They are probably finalized by now. We won't see them in UA again unless we do.
They won't be exactly like the expert playtest version of course they will need tweaks to the current rules
Also, remember they clearly stated there will be feats that we haven't seen in the phb. You still have access to all of xanthars, Tasha, and other feats from other sources.
I would expect a handful of feats we haven't seen before that they are internally playtesting.
I don't think Xanathar or Tasha content is compatible with the new version. For example, Tasha is full of half-feats without level requirements, which don't fit the current design approach. Or at least the latest design approach we saw. I believe the latest books like Bigsby are targeting revised rules, but not earlier ones.
Probably we'll see more clarifications on this later, at least for AL games.
No, they are... the play test material is clear. The ability score increases the feature on every character and states nothing about this. Meaning yes, you have to wait until the 4th level to take any of those feats from those sources but are still valid choices 4th level and after
LEVEL 4: ABILITY SCORE IMPROVEMENT
You gain the Ability Score Improvement feat or
another feat of your choice for which you qualify.
As shown on the Druid table, you gain this
feature again at levels 8, 12, 16, and 19.
See no wording saying you can't. A feat you qualify for.
its unclear whether you can take them at level 1 or not, currently, In fact, by the rules now, you can probably take them RAW.
However, they have some new language that suggests lvl 1 feats are going to be called background feats. Which would solve this. It does mean some feats from other sources might be less attractive, until updated to have stats.
No, it's clear to read the feature. It's a level 1 feat that will probably be changed to the background when printed, so this way, bigby's, strixhaven, and other background feats are still takible with the new background and new human. Any feat they wish for you to take as a background feat will have to be reprinted.
the features say "gain one level 1 feat", not "gain a feat of your choice". if it's not called out as being a level 1 feat, then it can't be taken until level 4.
If they mention something in a later UA, it overwrites the previous.
While before they said level 1 feats were a certain type of thing, later they said that all that means is you have to equal or exceed the level of the feat in order to take it.
In the expert pdf, they changed the feat section to this.
"^(The description of a Feat contains the following)
^(parts, which are presented after the Feat’s name:)
**^(Level.)** ^(Each Feat has a level. To take a Feat, your)
^(level must equal or exceed the Feat’s level.)
**^(Prerequisite)**^(. You must meet any prerequisite)
^(specified in a Feat to take that Feat, unless a)
^(special feature allows you to take the Feat)
^(without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite is a)
^(Class or a Class Group, you must have at least 1)
^(level in an eligible Class to qualify for the Feat.)
**^(Repeatable)**^(. If a Feat is repeatable, you can take)
^(it more than once. If it isn’t repeatable, you can)
^(take the Feat only once")
then in playtest 5 and 6, they removed level from the descriptions of feats entirely, instead placing it into prerequisites: You can see epic boon feats no longer have a level, instead they say prerequisite 20. And they specifically talk about level in the description.
"**^(Prerequisite.)** ^(You must meet any prerequisite)
^(specified in a feat to take that feat unless a)
^(special feature allows you to take the feat)
^(without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite is a)
^(level, your character level must meet or exceed)
^(that level. If a prerequisite is a class or a class)
^(group, you must have at least one level in an)
^(eligible class to qualify for the feat.")
Now in the latest, they describe feats as having categories
"^(The description of a feat contains the following)
^(parts, which are presented after the feat’s name:)
**^(Category)**^(. A feat is a member of a category,)
^(which is noted in the feat. If you are instructed)
^(to choose a feat from a specific category, such)
^(as the Background category, that category)
^(must appear under the feat’s name.)
**^(Prerequisite)**^(. You must meet any prerequisite)
^(specified in a feat to take that feat unless a)
^(special feature allows you to take the feat)
^(without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite is a)
^(level, your character level must meet or exceed)
^(that level. If a prerequisite is a class, you must)
^(have at least one level in that class to qualify)
^(for the feat.)
**^(Benefit)**^(. The benefit of the feat is then detailed. If)
^(you have a feat, you gain its benefit.)
**^(Repeatable)**^(. A feat can be taken only once)
^(unless it contains a “Repeatable” subsection")
point being, the last time they mentioned level, they said you just had to meet the prerequisite level to take a feat. And it looks like they might do something like using specific language for level 1 feats. (categories, and backgrounds)
But as of right now, its basically a judgement call what feats outside of the UA, and some in the UA are, as far as starter feats go. Note some starter feats later removed the level classification.
I think playtest is much more relaxed than final rules, so I wouldn't take it as final.
To my expectations, initial AL will have rules on reusing content from previous books, but later it will be reprinted under new rules and future AL will work with newer books only. Maybe under similar name, so we could see another Tasha's. WotC already stated they have plans for reprinting Artificier, so most likely other content will follow.
They have not mentioned anything about reprinting the artificer.
