to be elves. Racial feats seem fine to me though. Honestly, not crazy about empowered backgrounds in general. It will just lead to optimization consideration [conformity if I'm being cynical] to the one of the few areas free of it.
Well, RAW none of the feats require you to have a specific background, it's just that the background gives the feat for free. A character can still take the feat through the normal means (replacing ASI on level up or the Variant Human/Custom Lineage races) even if they have a different background. I.E. a character with the Acolyte background could still take the Strixhaven Initiate Feat. Also, there are already people who focus their backgrounds to give the best skill proficiencies they can get (usually Perception or Persuasion)
@@digifreak90 I can’t speak for the Strixhaven feats text, but the introductory feats for these chains, Initiate of High Sorcery and Squire of Solamnia, have Prerequisites that you have those backgrounds. So I would imagine that they would be out for a variant human/CL, since you don’t start with 2 backgrounds. So later acquisition would require both an ASI and a RP connection to the organization to meet the prereq [compared with fey touched/shadow touched which have no prerequisite qualification]. As for the current state of optimizing backgrounds goes, the PHB presents customizing your background [switching any skill/proficiency/feature with another] as a general rule for backgrounds. Customizing a background becomes significantly more complicated when you are essentially homebrewing a custom feats worth of benefits rather than making a minor out of combat boon. -And I’d imagine with the amplification of a background’s significance, they would subsequently lose the previous degree of modular flexibility of features with these benefits “so you’re a cobbler -but you’re great at staying on a horse, inspiring allies, wearing armor and you know how to wield any weapon…?”
@@elliotbryant3459 Right, you don't literally have to have the capital-B Background, but you have to have a connection to that organization to gain the feat later. For characters that get a first-level feat from race, that's an interesting question. A character's small-b background might be able to justify it in some cases, and obviously there's an opportunity cost of not being able to take something else with that slot.
You make backgrounds that give feats, all other backgrounds become obsolete. There's no reason to choose non-feat backgrounds. Unless you're planning to give the other backgrounds feats as well.
Group decide... Group mastering...Group, Group, Group,... Dungeon Master is a curse word, now. The 6e Edition books will be Player's Handbook, Group's Guide and Encounter Manual.
I prefer not to play/run games that just start with a feat, it's very powerful and kinda takes away being a human in dnd, but should it be an optional rule presented for tables that do like a higher power game, yes.
Please make Savage Attacker good, I think it's a cool idea but it's not worth a feat. I ended up homebrewing it so Barbarians just end up getting it around tier 2 or 3 and it applied to their (brutal) crits so it can actually do something, I feel like Barbarians needed it.
ive got a question that has been on my mind for a bit and idk the answer but when you twin spell a lightning spell with tempest cleric and use channel divinity. do you use the same dice roll for damage after to rolling to hit the second target since it states its the same spell.
I remember when I first heard the average npc in dnd about a 10 or 11 in every stat, and that 4d6 method to make a PC only "a little stronger" (still mortal). When every PC starts with another Feat, it's like they are superheroes already. I hope we dont' take this too far. (Not to mention Fighters would basically be nerf where they DEF DONT NEED ANY. Especially Vuman Fighters.)
Thanks, Crawford. I will continue to use your rulings to settle disputes and ignore them when everyone at the table prefers something else.
Sage Advice and Lore you should know are two segments that give me the most value as a DM. Thank you for putting this together!
I've been playing D&D for 35 years, as has two others in my group (current group makeup has been running for 25+ years overall) and am fully aware of how it all works and the context of Sage Advice: so what we usually want IS the Rules as Intended. If it reaches the stage of us consulting SA we've already discussed it and either disagreed or decided to get a quick fix!
So please keep them crunchy and not just say 'whatever works for you' as that goes without saying really!
I feel like a lot of tables like to allow players to start with a feat as it is. Tying the idea of a feat packaged in a background is a good way to explain this both in the system and the characters backstory, which I really like. Although for tables looking for a greater challenge or for new tables who are still learning the rules these options can be a lot.
I've done this in the past, giving players their choice of full feats (i.e. no start increase) during character creation.
I'll be changing this in any future games by tying the feat they get to their background, similar to the Strixhaven backgrounds. For example, Spy's will get Skulker, Archaeologists will get Dungeon Delver and so on
The idea of alternate HD usage becomes even more interesting and calculated with Slow Natural Healing.
Also, many Players and DMs overlook the RAW option to pick up Feats as a reward during downtime rather than always being stuck waiting for ASI levels.
Interesting stuff all around.
IIRC, downtime rules offer learning languages and proficiencies. Not feats. Unless this has been introduced in one of the more recent books, feats and boons have always been purely GM discretion outside of ASIs etc.
There is no RAW option to pick up Feats as a downtime activity, that's why people "overlook" it.
Think downtime activities are listed in the phb and expanded upon in Xanathars, but neither allows feats by RAW.
Think the only ways to get feats by RAW is passing on a ASI or as one of the suggestions for if the DM wants to award them as quest rewards or the like (and ofc the strixhaven backgrounds).
@@Shaderox @Danjal Veskandar Ch.7, other rewards, training.
It's not under the Downtime rules, but rather in the Other Rewards/Marks of Prestige in the DMG, p.231
Everything from allowing Multiclassing or Feats to using a grid for combat is a DM-discretion alternate rule rather than the default settings. DMs making those and other choices (as well as interpreting or changing rules) is core to their role and to the game.
It is always good to hear from Jeremy Crawford - he seems like such a reasonable and kind man, would love to play in one of his games.
It is a shame that almost all DM's I have ever played with don't really give out feats as downtime or alternate rewards. I think that a lot of them would feel too powerful or difficult to balance. I kind of feel like perhaps there should be a reworking of many feats and the creation of a new category, especially for feats with less combat utility. Those 'secondary feats' like chef for example, should just be given a section of their own in the handbook with DM's advised to give them out after a number of levels or give some clear examples of how a character could go about getting them. Especially with multiclassed characters it can be frustrating when there is such a long gap of levels before you get an ASI/feat where getting it through an alternate means would help storytelling.
