Author: SmugLookingBarrel
Trying to evaluate taking an Ability Score Increase vs a feat? This post is probably worth a read!
Feats
In this post, we will provide a description and overall rating for every official feat in D&D 5E, including possible build considerations, comparisons with other options, and useful rules interactions. These ratings were all determined with the assumptions described in our Core Tenets. Enjoy!
We hope you have found this guide useful for building your characters. Thanks for reading!
Good stuff! The only thing I would say is that Eldritch Adept is criminally underrated since TCE came out, by everyone. A couple key points that are important:
1) Eldritch Mind gives advantage on concentration saves. This is the major benefit of War Caster in a different feat. For most casters it is really the only war caster benefit that you will really get to take advantage of. (Let’s be honest, how many enemies are moving away from the back-line squishies)
2) You can change your invocation EVERY LEVEL UP. This is huge because it is one of the few feats that you can modify as your character evolves. Take a dip in cleric to get armor? Great! Drop Mage Armor invocation and take eldritch mind. Know you are going to fight in magical darkness a lot soon? Great! Drop Eldritch Mind and take Devils Sight.
Eldritch Adept deserves a 4, purely because of Eldritch Mind. On top of everything else.
Hey there! Regarding your Eldritch Mind collocation, most optimised casters are not squishy at all, they will be using either half plate or full plate with a shield, and have the Shield and Absorb Elements spells, making them way tankier than most martials, check out https://tabletopbuilds.com/two-problems-with-tanks/ (There is also no such thing as a backline on the difficult games we optimise for, as explained in our core tenents) Regarding the other Warcaster benefits, it’s true that the opportunity attack one is niche, and considering most casters are using a shield+free hand and a component pouch, the benefit that allows you to execute somatic components while both hands are full is also going to go unused unless you find a magical item you need to hold in order to use (although for casters that want to use a spell focus, Warcaster becomes an absolute necessity). So, Eldritch Mind should be a decent choice for such a character… But for those types of builds, in campaigns that we do not expect to grab hold of a magic item that needs to be held, Resilient Constitution is usually our choice, since it helps not only with Concentration saves, but constitution saves in general, which are plenty and generally unpleasant (while also being a half feat). If you’re playing something like an Artificer 1 dip on a Wizard, then you already have Con save profiency (with maybe a 16 Con), and you’re doing the usual style of shield+free hand. On that case, Eldritch Mind could be useful, but we prefer to go Lucky or Alert, on that case, simply because we’re already quite comfortable with concentration to the point that if we ever fail a concentration save we can just use Lucky on it, and if we don’t we can use Lucky on something else. It’s not a bad feat, but it is worse than Warcaster when Warcaster is relevant, and when it is not, it is worse than Resilient Constitution, and when both of those are irrelevant, you probably already have you concentration figured out. Thank you for reading our blog!
I don’t really agree with your point about eldritch mind being a good replacement for war caster. Yes, the advantage on saves is the main thing people want, but war caster gives you additional options for the same cost of a single feat. Even if the opportunity attack option only happens a single time in an entire campaign war caster is the better choice. I simply can’t think of a scenario in which taking a feat to get eldritch mind is better than just getting war caster.
War caster doesn’t work for concentration saving throws not caused by damage, whereas Eldritch mind does. That’s one advantage. From a non-optimising perspective, wanting to find alternatives for overused feats (especially when they are not a drop in performance) is probably more fun as well.
I’ve been trying to think of a single time a concentration save would be needed against something caused by not taking damage and I just can’t. Can you please elaborate?
Sleet Storm is an example.
Most of the time it’s up to DM interpretation as to what scenario may require it. The book gives an example of being on a ship in a storm where the DM might have you roll one. So damage is going to be the reason 99% of the time, but theoretically it can be something different.
I don’t see why the ability to build Warlock 1 / Sorcerer X for EB isn’t being considered more seriously. There are some other nice things you get out of the second Warlock level, but getting your best spells a level earlier than Warlock 2 / Sorcerer X is not trivial and should be seriously considered when building a Charisma caster.
Because the *damage* of agonizing blast alone isn’t impressive in an optimized context. The strength of Warlock 2 builds comes from the combination of agonizing blast **and** repelling blast – the latter often being the more impactful piece
At level 6 would you rather have Repelling Blast or would you rather have Counterspell & Hypnotic Pattern though? At level 18 would you rather have Repelling Blast or would you rather have Wish & True Polymorph?