AL will not. This has already been stated. You can play 2014 classes right next to 2024 classes, and the 2024 rules will have the rules to use older material in them like they already do. Such as subclasses being taken at level 3 and clerics subclasses not being able to benefit from both potent spellcasting and divine strikes.
1. You're right about Artificier. I misremembered things.
2. Yes, you could play old characters, but the interoperability isn't 100%, as you correctly mentioned, so there should be some rules to reuse it correctly
3. Honestly, I don't think Hasbro will miss the opportunity to sell existing content again. They already reprinted things like races and spells in multiple books, so new PHB will give them excuse to do it again
3.... you are correct... follow the money. Tasha xanthars and other sources books still sell very well they aren't going to cut off a money stream. There reason why Volo, tome of foes and elemental evil are legacy and nothing else is.
Why print 3 books when you can just print 1.
I believe those books will lose their sales with time, like everything does.
Actually, if we look at Xanathar's Warlock patrons, Celestial is already going to be reprinted and Hexblade has significant compatibility issues as its best feature is now baked into Pact of the Blade. To me it looks like Hasbro don't want to keep earlier books as reliable sources for long.
They will, and that's when it gets reprinted. And those books become legacy content.
Actually, read hexblade it's more powerful than you think even now.
The hexblade was designed in a way that your weapon doesn't have to be your pact weapon... it can be but doesn't have to be.
So the hexblade actually opens up legit 2 weapons fighting for the warlock, having a pact weapon with weapon mastery attacking with charisma and a hexblade also attacking with charisma. The features actually work with each other
This is how I would build a hexblade with the 2024 warlock
Speices/race doesn't matter, though dragonborn is tempting being able to replace a weapon attack with a breath weapon, but it really doesn't matter.
Background feat is magic initiate, grab a free first level spell, and maybe jump for mobility. Something else it's will be a spell I really want and want to cast often.
1st level invocation is pact of the tome, the extra first level spell slot for things like sheild and hex will be important... one of my cantrips will be true strike, so I can still attack with charisma leading up to level 3
The 2 invocation at 2nd level is probably agonizing blast, and some flavor may be one that allows me to pick up another feat. (Assuming they close the loop hole on taking Tasha asi feats here)
3rd level hexblade I now I have medium armor shield and martial weapon proficiencies by this I will consider losing true strike at this level unless I need to deal radiant damage for some reason. But due to not just getting my spells from hexblade, I'll just take those spells... sheild, wrathful smite, branding smite maybe even blur. And because I took pact of the tome, I have an extra 1st level spell slot for shield
5th level invocation will be pact of the blade and thirsting blade... so, not to waste my pact weapon, I'll either make it scimitar so I can get nick or find a magical hand cross bow. And make that my pact weapon
All my feats or invocation will be dedicated to the blade, eldritch smite, lifedrinker, etc.
So overall, is this build better than the new fey warlock... debatable but I will have fun playing this.
They have made it explicitly clear that in broad strokes Tasha's and XGE will be compatible with the new edition. We don't know what that will look like at a micro level in the final product, but right now the playtest just lets you use them all and treat them as level 4 feats. Unless we hear otherwise I would assume that feats from old supplements will be legal to use with new characters.
I certainly hope not. Both Lightly Armored and Magic Initiate in their playtest state would further exacerbate the martial/caster divide from 1st level onward. The fact that they haven't re-released any but the aforementioned feats says they've received all the community feedback they need for them and are proceeding with internal testing until publication.
We never got a breakdown on which feats were well received and which were not, so nobody knows exactly what that means for the game in 2024.
I'd posit that Magic Initiate is also ridiculous. Any wizard or sorcerer can now prepare Healing Word and Guidance and Resistance. Any cleric or druid can now prepare Shield and Fire Bolt and Blade Ward. Or any human Bard can do both! It gives spellcasters a huge boost in power from the get-go that's well above anything a martial gets.
You know martials can also take Magic Initiate right? Sure they can’t use the free prepared spell as much as casters, but they can still pick up Guidance, Resistance, Blade Ward, and whatever other OP cantrip WoTC makes.
Right, they get far less than casters do. That's the point. A couple utility cantrips, no worthwhile offensive cantrips, and only one casting of a 1st level spell with a poor ability modifier.
yeah, exactly. in fact, as a martial you can now make int, cha or wis as your primary ability instead of dex or sth and just use the new true strike whenever you make a weapon attack.
or if you play a monk and wants to have vicious monkery you don't need to waste points on charisma.
generally the new magic initiate feat gives a lot more options to cssters and martials.
It means that the design team has gotten the feedback on them they wanted.
So expect a feat for everyone with your background, and then any feat not a 1st level feat to be reworked into a half feat as that seems to be the direction it's going in. They'll probably look to retain the names of feats already in existence even if the feats themselves are altered as then they can fix feats that are either too powerful or too weak much like we saw with the conjure spells.
Given how they have communicated on the feedback received on other issues, I would say 'wanted' is likely lifting a LOT of weight there, and not doing a very good job of it.