1) There could be an interesting place for feat like traits that cause negative as well as positive effects (a bit like some magical items) that DMs can give out to reflect how the campaign is going or a character's backstory. Looking at Critical role and Caleb's
2) I think there would be a great place (especially for stacking feats) for more feats along the line of crusher, piercer etc. Therefore a character concentrating on a specific weapon could obtain more benefits from using constantly using it and it would help make weapons feel more interesting and different. Maybe even allow players to unlock alternate ways of attack with a weapon (e.g. make rapier attacks either do d8 or the option to poke them and make them bleed doing d6 this turn + d4 next turn)
3) Stacked feats would be great as an alternative to multiclassing
Personally, I tend to give all my players a feat at the outset if they can give me a page or something of background that makes the feat make sense for their character. Found it helps get people to know their character better.
I feel like the feat/proficiencies from choosing a background should just be an option for any character in the first place. A lot of people will choose the background that provides feats/stats that line up with their playstyle - even if the background itself makes no sense for their backstory.
One free feat.. helps to customize your playstyle and theme without sacrificing stats, or putting some random label on your backstory.
People choosing background for stat proficiencies makes zero sense RAW. Custom backgrounds are the default, you can literally pick 2 skills and 2 languages / tools by default already; this is not homebrew, it is straight PHB. The only thing new here is feats (which were only possible for VHuman)
@@limaTheNoob and custom lineage in Tasha's Cauldron for those power gamers seeking a point buy 18 stat at level 1.
I would love to see sage advice show up more frequently like this! I really enjoyed seeing behind the curtain of the game's design like this and I am especially excited for what more is going to happen with hit dice. Spending vitality to have access to more powers sounds almost like a "stamina" system
Really happy to see them going towards feats in backgrounds. There are a ton of benefits to this approch:
* They still provide all the tools to make custom background. You simply pick proficiencies and a feat as they fit the theme.
* Free feat at level 1 is the most common houserule (at least according to what I've seen from online discussions), having that extra level of character customisation at level one is very popular.
* It makes perfect sense that someone might start of with a Chef background that includes the Chef feat, or become a Chef during the adventure. Now the two possibilities to learning cooking are covered by one instance of the feature rather that it written twice in different parts of the book
* Setting books can easily contain setting specific backgrounds with setting specific feats and groups can still take advantage of those new features as they see fit in ongoing campaigns by picking the feats on level up.
* It insentience WotC to write more flavourful character feats over combat feats. I always praise the Chef feat as being peak feat design and love to see more feats like that, les feats like great weapons master or polearm master that are entirely based on combat and should quite frankly have been part of some cross martial class feature system rather than feats.
I hope Sage Advice continues to appear in the written word as that is much easier to discover and understand the design intent for a particular question. I would not want to see that wholesale replaced by this video series. I’d gladly take both!!
I am certainly someone who appreciates an official ruling as it offers clarity on intent - especially on areas where the rules seem unclear. I.e. can I shield bash before or after my attack with the shield Master feat.
I really love the recent design choices and think its very elegant and intuitive to apply existing structures in multiple ways. I.e. tying ability uses or strength to PB.
Additinaly, regarding player and buid expressiom, I really like this idea of feats in backgrounds. Because of the math of the game's bounded accuracy (which I am a fan of) it makes picking feats very difficult. Giving up those ASI is punishing and many games do not go into high levels so waiting til lvl 12 to pick up a feat you've wanted feels bad. But losing out on a +to hit pr spell save DC as monster strength increases also feels bad. Like adding flexibility to racial ability modifiers, adding a feat into your background opens up a lot of room for play. As a DM who is also a player and loves building characters and customization, I always house rules players get a free level one feat regardless of race. This recent direction feels validating to that player experience and I look forward to it being expanded and adapted further!
Thank you Mr. Crawford!
I like this direction for D&D. Just keep adjusting and improving the existing game rather than making something 'new'.
Reminds me of what they have been doing with Path of Exile.
“I’m sad when I see rules used as weapons against players.” Mr. Crawford must avoid Adventurers League like the plague for his own emotional stability then.
There’s a reason why wizards backed off of Adventures League a lot, and this is that exact reason. Adventures League is a lot less strict, though some groups still choose to play it insanely strict.
@@mogalixir yes, my Lizardfolk druid being forced to cast Shillelagh on the wooden club he bought from the store instead of the bone club he created he spent a short rest crafting from a giant animal really was going to be the downfall of AL as we knew it. What was I thinking?
@@mogalixir Yeah, I was going to say exactly this. This is also partly why I found that comment during this video a bit distasteful because if D&D players as a whole don't at least agree on MOST of the rules MOST of the time, then there are eventually going to be a LOT less D&D games playing and staying together.
It's a bad place.
@@foegettergames252 Stakes are a bit different though.
We are truly blessed as a gaming community to have Jeremy Crawford and we will never deserve him.
Thank god Sage Advice is back. Don't know why they took it off the podcast, but that show has been running off the rails lately. Just happy to see Jeremy is back and dispensing advice.
Love seeing Sage Advice moving to a video format. How often can we expect these? Monthly would be great. Weekly would be incredible. Keep up the great work and much love!
As long as it's also documented too so I can scan it in 20 seconds rather than 20 mins!
Monthly would be realistic while weekly would be hard to pull off depending on who they get as the guest appearance.
@@jasonsumma1530 what are you talking about “guest appearance”
More uses for hit dice is very welcome.
Hopefully they'll expand on tool proficiency in the future too
Jeremy Crawford just totally reformed my opinion of him. I take back every bad thing I've said about him up to this point, and no, that's not an April Fool's joke. He actually does get it. The Pirate Code is really more a bunch of suggestions.
I look forward to this. Intellectual chats about d&d!