I feel like at even levels, Warlock 1 is better and at odd levels, Warlock 2 is better. I don’t think it’s as cut and dry of a choice as you’re making it out to be.
So a 6th level warlock casts hypnotic pattern on turn one and uses their reaction to cast counterspell the same round. They’re now out of spell slots so what do they do on turn two? They’re going to keep concentration and use Eldrich Blast. As they’re going to use Eldrich Blast anyway why not shove someone into the clerics spirit guardians aura on top?
To add to my previous comment, you can have counterspell, hypnotic pattern AND repelling blast. They’re not exclusive to each other.
I guess there’s a maximum reply depth? This is in reply to Matt.
At 6th level you’re either Warlock 1 / Sorcerer 5 and can cast 3rd level spells but no repelling blast or you’re Warlock 2 / Sorcerer 4 and can’t cast 3rd level spells but do get repelling blast. It is exclusive until you gain another level.
I do not think it is slam dunk obvious that the second option is better than the first and I think it merits some real consideration. Waiting all the way until level 7 to get core 5th level features is a big tax. If I’m playing against (not with, *against*) some Gygaxian punisher DM, I might not survive to 7 if nobody in the party can counterspell an enemy spellcaster before then.
Let’s pick apart the Warlock 2 package. You get:
Medium Armor + Shields (the actual most important thing, without it we wouldn’t be here in an optimized build)
Eldritch Blast
2 invocations
2 short rest 1st level slots
Warlock 1 with the feat gets us:
Medium Armor + Shields
Eldritch Blast
1 invocation
1 short rest 1st level slots
So we’re spending an entire class level and getting significantly behind on our progression with our primary spellcasting to get some battlefield control and one additional short rest casting of a spell we can just as easily scribe on a scroll for backup.
I am not asserting that it is automatically a bad idea to go Warlock 2, but I think Warlock 1 + feat should be considered. An extra class level of Sorcerer with more spell slots and every other level higher level spells also has a lot of battlefield control options. Pushing enemies around is not trivial, but at level 10 one build has Wall of Force and the other doesn’t and that’s pretty significant for control as well.
Mobile is a high 3 or a 4. On a Rogue it means Rapier attack, then bonus action dash for some insane movement. Meaning an enemy most likely can’t catch up to them and hit them in the same turn. Or they can expend some movement and potentially hide. Every turn too, without being forced into the Swashbuckler subclass. That is super powerful, given the frail nature of the Rogue. It’s potentially good on Bladesinging Wizards, Pact of the Blade Warlocks, and a few other frail builds who should not be taking opportunity attacks (Crusher is mainly useful for Monks, who could still potentially get use out of Mobile, and the Strength save of telekinetic is not reliable since many creatures have high Strength saves).
Moderately armored is really suboptimal. Play a race that gives armor proficiency (Tasha’s rules to switch around ability increases for races makes this really easy to do and play the class/subclass you want), 1 level multi-class into some armor proficiency (Cleric will keep spell slot level progression), pick up Mage Armor and take a +2 Dex instead (plus you get initiative increase and/or better hit chance for Rogues), or just play a class/subclass that gives you armor proficiency. It’s really not worth a feat. Definitely a 3, if not a 2. Plus, at high levels, AC means diddly unless you’re pushing into the high twenties. Many monsters have +15 and up to +20 to hit so that feat becomes worthless as you get late into a campaign. Even with +3 half plate and a +3 shield, monsters are gonna be whacking you often. So it’s better than nothing, but more HP is about on par, making this feat closer to the Tough feat, hence the potential 2 since you put tough as a 2 (I’d personally put both as 3’s since they are both useful but not a go-to for anyone).
Elemental Adept is at least a niche 2, if not a 3. Transmuted metamagic widens its scope and makes it potent. It’s definitely a 3 for those casters. For others, namely Sorcerer and Warlock blaster casters, it’s usable as a niche pickup. Why? Well, it cuts down on spell lists. No need to take x spell for a different damage type to avoid resistance, you can already do that. Cost of a feat is high, but it does have its use. It takes an experienced player to use this though, or at least some familiarity with the monsters.