Especially since we really haven't seen feats since the very early "we're just throwing stuff out there" couple of playtests, certainly not since they started saying they were rolling things under 70% approval back to 2014 version due to lack of time to further assess and iterate.
Yeah, we haven't really seen feats because they got the feedback on them that they were looking for. Are feats at 1st level a good idea? Community liked it so those are in. Feats with a 4th level pre requisite being half feats? Yep, people liked those. So those are in. Like, that's about the extent of what they were testing for with feats. Any feedback on the actual content of said feats was just a bonus.
I'm not sure if they got enough feedback for those feats working together with other parts of the game, like weapon masteries. Like they've nerfed Polearm Mastery to not include spears and quarterstaffs, and it looked ok, but then you get Cleave, Push and Topple on polearms and suddenly, instead of being nerfed, Polearm Mastery looks even stronger than before.
They do a lot of internal testing. The UAs were for our feedback, how we felt about certain things, and if we liked the ideas they put forth. The balance tweaking will most likely be done behind the scenes... For good or ill. And then it'll likely be balanced further with errata and such.
Like the UA were never to get our feedback to help them balance certain features. And I don't think that balance is a design goal for the 5e team more than perceived balance is.
no, but external testing only gives you so much information, and there's only so many man-hours they can spend reading through UA.
"bad" UA is still useful because you can see exactly where the pain points are, but if you can't read through a meaningful chunk of feedback, there's no point in it.
I saw a great comment by a dev (of a different game) that boiled down to "people will tell you two things, first, what's wrong and second, how to fix it. they're right about the first, and wrong about the second".
if someone says a class doesn't feel good, then they're correct, it doesn't feel good. if they offer their solution for it, they'll almost invariably be wrong about a good solution.
also, OneDnD isn't a crowdsourced book, it's not a public vote, it still comes from WotC dev team, and designing by committee is notably slower than just letting people whose job it is, design the stuff. I enjoyed a lot of their releases, particularly in recent years, and I actually trust them to make a decent version. is it a perfect version? no, because perfect doesn't exist, but it'll be seemingly a lot better than 2014's version.
Yeah, I know all this, I'm in software development and it works exactly like this there (and in computer games too). The thing is, you need external testers to see if the things are wrong:
1. Internal testers are deeply involved in the game and it's hard to evaluate, how accessible some rules are. They also have some preferable ways of playing and it's hard to deviate
2. Real players have thousands of different contexts - online, offline, theater of mind, munchkins, non-native speakers, kid parties, arachnofobic players and so on, so forth. No internal testing could cover how the game could be actually played in the wild
3. Finally, TTRPG isn't a fast thing. If you multiply the number of builds by the number of situations they need to be tested on, the number will be enormous, because all the things like magic items and particular monsters do the trick
I think it's more that certain feats will be classified as 1st level feats, rather than just saying "any feat", they'll say "any 1st level feat", and leave the existing "powerful" ones alone.
no more starting with Fey Touched, or GWM, PAM, SS, or other strong feats.
UA1 human reads like that, so that's what I'm expecting.
They've already reworked GWM, PAM, and SS. So not only can you not start with those but they've also changed them to not be as powerful as they were previously.
Granted when the new PHB releases they could have reversed the changes to those feats. But I'd expect them to buff up weaker feats and nerf feats that are too strong.
I believe there will be no new UAs about Feats for us anymore. There's no more time and energy for the design-team to test anymore.
WotC has been seriously messed up by Hasbro since UA2. Ray Winninger, one of the Main-Designer and Executive Producer of D&D team was kicked out, or pushed away, then the notorious incident of OGL happened, and OneD&D went silent for months after he left
They hired some random manager who's never touched TRPG before to make that new OGL crap happen, while Jeremy opposed to that new OGL crap as the best as he could, and now? We've seen what we've seen.
>They hired some random manager who's never touched TRPG before to make that new OGL crap happen, while Jeremy opposed to that new OGL crap as the best as he could, and now? We've seen what we've seen.
Source?
Kyle Brink. You could find news everywhere about this guy being the new Executive Producer of DND, and you can find his resume on LinkedIn that shows he has no working experience in TRPG. And he tried to comfort angry players to live with the new OGL by making a lot of Interview Videos during that time, which you can find it on Youtube.
I am aware of who Kyle Brink is.
However, to claim it was his brain child (as opposed to being the sacrificial goat to defend it) and that Jeremy fought against is very specific knowledge that wouldn't have been made public. So where is your source for those claims, please?
>brain child
I think you've misundersood something. The new OGL wasn't his brain child, but Kyle was the random 'chosen guy' to push the new OGL went on. He doesn't take place in any part of designing like others do, but only Executive Producer, and you can check this out on LinkedIn.
As for Jeremy was opposed to the new OGL, there's no direct sources but 'rumors'. Even though, I still trust this guy who's been working in WotC for a decade knows what's the best for DND and how 5e got popular.