I honestly love the concept of feats as background stuff.
Even if backgrounds are things that do come up, sometimes when it's a flavor description it just won't fit for the kind of campaign.
Like I love the Gambler background as a concept, but it's feature is basically "ask the DM for a hint which way you should go" which seems boring.
Similarly Charlatan is perfect for a fast talking con-man, but the whole having an entirely different identity thing may not even work with some player concepts for that kinda character.
I think changing some these to give feats would fit better.
Gamblers maybe having the Lucky feat because they need luck to be a successful gambler. (admittedly one can make the case for less powerful feats)
Charlatans getting Actor because they have to be able to fool people.
I see ample use of Magical Adept to let someone actually have picked up some practical ability during their time as an Acolyte, Sage, Performer, etc., or any of the various Weapon/Armor/Combat Technique Feats to make it believable that the Wizard or Sorcerer actually spent time as a Soldier.
Criminals get Skulker, Sailor gets Athlete
I really like the directions that you're going. How can we make intelligence more important in the game, award extra languages?
I actually suggested this to GMs I play with (also ways to make perform useful). Really it should have been there in the beginning. Maybe you start with bonus languages equal to your intelligence bonus.
@Psyberian what mine is doing is every ASI, if you have a positive int mod, you gain that many languages
Wizards and artificers are already super powerful. If you have problems with too many characters dumping INT, then make INT checks a bigger feature in your game. Weird magic stuff? Arcana check. Player forgot important dialogue? History check to remember.
@@SakraIgor0qNomoko I don't have a problem with people making characters however they want. I want more incentive to use int in a non int build. Wizards are balanced. Artificers are not powerful. Why would I punish my players with unexpected checks or mechanics? That's not solving the problem, it's just penalizing those who aren't playing wizards or artificers. The point is that there is no mechanical reason for having a high int. More meaningful skills, or a core mechanic should be linked to it.
DnD 3.5 had this option and I didn't realize it when I created my wizard for 5th. I had to go back and read things. The other thing I miss is having bonus spells determined on your casting stat. However, this might have been unbalanced to the more martial classes.
This feels like just another design discussion than what we knew as "Sage Advice".
I'm a bit wary of the backgrounds with feats and feat stacking. I don't dislike it, in fact I think it could open up powerful, fun and thematic characters, but a problem might arise where things are no longer choices but become almost mandatory to pick up.
This concern was already voiced by many people when Strixhaven was released, that they would not allow these backgrounds/feats at their table. The main reasoning behind this is that if you compare it to other options they are so much more powerful, that it's almost like the options that already existed fall off since they're just strictly weaker.
Of course D&D isn't all about min/maxing or having a powerful build, but it might become an issue with some things beyond that:
- Players who love min/maxing their characters will potentially be MUCH more powerful due to the difference in options being larger
- Players who make their character based on an RP idea first, but then optimize it, might feel these options are mandatory, making it less of a choice.
- Having a group of players where some use 'regular' options and others use these newer more powerful options creates a big power difference in your group which will most likely mean your DM will have a very difficult time balancing combat encounters.
Especially if you have such a difference like regular background features, which might come up a couple of times during a campaign and backgrounds which offer a few spells, which could likely be used every session. So the idea of backgrounds adding more, I like, quite a lot in fact. But then at least make all background features of relative power, otherwise most won't be chosen at all.
A similar thing goes for feat stacking, as Jeremy mentions, they can offer more powerful feats because you only get them if you chose the previous option, meaning if you follow the stack, you will be more powerful (at what the feat offers). So likely once a player starts a stack, they'll feel the need to finish it, otherwise they're missing out on powerful options. Which means there's less of a choice in character creation/progression if you're one who likes to optimize your character.
A good example of this is are digital games, take WoW talent trees, in the core game each class had 3 talent trees, you could mix and match points in all of them, but because there's extra powerful stuff at the end of a tree, mixing really isn't a very viable option, so you're more or less forced into one of 3 choices.
So what's wrong with 3 choices? Well it could be fine, I'd prefer it to be a bit more open ended. And more importantly if you'd have some feats that stack and others that don't, you'd end up with 3 powerful choices and then some things on the side which become more non-choices since they're just too weak.
So in short. The concept is cool, but there needs to be some balance in power levels compared to feat stacking and backgrounds, for the sake of character options still being options and also for the sake of encounter building.
I love the beginning of this video. Recently a lot of announcements and released material have angered a lot of people (including me on occasion) however if you don’t like something g they are doing them as the DM don’t put it in your game. For example if you don’t like that they are faxing out the alignments then don’t faze them out and keep them. If you want to out a requirement to be a parading that you have to be LG to play the OG type then that is fine as well.
Would you mind me asking what released material has angered people? I've only been playing TTRPG's for about 4 years now, amd a majority of that time has been in Pathfinder. I haven't been paying much attention to 5e at all, and would love to hear what you have to say on it.
@@noahwesterberg8566 A lot of people have been angered by the changes to Races that were introduced in 2020. Races no longer get a fixed ability score increase (e.g. instead of Rock Gnomes getting a +2 to Intelligence and a +1 to Con, they can choose any two ability scores to get those bonuses) and a lot of the races have had their lore rewritten so that they are no longer "monocultures of evil". And while the 5e team has been removing culturally insensitive material from its old content, that doesn't stop them from producing new culturally insensitive content.
Some people have also been annoyed at the number of books that have been targeted at younger players, or that have been based on Magic: The Gathering sets (the very Harry Potter looking Strixhaven book checks both boxes.)
In its first few years, 5e started off on a very nostalgic footing. But as its popularity began to eclipse any previous edition of D&D, the focus has shifted to trying new things and attracting ever more new players. D&D is no longer a quiet little subdivision of Hasbro that is only expected to break even; it's become a huge cash cow that has left a lot of long-time fans feeling alienated.