Second Chance is probably a 3. Imposing an effect similar to disadvantage is way better than Squat Nimbleness (which should be a 2). Grapples are niche. Player grapples can be common, but enemy grapples are not that common. The extra stuff on Squat Nimbleness is okay but there are better options; the extras merely push Squat Nimbleness away from a 1 to be honest.
Revenant Blade is more like a 2. First off, +2 Dex gives +1 AC and much more to boot on the characters that’d want this. Rounding off a Dex score at a low level is the main reason for it, making it niche. Remember, the weapon is not necessarily magical. So unless it can be made into a +1 or be found as a +1, this damage will be halved or otherwise unreliable on many enemies later on in a campaign. You’ll need a generous DM or some plan to make this feat worthwhile.
Piercer should be a 2. Again, like mobile, Rogues can make the most use of this feat. The reroll works with sneak attack dice, and since those have tons of dice, the increase will be larger on average with Rogues. Also, Assassin Rogues have a way to consistently proc the extra damage die. It’s not great, but it’s definitely recommendable as a half feat for certain builds.
Metamagic Adept > Eldritch Adept. Albeit, they are close. The only invocations worth it on non-Warlocks are Devil’s Sight and Misty Visions (For mage armor, magic initiate will work fine for that 8hr duration, for disguise self get a disguise kit, etc). Those are two really strong options. But, being able to subtle, extend, and transmute cast have way more utility for way more casters. Even if it is only twice a day, these are clutch options. Plus isn’t it just super cool to throw down an ice or thunder fireball? Course, the limited resource pool of Metamagic Adept is what makes them similar options.
The rest are agreeable, more or less. Maybe not inspiring leader, but that’s just cause of the 10 min timer which is kind of silly and probably house ruled to just say it happened. Being able to use it to buff a familiar is wicked cool too.
Overall, just don’t forget about the Rogue next time! The rest of my comments are probably arguable; I can only show objectively that Mobile and Piercer are definitely rated poorly here.
Hey, i’m Quetz, one of the authors for this blog (although i didn’t actually work on this one specifically beyond the editing phase). First off, thank you so much for reading our article, we really appreciate it! Then, to answer to some of your points:
The Mobile feat on a rogue is a terrible choice, your example involved a rogue using a rapier and simply entering and leaving melee, which presents 2 problems: it is not good damage, since rogues either want to multiclass into a class that grants them extra attack, or use features such as the Crossbow Expert feat that grants them Bonus Action attacks so that their Sneak Attack isn’t riding on an all-or-nothing single blow (you can try to make some Elven Accuracy/Sharpshooter rogue and it will probably do better than the CBE/SS one at higher levels, though). The second problem is that expending a feat to keep getting in and out of melee without taking Opportunity Attacks is ultimately a worse version of just… Being at range all the time. The squishy classes like Rogue and Monk should strive to be at range at all times if possible, and Mobile is just a directly inferior option to just making a ranged build (enemies can also hold their actions, so if you keep repeating this maneuver, you’ll take damage anyway since you need to close up to attack. And if you’re at range, you can use that Bonus Action to use Steady Aim or the Hide Action, which amounts to better damage or protection than a rapier with the Mobile feat), having to go into melee also poses problems for allied casters, that really want to get the enemies into control spells such as web and sleet storm, that directly affect your ability to even attack opponents caught in them in the first place (meanwhile, they pose no problem for the true ranged characters).
About Moderately Armored, it is a terrific tool to get to the 19-24 AC on most casters, and while some of your alternatives work for some builds (cleric dips are incredibly popular among optimised casters for a good reason), they’re not completely accurate for all builds. First off, never pick a race simply for medium armor proficiency, this isn’t even the main benefit we’re after when taking the Moderately Armored feat (shield proficiency is the big thing, as it helps us achieve that 19-24 goal). Concerning Cleric (or Artificer) dips, yes, they’re an amazing option and should be your default for a ton of builds. But on characters that have light armor proficiency, and benefit immensely from a Divine Soul Sorcerer 1 dip, such as all bards, Moderately Armored is the priority at Bard 4 for all non-Valor subclasses. While Warlocks can also benefit a lot from cleric dips, it is also true that their loss on progression is a bit more dramatic than other spellcasters, and the Moderately Armored feat is a must pick for those characters (if not Hexblade) if your intention is doing a straight warlock build.