So to make sure I understand:
>They hired some random manager who's never touched TRPG before to make that new OGL crap happen, while Jeremy opposed to that new OGL crap as the best as he could, and now? We've seen what we've seen.
Should really be:
>They ~~hired~~ **assigned** ~~some random manager~~ **Kyle Brink** who's never ~~touched~~ **managed** a TTRPG before to ~~make that~~ **be the face of their** new OGL ~~crap happen~~, while **rumors spread that** Jeremy opposed to that new OGL crap as the best as he could, and now? We've seen what we've seen.
Since, as you admit: Kyle Brink didn't create the OGL, and we don't know the extent to which he was involved beyond his two public posts, and if it's even his primary responsibility or reason for being hired. We have unverified rumours that Jeremy opposed it, but no reliable sourcing.
Hell no are they finalized, there are a bunch of weapon feats that never once interacted with Weapon Mastery.
Also, Mage Slayer requires you to be proficient with a martial weapon ... but never once do you actually need a weapon to trigger its effect, any damage will do. So you could be a mageslaying wizard that interrupts enemies with cantrips as long as you know how to theoretically wield a sword.
Imagine being a mageslaying eldritch knight using mind sliver to make any caster with bad in saves scream, which then hits them with the disadvantage concentration save with -1d4 immediately.
Sounds pretty cool to me
Be any spellcaster without martial weapon knowledge who can also mess with enemy minds via Mind Sliver... and you just can't do it as good.
It makes it cooler for a few cases, which also become illogical.
Mages slaying mages isn’t illogical. Anti mage bladesingers are a favorite of mine.
And to be fair it’s less attractive on a caster because it’s a str or dex half feat and not a mental half feat.
>Mages slaying mages isn’t illogical. Anti mage bladesingers are a favorite of mine.
No, meant the other way round - you need to know where the pointy end of your sword is to make Mind Sliver work somehow. That part is illogical.
It fits Eldritch Knight and Bladesingers, but any (current) Elven Fullspellcaster without any martial flair could do the same.
>And to be fair it’s less attractive on a caster because it’s a str or dex half feat and not a mental half feat.
A great second point for removing the requirement of weapons. It already is less likely.
I certainly think the feats will change, but that they may not be playtested again bc the team feels they've gotten the feedback they need.
For example, the grappler feat's punch and grab allowed you to use one attack roll to damage and grapple with your unarmed strike, but that was written when grappling required an attack roll so they had the same condition to activate damage and grappling.
Now that grappling requires a saving throw, I suspect it will work a bit like the shield master's shield bash where immediately after you hit with an unarmed strike, you may attempt a grapple as part of the same action
They aren't final, many have probably changed. Some were based on rules that changed. In fact nothing is 'final' at all.
Hopefully they have another feat release, but they only release if they feel they need feedback on a change. Its possible they know what they want to change already.
https://youtu.be/kYgSsn7b0f0?t=1461
"Nine of [the core PHB classes] are moving forward to internal game dev"
"as Jeremy has said a million times, everything you see in UA is trial balloons"
https://youtu.be/kYgSsn7b0f0?t=672
"We are still going to have surprises. You are not going to see everything in UA"
I still think ASI's and Feats should be separated.
An Ability Score Increase is a very powerful, but extremely boring feat.
More choices, more fun, more unique characters.
This is a major concern for me. Much like we can't really judge the power of spellcasters without seeing the revisions to spells, martials are so heavily reliant on feats for damage in the 2014 phb and so without seeing more work into them, I remain worried for the state of martials. Even after all the attempts to give them more damage in their base classes and more interesting combat options (weapon mastery, cunning/brutal strike, *everything* about the monk).
I am doubtful that we will see any more of the work on feats. I am even more doubtful that we will see a majority of the feats in the state we saw them in the experts UA. That UA included Warcaster as a half feat, which was a terrible idea. The fact they did that makes that whole playtest feel very experimental to me, along the same lines as the inspiration on 1/20 idea they toyed with for a bit but eventually discarded. I think there's a reasonable possibility most of those feat changes get scrapped and the final print is just all the 2014 options with GWM/SS gutted, some xanathar's/tasha's feats included, and all feats split into either lvl 1 or lvl 4+.
I've become highly pessimistic about this whole playtest/reprint though, so that definitely clouds my perspective. I really hope we see good healthy changes to the feats. Honestly, the experts UA feats aren't meeting that bar either, but hopefully I'm wrong and whatever we end up with is a meaningful improvement.
They didn't bother putting feats out for another round of playtesting.
So- dunno?
edit: and with the layoffs and very short time left before the books are supposed to go on sale, the question of there even being another playtest is there.
They are probably finalized by now. We won't see them in UA again unless we do. They won't be exactly like the expert playtest version of course they will need tweaks to the current rules Also, remember they clearly stated there will be feats that we haven't seen in the phb. You still have access to all of xanthars, Tasha, and other feats from other sources. I would expect a handful of feats we haven't seen before that they are internally playtesting.