TL, DR: Some people are mad that fundamental D&D rules are being changed to give the game a broader appeal (although many people, including myself, feel that many of these changes are long overdue). Also, many of the recently-released books and sets feel like cash-grabs.
Nerdarchy has a product called "Hit Dice to Heroics" that has been out for several years now and explores different ways to use your HD. I'm glad someone "official"is also being looked into.
Huge fan of the evolution on backgrounds and hit dice!
Looking forward to new uses for hit dice. I've been kinda wanting something like that for a while now, it's an interesting design space that's yet to be really explored.
The legendary Italian guy, sage advice
I’m glad that WOTC is looking to improve backgrounds, but I hope feats isn’t the long term solution.
I would prefer out of combat utility abilities to be incorporated into backgrounds because that’s where 5e is lacking.
The system doesn’t need another aspect of character creation tied expressly to the combat pillar of play.
My recent game, I banned v. human and custom lineage. I did give everyone a non-combat feat to really try and bring out more RP options for them to use.
There ARE feats tied to exploration/roleplay (about 33% of them, like Actor, Keen Mind, Linguist, etc), but there's plenty of design space to include more. I included in my Dragonlance UA feedback that I'd be more OK with backgrounds generally granting a feat if there were a lot more noncombat feats.
@@8bitadventures that’s true, but characters get too few ASI’s to make it practical to take non combat feats.
In most cases either a stat increase or optimal combat feat will make a character 15-20% better. The difference is too massive to take something like Actor.
I don’t think players should have to sacrifice their ability to participate in one pillar of play to participate in another.
@@hodgepodgesyntaxia2112 That's a very narrow CharOp viewpoint. Taking a noncombat feat only "hurts" a character's combat effectiveness by assuming every character is always choosing the most optimal combat feats, when in reality it can help make a more well-rounded character who has fun abilities and tricks for when it's not a combat scene. It's highly dependant on the kind of game you and your group are playing with.
@@8bitadventures I disagree. Every class, every race, nearly every feature, and nearly every spell in the system are designed exclusively for combat.
The nice thing about backgrounds currently is that they don’t affect a character’s combat ability at all. There’s no trade off. They only benefit the other pillars of play. If feat’s get tied to backgrounds, then players will have to choose between backgrounds that are optimized for combat or backgrounds that round out their characters, and speaking as a long time GM, I don’t want the system to force my players to make that choice. It’s a very negative incentive structure.
Are there players that don’t care about optimization. Yes of course, but a game system shouldn’t mechanically penalize players that care about the math for making well rounded characters, and introducing feats to backgrounds will do just that.
That’s not even theory. The backgrounds present in Strixhaven already cause that problem.
Feats are awesome. I love the customization that comes with them. I've felt that way since I started playing D&D with 3.5. More Feats please!
Players/DMs would not ask for how a rule is supposed to work if they did not care about playing by the rules. It's that simple. I don't understand why "these are the rules, but play it how you want to" needs to be said when clarifying the RAI.
I love both Sage Advice and discussions about why the game is designed the way it is and the direction it's going. But those are two very different things. These questions were more like Unearthed Arcana questions than they were Sage Advice. In the D&D community, we have tons of known issues that are gray areas in the rules that we would love clarification on. Ask some of those for the next Sage Advice!
Welcome back, Sage Advice!!!
Great stuff. Thanks for posting!
Dude got his hair back!
Maybe it's his winter coat...? Lol
I am so glad you are making videos of these now.
Liking the coordinated haircuts!
One of my favourite 3e starter feats is Hin Wandermage (halfling wanderers get a benefit with travelling spells) and it is great to see that kind of flavour come to 5e backgrounds :)
I like the idea of a background feat. It lends more oomph to the backstory and it can create some interesting character moments, depending on what you've chosen. Plus it lends credence to the different heroic/fight heavy backstories I've read.
I'm super excited to see what's to come with regards to using more of the character sheet. I'm always looking forward to the Everything supplements, both for added subclasses and the new and fun additions to the game.
Please address power creep! If you're going to add feats to backgrounds, then revise old feats to be power-compatible. If you're going to give each new subclass extra abilities and powers, then revisit the old ones and balance those, too. And as you're revisiting old options, take a fresh look at monsters and give them more abilities to balance out the players' options! ... Either cut out the power creep or re-balance it across the board!
@@SamanthaAnnFox It isn't a mistake, it's a natural evolution. Happens to every single game, show, etc.
@@CharalamposKoundourakis Yeah. And knowing that we're getting rebalanced core books in 2024 allows the designers a bit of leeway to experiment in the next couple of years.
@@SamanthaAnnFox WHy do you have to get the new edition? I don't get it. Why not just keep playing 3,5 or the edition you are comfortable with?
@@SamanthaAnnFox Really? It's supposed to be the first backward compatible version meaning most of the 5e content would just work.
I always (well, since 5e was published) that 4e's healing surges worked better, and particularly they worked better as a resource you could use for other things. The difference is that in 5e, the value of each HD is more-or-less fixed, and leveling up gets you more of them; while in 4e the value of each healing surge goes up with level but the number you have is fixed.
This means that an ability that says e.g. "You can spend a hit die as a bonus action and heal the appropriate amount" will lose a lot of its power as you level up, while one that says "You can spend a healing surge as a bonus action and heal the appropriate amount" will always remain relevant.
So how about; "On a bonus action you can spend a number of hit dice equal to your proficiency modifier to gain hit points"?
I have used Hit Dice as a mechanic to allow my Players to preform extraordinary things above and beyond what is standard for the Race/Class they have chosen. When a Player suffers a Critical Hit they may spend a Hit Die to resist that Critical Hit. What I have learned, especially at higher levels, is that my Players where not using Hit Dice. Want to have a spell that is typically only single target? Spend a Hit Die to have it effect multiple targets. This mechanic has saved low level Characters from having to make Death Saving Throws, and has made my Players use resources in new and interesting ways.
Thank you Todd.