About Telekinetic, we did the math for monsters of all CRs on our “Telekinetic vs Spiritual Weapon” article and the Str save doesn’t seem to be penalising enough that the feat loses efficiency, specially since a great deal of its best uses include using it on allies rather than enemies, which makes the save irrelevant a lot of the time, check it out here! https://tabletopbuilds.com/telekinetic-or-spiritual-weapon/
While it is true that Piercer IS more impactful on a rogue than other classes, it still isn’t actually relevant. And while Assassin rogues getting surprise on our games is really rare (i’d look at a ranger or a druid if that’s your intent), even if they did get it super often, an extra 1d8 at the start of a combat isn’t something to write home about.
About Elemental Adept, it encourages blaster casters that specialise in a single element, and while Transmuted Spell does alleviate some of the downsides, a feat and a Metamagic pick just to do some slightly better blasting is just gimping your character, that could’ve just took a concentration protection feat in its place and focused on better spells instead of blasting. Nothing wrong with taking Fireball, but basing your entire build around that kind of spell isn’t a smart play for the truly difficult games we optimise for.
Your point about Revenant Blade is pretty valid, although there ARE builds that do want to take it (mostly mid op barb/rogue builds), and we do take Crusher on monks (including our basic build for the class, check it out if you want to!) https://tabletopbuilds.com/basic-build-series-monk/
Crusher’s biggest selling point isn’t on the monk class, however, as it can be used in conjunction with a Dao Warlock to prone and damage people by fall damage (which is mostly a gimmicky build, but already stronger than it is with the monk, and hey, if you think that interaction may be worth an article, we’d be glad if you let us know!)
To be fair, I took a look at a bunch of other posts on the web regarding feats and none of them put Mobile that low. ArcaneEye puts it as an A, Fandomspot puts it at 13th best feat, Gamerant puts it as the 5th best feat, Gamersdecide puts it as the 6th best feat, CBR puts it as rhe 3rd best feat in the game, TheGamer puts it as the 9th best feat, etc. It is almost always top to mid range. On many builds it is definitely viable. But if your DM isn’t letting you hide, sneak, run, or do anything that a Rogue is literally built to do, then yeah, both Mobile and Piercer aren’t worth it, and your DM is intentionally nerfing an entire class’ sole archetype. For me, and many others, these mechanics are what makes a Rogue keep up with other classes. Mobile and piercer expand on that capability. Granted it’s roughly +2.5 extra damage with piercer and +4.5 on crits, but those are still decent. It still works with Crossbow expert and is a half feat. And like, half the posts I read ranked Swashbuckler super high just for having a portion of the Mobile feat.
Races can gain both medium armor prof and shield prof. Tasha’s made this much easier. Either way, AC on PC’s is way overrated. Saving throws can rectify that quite rapidly, which is why HP is preferable. You can make a character with over 20 AC at level 1, but that’s not gonna matter when creatures use saving throw related abilities. This is why it’s silly to rank that feat high while ranking Tough lower. More HP is a comparable choice. This was the main argument I was trying to make. I said the stuff because they are alternatives to spending a feat. I should have made that more clear, I apologize.
As for the elemental adept, Sorcerer’s already have constitution saving throw proficiency, which is why Transmuted propels it to being good. Warcaster is fine as an alternative but I think diminishing returns are important to consider. A creature can still do enough damage to make it impossible to maintain concentration no matter what you add to the build. Each feat has its drawbacks, which should be apparent. I don’t think it is gimping, more like specializing for combat. I mean, if that was the logic, then wouldn’t Dex Fighters be gimped because they lack skills and can basically only shoot arrows all day long? That’s just piercing damage. In a low magic campaign, that’s gonna stay that way for a long time too. So I mean, gaining a way to negate resistance can be really strong on certain casters and campaigns, hence niche 2 on others. But I’m willing to concede here, since the price of a feat is a heavy early game tax when an increased spell save DC is much better. Still, once you’re maxed, it still has its niche.
Like I said though, I can’t really argue many of the others except for Mobile and Piercer. Objectively, via statistics, those feats are ranked much higher everywhere else. So even if some of my reasoning can be negated, statistics objectively show that Mobile and Piercer are way more favored. The same goes for Tough too, as I looked that up as well. This makes this post an outlier. If you’d like, I could write up the standard deviation and ranking of these feats to show that these rankings are far from the norm, but that would mainly just be me doing some fun statistics haha. Statistics are the main way to objectively show that certain feats are better since the game itself is mostly subjective (DM rules override everything and it is a role-playing game first and foremost). Still, it is fun to talk about different play styles and I got a feel for your table’s play style, which is cool.