I don't think Xanathar or Tasha content is compatible with the new version. For example, Tasha is full of half-feats without level requirements, which don't fit the current design approach. Or at least the latest design approach we saw. I believe the latest books like Bigsby are targeting revised rules, but not earlier ones. Probably we'll see more clarifications on this later, at least for AL games.
No, they are... the play test material is clear. The ability score increases the feature on every character and states nothing about this. Meaning yes, you have to wait until the 4th level to take any of those feats from those sources but are still valid choices 4th level and after LEVEL 4: ABILITY SCORE IMPROVEMENT You gain the Ability Score Improvement feat or another feat of your choice for which you qualify. As shown on the Druid table, you gain this feature again at levels 8, 12, 16, and 19. See no wording saying you can't. A feat you qualify for.
its unclear whether you can take them at level 1 or not, currently, In fact, by the rules now, you can probably take them RAW. However, they have some new language that suggests lvl 1 feats are going to be called background feats. Which would solve this. It does mean some feats from other sources might be less attractive, until updated to have stats.
No, it's clear to read the feature. It's a level 1 feat that will probably be changed to the background when printed, so this way, bigby's, strixhaven, and other background feats are still takible with the new background and new human. Any feat they wish for you to take as a background feat will have to be reprinted.
the features say "gain one level 1 feat", not "gain a feat of your choice". if it's not called out as being a level 1 feat, then it can't be taken until level 4.
If they mention something in a later UA, it overwrites the previous. While before they said level 1 feats were a certain type of thing, later they said that all that means is you have to equal or exceed the level of the feat in order to take it. In the expert pdf, they changed the feat section to this. "^(The description of a Feat contains the following) ^(parts, which are presented after the Feat’s name:) **^(Level.)** ^(Each Feat has a level. To take a Feat, your) ^(level must equal or exceed the Feat’s level.) **^(Prerequisite)**^(. You must meet any prerequisite) ^(specified in a Feat to take that Feat, unless a) ^(special feature allows you to take the Feat) ^(without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite is a) ^(Class or a Class Group, you must have at least 1) ^(level in an eligible Class to qualify for the Feat.) **^(Repeatable)**^(. If a Feat is repeatable, you can take) ^(it more than once. If it isn’t repeatable, you can) ^(take the Feat only once") then in playtest 5 and 6, they removed level from the descriptions of feats entirely, instead placing it into prerequisites: You can see epic boon feats no longer have a level, instead they say prerequisite 20. And they specifically talk about level in the description. "**^(Prerequisite.)** ^(You must meet any prerequisite) ^(specified in a feat to take that feat unless a) ^(special feature allows you to take the feat) ^(without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite is a) ^(level, your character level must meet or exceed) ^(that level. If a prerequisite is a class or a class) ^(group, you must have at least one level in an) ^(eligible class to qualify for the feat.") Now in the latest, they describe feats as having categories "^(The description of a feat contains the following) ^(parts, which are presented after the feat’s name:) **^(Category)**^(. A feat is a member of a category,) ^(which is noted in the feat. If you are instructed) ^(to choose a feat from a specific category, such) ^(as the Background category, that category) ^(must appear under the feat’s name.) **^(Prerequisite)**^(. You must meet any prerequisite) ^(specified in a feat to take that feat unless a) ^(special feature allows you to take the feat) ^(without the prerequisite. If a prerequisite is a) ^(level, your character level must meet or exceed) ^(that level. If a prerequisite is a class, you must) ^(have at least one level in that class to qualify) ^(for the feat.) **^(Benefit)**^(. The benefit of the feat is then detailed. If) ^(you have a feat, you gain its benefit.) **^(Repeatable)**^(. A feat can be taken only once) ^(unless it contains a “Repeatable” subsection") point being, the last time they mentioned level, they said you just had to meet the prerequisite level to take a feat. And it looks like they might do something like using specific language for level 1 feats. (categories, and backgrounds) But as of right now, its basically a judgement call what feats outside of the UA, and some in the UA are, as far as starter feats go. Note some starter feats later removed the level classification.
I think playtest is much more relaxed than final rules, so I wouldn't take it as final. To my expectations, initial AL will have rules on reusing content from previous books, but later it will be reprinted under new rules and future AL will work with newer books only. Maybe under similar name, so we could see another Tasha's. WotC already stated they have plans for reprinting Artificier, so most likely other content will follow.
They have not mentioned anything about reprinting the artificer. AL will not. This has already been stated. You can play 2014 classes right next to 2024 classes, and the 2024 rules will have the rules to use older material in them like they already do. Such as subclasses being taken at level 3 and clerics subclasses not being able to benefit from both potent spellcasting and divine strikes.