Yea that why I love the urchin background, it comes very useful for my bard and my monk
On the backgrounds I think the abilities in the early ones were just not useful or too vague whereas a feat-like ability has the mechanics behind the flavor. The problem can be balancing this so that the background doesn't overshadow the other abilities you get as you level up. I would prefer action abilities over proficiencies as the proficiencies could already be covered by your class therefore making it less desirable despite flavor (squire having armor and weapons proficiencies does nothing for a fighter).
one thing with backgrounds, for me, is I like to mix a background with a class which some wouldn't consider. For example, take a sage background for a druid class. All you have to do is have a good reason why someone who had an interest in the arcane switch over to the nature side of things. Having a background granting martial weapons to a wizard would be nice since wizards are so limited in weapons outside of spells.
On the topic of feat trees/stacking:
I would say make the trees/stacks no more than 3 long. Most campaigns fizzle out around, what, 12-15? Even a 20th level campaign, most characters only get 5 ASIs, so a 3 deep tree would be the majority of their feats.
And yes, I understand fighters and rogues get 1-2 extra ASIs, but that could allow them to invest in 2 different trees along with their class.
I think another interesting way of incorporating hit dice would be to base healing potions off them instead of d4s. 2HD+2, 3HD+4, 6Hd+8, 8HD+20 or some such.
I'm going to suggest this right away in my group - let you SPEND the HD 4E style!
I love experimenting with HD. My favorite use is that HD is a currency for reviving and resurrecting & Ive recently changed all potions from d4 to PC’s HD. It makes them feel way more useful to everyone and takes the burden off a caster who doesn’t want to be a healer.
As for the feats, i personally recommend 3 per stack. I know everyone online has an opinion, Its a good number. I do it with magic items for example, giving them 3 tiers, so the magic item “levels up” after unlocking it in the story.
That's an interesting Homebrew for potions, I like it.
Also, I can agree with feat stacking no more than 3. And how you were saying for magic items sounds similar to the Vestiges of Divergence in the Critical Role setting books.
@@digifreak90 Not from CR, I dont remember who said it, maybe Colville..
but if you have a really cool idea for a magic item, nerf it a bit when you give it to the PC at "tier1" then have upgrading it to "tier 2" be part of a quest (side or main) it keeps the item fresh for the player, it also adds personal agendas into the weaved campaign.
When I first gave my items to my players, I gave them OP magic items, classic, then I nerfed them and told the players that the items can improve over time if you are interested in doing so.
You can even go as far as making it a multiple choice evolution for the item- ex (do you want to get fire, cold or radiant damage? if the answer is fire, we need to capture the heart of a fire elemental, guess what, there's an elemental curse at the dungeon you're heading to, that might be your opportunity)
Really glad they are bringing this segment back. With the changes beings with PC races, it makes sent that backgrounds and feats would be brought to the forefront.
I think it does what players ultimately want....flexibility. I don't want to beat the Tarrasque in one blow, I just want to build whatever character I want and not feel underpowered compared to the rest of the table.
Just don't play a Monk or a Ranger :>
@Offbeaten Ranger has gotten better Post Tasha's.
@@devildham Oh I know, I play one. But I'd still not rank them very high.
@@Offbeaten Bs and Cs still get degrees🤷🏾♂️
It makes me so incredibly happy that dungeons and dragons has decided to officially work with you Todd. You are by far my favorite dungeons and dragons interviewer, and honestly I would probably listen to interviews that have nothing to do with dungeons and dragons if you were interviewing. You have a really amazing talent to keep the conversation rolling while also providing great value to it.
To address the first segment:
The rules are important to acknowledge, because of those who would incorrectly interpret the rules, and then CLAIM that their interpretation is the absolute interpretation.
Those types of toxic people can cause harm in the community by spreading an incorrect interpretation of a rule, which furthers misinformation in an already complicated environment.
It's important to be able to refute those arguments with the correct answer, while still acknowledging they are free to play as they wish. But they can't impose their own rules on someone else because they believe it to be true
I hope they eventually add feats to all the backgrounds in the PHB, would be cool to see lesser used feats features that fir the background.
like the actor feat for an entertainer, chef feat for an cook guild artisan, etc
Half feats like Actor are problematic because of the ASI, but I think it's a great idea for relevant, flavourful full feats to come with each background
I love to see more setting specific mechanics :-)
Yes, more Sage Advice please!
World specific backgrounds sound great
I've missed these videos so damn much!
I love how Crawford talks about "Feat Stacking" like it is something "new." He's basically referring to it as a Feat that has a prerequisite. This may be new for 5e, but it is not new for Dungeons & Dragons in general. 3rd Edition had Feats, and had prerequisites, and the best example I can think of is Ambidexterity Feat being required for Two-Weapon Fighting. (aka, Dual-Wield)
being a bit of a grognard, i'm not sure i would say "feats are D&D in general" yes in 3rd ed we had prereq feats [i don't know what 4e had and i don't want to know] but 5e no prereq feats [yet?] but 0, 1st and 2nd did not have any feats let alone prereq feats
@@harryhenderson3897 I should have just simplified that to "since 3rd Edition, we have had Feats, and some of those required a prerequisite."
He mentions that, though, as something being brought back from the earlier editions, but not to the extent that sparked complaints from players of those editions (where, as you mention, a somewhat uninteresting feat was sometimes required as a prerequisite for the thing you really wanted).
I also would love to see a kamigawa neon dynasty setting book with cool setting specific mechanics 😎
For those thinking "doesn't giving Feats to new Backgrounds make existing Feats weaker?": yes, probably.
Which is why a gaming group should, if they feel this way, give a free Feat to all PCs if one of them takes a Background that comes with a Feat. And that free Feat can be tied into their own Background. Like the Soldier Background, for example, might give Feats like Shield Master, Lightly/Moderately/Heavily Armoured, War Caster, etc. Whatever makes sense for PC's Race, Background, and Class.
That way, no one is necessarily getting an unfair advantage, just because they chose a new Background while others chose an old one.