Thanks for giving your perspective! I enjoyed the article. There a ton of feats so this must have taken a good amount of work.
Part of the reason we created this site was because everywhere else on the web has so much wrong! You can see the type of assumptions that result in a lot of the feat placements in our Core Tenets (https://tabletopbuilds.com/core-tenets) and I will also say this (or any) post we make is no where close to the experience of a single table. We only list a “lead” author on our articles but something like this post came about from a messy consensus of dozens of optimizers! (https://tabletopbuilds.com/who-is-tabletop-builds)
Piercer is easy to calculate the damage it does; we had to when building the Basic Build Series Rogue, which is nearly the best possible case for it, so it was in the running. It just doesn’t add a meaningful amount of damage compared to alternatives.
Thank you for the comments though, we can tell you have also put in a lot of thought in them and recognize that people are often coming from different places with stuff like ratings.
Adding to what Kobo1d said, i have to point out that Tasha’s Customizing your Origin feature doesn’t actually let you gain proficiency in shields. They aren’t tools nor weapons, and so, if you look at the table provided in the relevant session, you’ll notice that none of the possible swaps let’s you get shield proficiency. And yeah, saves are important, but if you look through the monster manual and other sourcebooks for powerful abilities that depend on saves, you’ll see that a lot of the really dramatic effects have nothing to do with dealing damage directly, Titivilus mind control, or Banishment, or Hypnotic Pattern, or Feeblemind, even Drow poison. They’re all abilities available to monsters that won’t have much to do with your Hit-points at all at first glance, but are absolutely devastating to fail, which makes Tough about the worst possible “save protection” you can get (and for the effects that deal damage, such as a Fireball, or a dragon’s breath weapon, Absorb Elements is a 1st level spell, y’know?). Now, even if saves are super important (which is why paladins are great, btw), that’s no reason to neglect having a reasonably high AC. We usually set ourselves to get around a 19-24 AC (24 with the Shield spell), since that number is incredibly easy to access for any caster, and while going higher is not that difficult (an Eldritch Knight 3/Forge Cleric X or a Bladesinger that has both Dex and Int maxed out are both sitting at a 23-28 AC), it is also true that they usually require more investment, to the point where we think the opportunity cost of not grabbing more save protection/concentration protection/initiative/or general offense and control instead, making the ideal range of most games be “half-plate, shield, the Shield spell, and Absorb Elements” for the basic defenses of a character. For example, an Eloquence bard might want to dip one level into Divine Soul Sorcerer at level 1 so they can get Con save profiency, Shield, Absorb Elements, and Favored by the Gods (which helps with other important saves), and Moderately Armored by bard 4 so they could get a Half-Plate and a shield, they could’ve dipped into Cleric, but that would’ve cost them the Shield and Absorb Elements spells, which makes Clerics a more clear best option on casters that already have the Shield and Absorb Elements spells such as the Wizard (specially the Peace Cleric subclass). Anyways, thanks for the comments, it’s incredibly nice to see the articles become popular enough that there are people bothering to talk with us about it, since this website is a relatively new project.
So just for fun I went ahead and took a deep look into Moderately Armored. And I have to say, it’s even worse than I thought. There are also races that have natural AC that can be 18. And Tortle start at 17. Still, for the sake of argument, let’s say all these are still pointless cause of that juicy juicy shield. I could mention Bodaks, Dragons, Mind flayers, and many other creatures that pump out saving throws but that’s kind of boring. It should be obvious that there are tons of saving throw creatures.
Bards have Valor, but otherwise it might work. A one or two level dip of Hexblade has potential but knowing high level spells is probably better.
Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger don’t need it.
Monks and Wizards can’t generally take it w/o getting light armor first.
Rogues need dexterity and can get 17 AC that way. A shield is an okay addition, but a Rogue should not be taking hits. They are literally built for avoiding taking hits rather than soaking them like a Barbarian.
Sorcerers should multiclass with Hexblade. Sorlocks are potent. Capstone of Sorcerer also sucks.
Warlocks have Hexblade, but otherwise it might work. Capstone sucks though so multi-classing is better.