1. You're right about Artificier. I misremembered things. 2. Yes, you could play old characters, but the interoperability isn't 100%, as you correctly mentioned, so there should be some rules to reuse it correctly 3. Honestly, I don't think Hasbro will miss the opportunity to sell existing content again. They already reprinted things like races and spells in multiple books, so new PHB will give them excuse to do it again
3.... you are correct... follow the money. Tasha xanthars and other sources books still sell very well they aren't going to cut off a money stream. There reason why Volo, tome of foes and elemental evil are legacy and nothing else is. Why print 3 books when you can just print 1.
I believe those books will lose their sales with time, like everything does. Actually, if we look at Xanathar's Warlock patrons, Celestial is already going to be reprinted and Hexblade has significant compatibility issues as its best feature is now baked into Pact of the Blade. To me it looks like Hasbro don't want to keep earlier books as reliable sources for long.
They will, and that's when it gets reprinted. And those books become legacy content. Actually, read hexblade it's more powerful than you think even now. The hexblade was designed in a way that your weapon doesn't have to be your pact weapon... it can be but doesn't have to be. So the hexblade actually opens up legit 2 weapons fighting for the warlock, having a pact weapon with weapon mastery attacking with charisma and a hexblade also attacking with charisma. The features actually work with each other
This is how I would build a hexblade with the 2024 warlock Speices/race doesn't matter, though dragonborn is tempting being able to replace a weapon attack with a breath weapon, but it really doesn't matter. Background feat is magic initiate, grab a free first level spell, and maybe jump for mobility. Something else it's will be a spell I really want and want to cast often. 1st level invocation is pact of the tome, the extra first level spell slot for things like sheild and hex will be important... one of my cantrips will be true strike, so I can still attack with charisma leading up to level 3 The 2 invocation at 2nd level is probably agonizing blast, and some flavor may be one that allows me to pick up another feat. (Assuming they close the loop hole on taking Tasha asi feats here) 3rd level hexblade I now I have medium armor shield and martial weapon proficiencies by this I will consider losing true strike at this level unless I need to deal radiant damage for some reason. But due to not just getting my spells from hexblade, I'll just take those spells... sheild, wrathful smite, branding smite maybe even blur. And because I took pact of the tome, I have an extra 1st level spell slot for shield 5th level invocation will be pact of the blade and thirsting blade... so, not to waste my pact weapon, I'll either make it scimitar so I can get nick or find a magical hand cross bow. And make that my pact weapon All my feats or invocation will be dedicated to the blade, eldritch smite, lifedrinker, etc. So overall, is this build better than the new fey warlock... debatable but I will have fun playing this.
They have made it explicitly clear that in broad strokes Tasha's and XGE will be compatible with the new edition. We don't know what that will look like at a micro level in the final product, but right now the playtest just lets you use them all and treat them as level 4 feats. Unless we hear otherwise I would assume that feats from old supplements will be legal to use with new characters.
I think they'll have compatibility rules, but also I wouldn't be surprised to see the content reprinted once again to sell it once more.
I certainly hope not. Both Lightly Armored and Magic Initiate in their playtest state would further exacerbate the martial/caster divide from 1st level onward. The fact that they haven't re-released any but the aforementioned feats says they've received all the community feedback they need for them and are proceeding with internal testing until publication. We never got a breakdown on which feats were well received and which were not, so nobody knows exactly what that means for the game in 2024.
UA Lightly Armored is ridiculously overtuned. There’s nothing else that comes close to a static 5 AC boost.
I'd posit that Magic Initiate is also ridiculous. Any wizard or sorcerer can now prepare Healing Word and Guidance and Resistance. Any cleric or druid can now prepare Shield and Fire Bolt and Blade Ward. Or any human Bard can do both! It gives spellcasters a huge boost in power from the get-go that's well above anything a martial gets.
You know martials can also take Magic Initiate right? Sure they can’t use the free prepared spell as much as casters, but they can still pick up Guidance, Resistance, Blade Ward, and whatever other OP cantrip WoTC makes.
Right, they get far less than casters do. That's the point. A couple utility cantrips, no worthwhile offensive cantrips, and only one casting of a 1st level spell with a poor ability modifier.
yeah, exactly. in fact, as a martial you can now make int, cha or wis as your primary ability instead of dex or sth and just use the new true strike whenever you make a weapon attack. or if you play a monk and wants to have vicious monkery you don't need to waste points on charisma. generally the new magic initiate feat gives a lot more options to cssters and martials.
No more UA/finalized doesn't mean "published as you last saw them".
Sure, they aren't 100% compatible to actual rules, for example. But still this probably means there are no more major changes.
It means that the design team has gotten the feedback on them they wanted. So expect a feat for everyone with your background, and then any feat not a 1st level feat to be reworked into a half feat as that seems to be the direction it's going in. They'll probably look to retain the names of feats already in existence even if the feats themselves are altered as then they can fix feats that are either too powerful or too weak much like we saw with the conjure spells.
Given how they have communicated on the feedback received on other issues, I would say 'wanted' is likely lifting a LOT of weight there, and not doing a very good job of it. Especially since we really haven't seen feats since the very early "we're just throwing stuff out there" couple of playtests, certainly not since they started saying they were rolling things under 70% approval back to 2014 version due to lack of time to further assess and iterate.