(The DM should obviously, as always, use discretion over which Feats they allow at 1st level. They may also prefer to disallow the Variant Human, because they also get a "free" Feat. And because extra Feats may make the party as a whole stronger, the DM may elect to raise the CR of encounters slightly. But these are all considerations that should be may as appropriate to the gaming group.)
As a fan of humans myself, I'd be pretty disappointed if I was not allowed to play literally the most common class in the game because other people are getting feats. Let humans have 2 feats, 1 free and 1 restrained (as you said, background feats could be something more tame, instead of Sharpshooter / Crossbow expert).
@@limaTheNoob Yes, because Variant Human is the only kind of Human you can play. /s
@@Bluecho4 Are you seriously suggesting someone to play the normal human? Literally worst race in the game that gives you almost nothing useful - no lore, no traits, not even a single skill or tool proficiency, no +2 on any stat, just a non descrit mess of a painfully bland race that knows one language besides common? It is the worst not only mechanically, but from design perspective, or any perspective at all - it is almost as not having a race, so bad it is.
Upon reflecting on my d&d game I feel the only tool my group uses is a spatula.
If we're feeling particularly creative we put it in a power drill.
I don't think background features should include feats. I see backgrounds and boons that comes that come with it as flavor. Backgrounds features are prompts for the developing the story of who this character was before the adventure began. If backgrounds do support feats, I hope these are feats that support the pillars of play besides combat(exploration and roleplay).
It can be up to you in your party like I thinking of feat for background but not to get to level 8 and I am one that decided to multitask.
For feat stacking, I didn't like when it was over done like in 3.5. When you have stacking feats unless they are highly customizable any 2 characters who want the same feat have to go in the same chain.
It leads to less diverse characters if to many feats are in chains.
As much as I miss the feat chains\trees of 3.5, I can see where they got a bit long. Point Blank Shot was notorious for being long and multiple branches. I would say maybe no more than 3 feats in the chain. These feats would also be the half-feats so you don't lose out on the ASI.
Im thinking of like the two weapon fighting/combat reflexes trees that would end up like 12 feats long
I personally would love more stuff to do past level 20. Yeah having an end goal and a cap to an adventure is great but one of my least favorite things in 4e was how the late game lost me because it was just done.
That and necromancer support so far is non existent. They get the fewest spells except maybe divination. They get a spell they can take any time after 5th level as there 6th level subclass feature and are limited to humanoid corpses when creating undead to serve them. So no giants or monstrous creatures. No wolves or dragons or other undead that have stat blocks in the game but pc necromancers are bared by RAW from being able to use.
I definitely agree that level 20+ content would be great, but it's so rare that a group makes it that high, that an "Epic Level Handbook" dedicated to it would simply not sell. They could probably do it as a 2nd-party DMs Guild pdf, but not as a 1st-party book.
Maybe as a single page in another book, though; something like more boons would always be nice to see.
I love feats to help shape the direction a character is going or being taken based on events that may have happened in the course of the game. That is why I feel a bit cheated on having to decide between a feat (sometimes) or a stat increase as the stat increase is important for being able to feel you are contributing to the game. It is disheartening as you advance in level to being consistently unable to succeed in casting a spell only because your stat isn't on par with the increasing difficulty in creatures you face.
What they did in Strixhaven was a real boon to spellcasters in customizing them. It adds more mechanical significance to the background and to also reinforce narratively where you want the character to go and become.
So you would the in favor of the 'half-feat" that are out there where you still get a +1 to a given stat. I expect many of the more recent feats are that way now.
@@jasonsumma1530 Absolutely. I love those.
But then, boom to spellcasters, and non spellcasters are yet again left to dust... no significant new options since the PHB. Just a few semi magical subclasses here and there, but nothing really different, no different sets of actions to take... even the new feats they get in Tasha, like piercer or slasher, are weak. Compare Slasher vs Fey touched, the difference is brutal...
@@limaTheNoob Piercer is fantastic. Re-rolling your damage die every turn is a significant boon. Plus another die if you get a crit. It is totally worth a feat choice when you have an odd numbered stat. I would take it on a dex based fighter in a heartbeat followed by resilient.
Not all feats are supposed to be created equal. It depends on what you are trying to accomplish with your build. If I was a fighter or barbarian I would take fey touched if I really wanted misty step to get into combat more quickly. Hex as your first level enchantment choice would get you more damage per attack so could be worth it if you can manage to keep concentration without whiffing a roll. But fey touched does nothing for stats you would want to increase as either class whereas slasher can while offering something extra depending what might be giving you grief, and if you crit, disadvantage on all its attack rolls. Nice for a champion if you have increased crit range.
I tend not to play spellcasters. I prefer the non-magic classes.
@@cloudstone123 I'm sorry, but feats that add numerical bonuses can be evaluated objectively, by math, and piercer is just terrible. A reroll for a rogue (the class that will most benefit from it, because of the many die) will add like 1, 2 points of damage on average, when you take probabilities into account. The extra dice on crit is extremely irrelevant for damage output as well. You can say a feat feels good, but, when it is literally only damage, without any utility baked in, it is just math - and math shows piercer is terrible, just bad. A case may be made for Slasher, for the extra effects, but I still think it is just weak. Different, but still weak.
It is not about making the feats equal, but competitive.
If you are browsing character sheet to build on what's there: could we please please pretty please get something out of tool proficiencies? Let's be honest, thieves tools are used by far the most, artificers use their respective tools as spell focus, herbalist / alchemy kits for the seldom brewing of healing potions (that can take weeks, months or even years to make), and then there is big void.
XGE suggests some uses, TCoE made shy attempts in that direction too in the form of Chef of Poisoner feats - these all are baby steps, but in the right direction. Fun fact, Artificers make the best use of their Tool Expertise - you guessed it - for picking locks; as opposed to their subclass' abilities tied to signature toolkit :)
YES!!! Crafting mechanics are the hot new thing in video game fantasy right now, but it's not really something you can do easily at the tabletop. Wizards of the Coast is very, very, VERY slow at following trends in fantasy, this is something they absolutely need to jump on before it's too late. Every group will have at least one player that would love this.