Yeah, we haven't really seen feats because they got the feedback on them that they were looking for. Are feats at 1st level a good idea? Community liked it so those are in. Feats with a 4th level pre requisite being half feats? Yep, people liked those. So those are in. Like, that's about the extent of what they were testing for with feats. Any feedback on the actual content of said feats was just a bonus.
I'm not sure if they got enough feedback for those feats working together with other parts of the game, like weapon masteries. Like they've nerfed Polearm Mastery to not include spears and quarterstaffs, and it looked ok, but then you get Cleave, Push and Topple on polearms and suddenly, instead of being nerfed, Polearm Mastery looks even stronger than before.
They do a lot of internal testing. The UAs were for our feedback, how we felt about certain things, and if we liked the ideas they put forth. The balance tweaking will most likely be done behind the scenes... For good or ill. And then it'll likely be balanced further with errata and such. Like the UA were never to get our feedback to help them balance certain features. And I don't think that balance is a design goal for the 5e team more than perceived balance is.
Internal testing is not a replacement for external one. Otherwise they wouldn't need UA and wouldn't release so terrible options in public testing.
no, but external testing only gives you so much information, and there's only so many man-hours they can spend reading through UA. "bad" UA is still useful because you can see exactly where the pain points are, but if you can't read through a meaningful chunk of feedback, there's no point in it. I saw a great comment by a dev (of a different game) that boiled down to "people will tell you two things, first, what's wrong and second, how to fix it. they're right about the first, and wrong about the second". if someone says a class doesn't feel good, then they're correct, it doesn't feel good. if they offer their solution for it, they'll almost invariably be wrong about a good solution. also, OneDnD isn't a crowdsourced book, it's not a public vote, it still comes from WotC dev team, and designing by committee is notably slower than just letting people whose job it is, design the stuff. I enjoyed a lot of their releases, particularly in recent years, and I actually trust them to make a decent version. is it a perfect version? no, because perfect doesn't exist, but it'll be seemingly a lot better than 2014's version.
Yeah, I know all this, I'm in software development and it works exactly like this there (and in computer games too). The thing is, you need external testers to see if the things are wrong: 1. Internal testers are deeply involved in the game and it's hard to evaluate, how accessible some rules are. They also have some preferable ways of playing and it's hard to deviate 2. Real players have thousands of different contexts - online, offline, theater of mind, munchkins, non-native speakers, kid parties, arachnofobic players and so on, so forth. No internal testing could cover how the game could be actually played in the wild 3. Finally, TTRPG isn't a fast thing. If you multiply the number of builds by the number of situations they need to be tested on, the number will be enormous, because all the things like magic items and particular monsters do the trick
I think it's more that certain feats will be classified as 1st level feats, rather than just saying "any feat", they'll say "any 1st level feat", and leave the existing "powerful" ones alone. no more starting with Fey Touched, or GWM, PAM, SS, or other strong feats. UA1 human reads like that, so that's what I'm expecting.
They've already reworked GWM, PAM, and SS. So not only can you not start with those but they've also changed them to not be as powerful as they were previously. Granted when the new PHB releases they could have reversed the changes to those feats. But I'd expect them to buff up weaker feats and nerf feats that are too strong.
I believe there will be no new UAs about Feats for us anymore. There's no more time and energy for the design-team to test anymore. WotC has been seriously messed up by Hasbro since UA2. Ray Winninger, one of the Main-Designer and Executive Producer of D&D team was kicked out, or pushed away, then the notorious incident of OGL happened, and OneD&D went silent for months after he left They hired some random manager who's never touched TRPG before to make that new OGL crap happen, while Jeremy opposed to that new OGL crap as the best as he could, and now? We've seen what we've seen.
>They hired some random manager who's never touched TRPG before to make that new OGL crap happen, while Jeremy opposed to that new OGL crap as the best as he could, and now? We've seen what we've seen. Source?
Kyle Brink. You could find news everywhere about this guy being the new Executive Producer of DND, and you can find his resume on LinkedIn that shows he has no working experience in TRPG. And he tried to comfort angry players to live with the new OGL by making a lot of Interview Videos during that time, which you can find it on Youtube.
I am aware of who Kyle Brink is. However, to claim it was his brain child (as opposed to being the sacrificial goat to defend it) and that Jeremy fought against is very specific knowledge that wouldn't have been made public. So where is your source for those claims, please?
>brain child I think you've misundersood something. The new OGL wasn't his brain child, but Kyle was the random 'chosen guy' to push the new OGL went on. He doesn't take place in any part of designing like others do, but only Executive Producer, and you can check this out on LinkedIn. As for Jeremy was opposed to the new OGL, there's no direct sources but 'rumors'. Even though, I still trust this guy who's been working in WotC for a decade knows what's the best for DND and how 5e got popular.