I never understood the point of having tool proficiency. I guess it would be up to the DM to have a need of them but even the thief tools are practically worthless if you have a wizard who knows knock.
@@DoinItforNewCommTech They could honestly just reuse most of 3.5's crafting system with a few minor adjustments, that system was extremely well built. I would buy an entire book that brought that content into 5e.
@@DoinItforNewCommTech I know a lot of people in the professional freelance game design sphere (some who have credits in physical Hasbro-published 5e books) have tried and failed to build a satisfying crafting system for 5e. If it's just a matter of money and time, then the rules are already there. But if you're trying to replicate the video game experience of hunting for raw materials (finding rare ores and plants in the environment and/or harvesting body parts of specific monsters) in a way where the action is unfolding in the foreground (and not just rolling on some random tables to determine the results of harvesting as a downtime activity) then you need everyone to be on board.
I think the player base of 5e is wide enough now that you could organize groups of people who were interested in playing that style of game, but when you're committed to playing with a group of your closest friends, then you really need for the crafting system to be something that doesn't take over the entire campaign.
While I appreciate the change to backgrounds I do wish there were more ways to customize your character further into play. So many choices are front ended, with very few significant ones happening after 3rd level.
I don't expect we'll see that change in 2024. In the 2014 PH, some subclasses (like the Path of the Totem Barbarian or the Hunter Ranger) get significant choice points at higher levels. But in Tasha's, similar choices can be made on a case by case basis. For example, if the Totem Barbarian chooses eagle vision at level 6, they can never use bear strength and wolf hunting. But the Beast Barbarian can freely change the special movement they get at level 6. They can swim one day and climb the next.
They're trying to make D&D strategy be less about "how do I build my character?" and more about "how do I play my character?" I think I prefer the former, but I do see the advantages of the latter (prevents long-term buyer's remorse, enables characters to be more adaptable.)
@@daviddalrymple2284 I didn't make any predictions about the 2024 update, I made a statement about where I think their design is weak. I think the longer they had their current fan base that weakness is going to become more apparent, because their audience is going to become even more frustrated with how playing any given subclass feels basically identical to anyone else playing it because they have made basically no choices after 3rd level.
I think the best solution regarding "Character Customization" is to:
A. Remake most background features.
B. Make more backgrounds like Monster Hunter, Farmer, Miner, Hunter etc (Ofc players can make the backgrounds themselves, but is necessary to add fitting features).
C. Maybe on Character Creation have the option to pick one feat depending on race (for racial feats specifically) or background.
D. Add more feats! Especially for martial classes since casters always are more powerful than martial classes on higher levels.
Honestly, just more feats would be more than enough.
Or maybe adopt some ideas from Traveller but with more “friendly” features (namely not getting killed in character rolls).
I mean like instead of Dwarf who have free warhammer proficiency, maybe like Dwarf who enlisted in the army.
But DnD tends to be streamlined even in its original form, so not sure that would be featured.
@@powerist209 I get that they want D&D to be simple, but there is simple and boring after a few years of playing.
I like points A and B.
I like the backgrounds with feats and for the older backgrounds I just give a feat at level 1 that fit them.
I've been giving a free feat to all my players at lvl 1 and it's made that first three levels less painful.
I usually forgo backgrounds and just let players pick any two proficiencies.
Everything else is better done by a backstory since I usually ask to structure it in a way that lets me incorporate it into the story(couple NPCs, what you know without history check, your main quest, your reputation)
I feel like stacking evocations should go our of UA too. I like the idea of hexblades improving pact weapon, but I feel like improved pact weapon 2 shouldn't be a stat increase, but rather let you make magical weapons(up to +2 or smth) into pact weapons
I know a few tables that have been giving feats at level 1 for years to limit the attraction to variant human. It also balances with supernatural gifts from MOoT and VGtR.
Not sure I'm a fan of feat stacking but I guess it's pretty consistent with previous game design and shouldn't be too egregious.
feels like we are in or near a 5.5 Era
Honestly these feat background ideas help with specific ideas I have in mind but it sort of encourages me to not just take human for the feat that fits the character idea.
I'm a fan of adding a mechanical bonus to the backgrounds, but I'd prefer if the feats are more generic than the incredibly setting-specific Strixhaven and UA background-feats we currently have. For instance, if the Soldier background offered a choice between the Shield Master and Polearm Master feat that would help reinforce the flavor of the background while also promoting feats that can be difficult to fit into builds otherwise. Power creep could be a major issue, though; instead, maybe Background feats should be equivalent in power to a half-feat and have the text "If you took this feat in place of an Ability Score Increase, increase your XXXXX score by 1, to a maximum of 20."
Reaaaaaalllly not a fan of the return of feat chains. They take creative freedom away from build-as-you-go players, and they take decision points away from optimizers. I like how 5e feats are always distinct from one another and never require class features, with benefits that may build off what you already have or add entirely new capabilities - that helps give me a sense that feats are something extra your PC has learned to do, instead of being just another part of your class/build. I think the better option would be to add more feats that are good on their own but add synergies with other feats/classes, like Sentinel/Polearm Master or Rogue/Dungeon Delver.
Excited to see what they have planned for Hit Dice. It would be nice to have alternative ways for back-line characters to use unspent HD, but they should take care not to make HD yet another way frontline martials get punished for only being able to hit and get hit.
Well that is annoying. He is saying that the characters from MTG universes are more powerful then those from the classing D&D worlds like Forgotten Realms. As much as I love the passion Jeremy puts into D&D, it is the power creep that kills DMs. Many players pull from multiple books when creating characters and having to exclude books because they are just OP sucks.