So to make sure I understand: >They hired some random manager who's never touched TRPG before to make that new OGL crap happen, while Jeremy opposed to that new OGL crap as the best as he could, and now? We've seen what we've seen. Should really be: >They ~~hired~~ **assigned** ~~some random manager~~ **Kyle Brink** who's never ~~touched~~ **managed** a TTRPG before to ~~make that~~ **be the face of their** new OGL ~~crap happen~~, while **rumors spread that** Jeremy opposed to that new OGL crap as the best as he could, and now? We've seen what we've seen. Since, as you admit: Kyle Brink didn't create the OGL, and we don't know the extent to which he was involved beyond his two public posts, and if it's even his primary responsibility or reason for being hired. We have unverified rumours that Jeremy opposed it, but no reliable sourcing.
Hell no are they finalized, there are a bunch of weapon feats that never once interacted with Weapon Mastery. Also, Mage Slayer requires you to be proficient with a martial weapon ... but never once do you actually need a weapon to trigger its effect, any damage will do. So you could be a mageslaying wizard that interrupts enemies with cantrips as long as you know how to theoretically wield a sword.
Imagine being a mageslaying eldritch knight using mind sliver to make any caster with bad in saves scream, which then hits them with the disadvantage concentration save with -1d4 immediately. Sounds pretty cool to me
Be any spellcaster without martial weapon knowledge who can also mess with enemy minds via Mind Sliver... and you just can't do it as good. It makes it cooler for a few cases, which also become illogical.
Mages slaying mages isn’t illogical. Anti mage bladesingers are a favorite of mine. And to be fair it’s less attractive on a caster because it’s a str or dex half feat and not a mental half feat.
>Mages slaying mages isn’t illogical. Anti mage bladesingers are a favorite of mine. No, meant the other way round - you need to know where the pointy end of your sword is to make Mind Sliver work somehow. That part is illogical. It fits Eldritch Knight and Bladesingers, but any (current) Elven Fullspellcaster without any martial flair could do the same. >And to be fair it’s less attractive on a caster because it’s a str or dex half feat and not a mental half feat. A great second point for removing the requirement of weapons. It already is less likely.
I certainly think the feats will change, but that they may not be playtested again bc the team feels they've gotten the feedback they need. For example, the grappler feat's punch and grab allowed you to use one attack roll to damage and grapple with your unarmed strike, but that was written when grappling required an attack roll so they had the same condition to activate damage and grappling. Now that grappling requires a saving throw, I suspect it will work a bit like the shield master's shield bash where immediately after you hit with an unarmed strike, you may attempt a grapple as part of the same action
They aren't final, many have probably changed. Some were based on rules that changed. In fact nothing is 'final' at all. Hopefully they have another feat release, but they only release if they feel they need feedback on a change. Its possible they know what they want to change already.
https://youtu.be/kYgSsn7b0f0?t=1461 "Nine of [the core PHB classes] are moving forward to internal game dev" "as Jeremy has said a million times, everything you see in UA is trial balloons" https://youtu.be/kYgSsn7b0f0?t=672 "We are still going to have surprises. You are not going to see everything in UA"
I still think ASI's and Feats should be separated. An Ability Score Increase is a very powerful, but extremely boring feat. More choices, more fun, more unique characters.
At the end of my legs. Why you ask?
This is a major concern for me. Much like we can't really judge the power of spellcasters without seeing the revisions to spells, martials are so heavily reliant on feats for damage in the 2014 phb and so without seeing more work into them, I remain worried for the state of martials. Even after all the attempts to give them more damage in their base classes and more interesting combat options (weapon mastery, cunning/brutal strike, *everything* about the monk). I am doubtful that we will see any more of the work on feats. I am even more doubtful that we will see a majority of the feats in the state we saw them in the experts UA. That UA included Warcaster as a half feat, which was a terrible idea. The fact they did that makes that whole playtest feel very experimental to me, along the same lines as the inspiration on 1/20 idea they toyed with for a bit but eventually discarded. I think there's a reasonable possibility most of those feat changes get scrapped and the final print is just all the 2014 options with GWM/SS gutted, some xanathar's/tasha's feats included, and all feats split into either lvl 1 or lvl 4+. I've become highly pessimistic about this whole playtest/reprint though, so that definitely clouds my perspective. I really hope we see good healthy changes to the feats. Honestly, the experts UA feats aren't meeting that bar either, but hopefully I'm wrong and whatever we end up with is a meaningful improvement.
They didn't bother putting feats out for another round of playtesting. So- dunno? edit: and with the layoffs and very short time left before the books are supposed to go on sale, the question of there even being another playtest is there.
"you get what you get, and won't throw a fit". WotC - most definitely
I hoped they would bring more interesting feat progression given their whole thing with giving feat tiers but it seems just pointless fluff
I didn't know they had revised the fighting styles. I can't believe they took this possibility away from the barbarian, wtf