My feeling is that it's *wide* power creep, not *high* power creep. You get a bunch of new tools to play with, but it doesn't make you able to dish out or receive more *damage*. It just means you have more choices. I don't think that's the same as being OP.
for hit dice.. Potions of healing give you Hit dice of healing. Potion healing = 1 HD+con greater = 2HD + con etc
Been using hit dice as a resource for blood magics for a few years now. It's tricky.
Make sure and sacrifice the dice that roll against you most often. Stop being tempted to use them again. They're plotting against you...
Hit dice are already an important resource that they shouldn't mess with. UNLESS the plan is to retool game balance and specifically encounters per day. I do think the community is leaning towards gameplay that only has 1 or 2 encounters per day, so they should first address this b4 giving more uses to hit die.
I like the idea of feat chains, but feats are so rare to get, that if you are going down this feat chain, youll really have to dedicate. That being said I do like characters being able to become more specialized
Maybe there could be a feat based on grappler that helps you to be a more useful wrestler character
Honestly they should make feats a more common part of the leveling period.
Everyone starts off with a feat and gets one every 5 levels maybe?
You can still trade your ASI for a feat, but it'd make it where you don't have to do it for a build.
@@TonySamedi that brings us halfway back to PF1. You start with a feat and get one every other level up.
Just remove full heals on Long Rests. Make HP only recover with Hit Dice.
13th Age did a nice job dealing with the problem of too many full heals. If that's something that bothers you, check out how 13th does it and apply what you like to 5e.
I like the Background feats. I like the stacked feats, especially for choices at level 1 and 4 and then you go custom thereafter. It completes the first arc of your character’s story in Tier 1.
Will there be similar Backgrounds in Journeys through the Radiant citadel? I feel like the Defenders and Dawn Incarnate lore could make for good character backgrounds.
More combat feats and support for martial/non-magic characters!
5E has been HEAVILY tailored towards magic. I think there needs to be more balance.
this would be an amazing place to have SA.
D&D is like Pirates of the Caribbean: "There really just Guidelines, not rules."
"many many many decades ago...."
GET OFF MY LAWN, CRAWFORD.
Happiness Tools. Drops the suitcase full of books on the player's foot!
Taking a page from Pathfinder, looks like DnD is coming full circle.
Not a fan of tying pre-requisites for feats to 1 specific background, we've seen how annoyed people were about bladesingers needing to be elves. Racial feats seem fine to me though.
Honestly, not crazy about empowered backgrounds in general. It will just lead to optimization consideration [conformity if I'm being cynical] to the one of the few areas free of it.
Well, RAW none of the feats require you to have a specific background, it's just that the background gives the feat for free. A character can still take the feat through the normal means (replacing ASI on level up or the Variant Human/Custom Lineage races) even if they have a different background. I.E. a character with the Acolyte background could still take the Strixhaven Initiate Feat.
Also, there are already people who focus their backgrounds to give the best skill proficiencies they can get (usually Perception or Persuasion)
@@digifreak90 I can’t speak for the Strixhaven feats text, but the introductory feats for these chains, Initiate of High Sorcery and Squire of Solamnia, have Prerequisites that you have those backgrounds. So I would imagine that they would be out for a variant human/CL, since you don’t start with 2 backgrounds. So later acquisition would require both an ASI and a RP connection to the organization to meet the prereq [compared with fey touched/shadow touched which have no prerequisite qualification].
As for the current state of optimizing backgrounds goes, the PHB presents customizing your background [switching any skill/proficiency/feature with another] as a general rule for backgrounds. Customizing a background becomes significantly more complicated when you are essentially homebrewing a custom feats worth of benefits rather than making a minor out of combat boon. -And I’d imagine with the amplification of a background’s significance, they would subsequently lose the previous degree of modular flexibility of features with these benefits “so you’re a cobbler -but you’re great at staying on a horse, inspiring allies, wearing armor and you know how to wield any weapon…?”
@@elliotbryant3459 Right, you don't literally have to have the capital-B Background, but you have to have a connection to that organization to gain the feat later. For characters that get a first-level feat from race, that's an interesting question. A character's small-b background might be able to justify it in some cases, and obviously there's an opportunity cost of not being able to take something else with that slot.
Weird how Jeremy called put Guild rep in GGR instead of the guild background spell lists.
More in depth customization is only good. Feats with prerequisites like other feats, or high ability scores
You know, a few of the PHB feats need an upgraded one to remain relevant with it...Healer being a major one there.
You make backgrounds that give feats, all other backgrounds become obsolete. There's no reason to choose non-feat backgrounds. Unless you're planning to give the other backgrounds feats as well.
Group decide... Group mastering...Group, Group, Group,...
Dungeon Master is a curse word, now. The 6e Edition books will be Player's Handbook, Group's Guide and Encounter Manual.
Well met
"Feat stacking" could be good. How about feats that change as you level up? For example have heavy armor master scale with level.
I wonder if druids will get proficency bonus uses of wildshape per long rest in 5.5
I'd say it's pretty likely.
I prefer not to play/run games that just start with a feat, it's very powerful and kinda takes away being a human in dnd, but should it be an optional rule presented for tables that do like a higher power game, yes.
Please make Savage Attacker good, I think it's a cool idea but it's not worth a feat. I ended up homebrewing it so Barbarians just end up getting it around tier 2 or 3 and it applied to their (brutal) crits so it can actually do something, I feel like Barbarians needed it.
ive got a question that has been on my mind for a bit and idk the answer but when you twin spell a lightning spell with tempest cleric and use channel divinity. do you use the same dice roll for damage after to rolling to hit the second target since it states its the same spell.
I remember when I first heard the average npc in dnd about a 10 or 11 in every stat, and that 4d6 method to make a PC only "a little stronger" (still mortal).
When every PC starts with another Feat, it's like they are superheroes already. I hope we dont' take this too far.
(Not to mention Fighters would basically be nerf where they DEF DONT NEED ANY. Especially Vuman Fighters.)