So, one class, the Bard, has a use. The rest should definitely multiclass. Guess I misread how Tasha’s does weapon/armor proficiency. Oh well. Either way, a Tortle, Githyanki, Dwarf, Loxodon, or anything else similar to these races is still better than wasting an ASI on Moderately Armored. It’s just not good and nowhere else recommends it for these lines of reasoning.
Going against the grain is fine. It’s a nice change of pace, but when using statistical evidence, a few feats are misranked. Now, the majority of the 5e community could be wrong, but I honestly just think it’s a table thing. I do understand your reasoning though, and maybe lots of tables agreed, this can happen statistically speaking. It’s just, on a whole, this is not the case for the majority. Being different than the rest can get the creativity going and maybe illuminate some errors in thinking. It also attracts readers and commenters; I wouldn’t have said anything otherwise!
Still, we’re going in circles so this is the last word I’ll put in. There’s no need to push it further. Obviously you put value and weight on other aspects of the game. It’s why I didn’t mention modules at all, since modules would change this whole list drastically. So would adventurers league. There are just differing values placed on different aspects depending on the way 5e is being played, and these are the subjective elements that come from many role playing focused games. It’s why statistics are the only objective way to talk about things like feats, subclasses, spells, and so forth. You could argue that cases exist where the majority is wrong and I wouldn’t disagree, it’s just that 5e is subjective and not a scientific certainty that requires proof. Rules lawyers may disagree, but the DMG and XGtE suggest DMs bend or create new rules for fun in many cases, as long as there is consistency. This bending creates variety and it’s why 5e is so much fun. No game is ever the same!
In defense of mobile (when compared to Crusher), not having to hit the creature makes it very reliable, and ignoring difficult terrain on a dash pairs well with bonus action dashes and control spells. If you’re going to get it, I think it’s better for builds with extra attack than it is for rogues, and it should be thought of as a way for a melee character to reliably and “safely” beeline to priority targets rather than a “skirmisher” feat (inasmuch as we concede that being in melee is inherently unsafe to begin with). Also, the bonus is simply to speed, irrespective of type, so it also synergizes with other sources of mobility that don’t rely on riding something else (e.g. fly spell, but not phantom steed or a broom of flying).
I think your statement about the mobile feat being statistically better is a bit misleading (not so much in this comment specifically, but the later comment won’t let me reply for some reason). It’s not thst statistics show it to be a better feat, it shows that many people THINK it’s a good feat. Now, it may improve hit and run builds, which are fun, but the truth of the matter is those builds often don’t do more damage than simply using a ranged weapon. Now, if people want to play the build with mobile because it’s fun, then that’s great. I personally have played builds, like a whip wielding blade singer, that aren’t optimal but are loads of fun. But we shouldn’t confuse fun for actually being an optimal choice.
Probably the first almost flawless feat guide on the internet. Beyond minor nitpicks [Such as Dungeon Delver getting 2 stars instead of 1? Who on your team talked you into that?], I would ask if abusing Chef to get a massive amount of treats before a dungeon makes it any better. If you were crazy enough to spend 7 hours after the end of a long rest to get proficiency x 8 treats, you’d have quite the stockpile of temporary hit points…
This is a really cool blog. Thx a lot for doing this!
(Comment received via email, added here by Tabletop Builds to publicly respond)
Dec 31, 2021, 1:57 PM
For “Dual Wielder”, it seems odd that the +1 AC is not referenced… is it possible this was overlooked? I get the sense from your blog that any melee build not using PAM+GWM is assumed to be irrelevant, but if you’re going to mention niche uses, then bladesinger wizard does come to mind. I agree the damage boost is not very material, but for a build that is going to use two-weapon fighting, adding +1 AC seems pretty great… though perhaps only after AC has been maxed out through other means, such as a +2 DEX ASI. Maybe the underlying assumption was “never use two-weapon fighting”?
Also, if you’re considering an article on bladesinger (even to say it’s bad!), I’d love to know the “math” on how a bladesinger with 20 DEX / 20 INT with Foresight + either Haste or Tenser’s compares to an optimized PAM+GWM build. It does seem like it would be at least competitive, given the 23-26 AC that bladesinger could have between 18 base AC (mage armor & 20 DEX), +5 from singing, +1 from Dual Wielder, and +2 from Haste (if used) — and that’s before Shield spell.
Thanks, and happy new years!
Thank you for the comment and happy new year! I think we’ll get into this more when we (eventually) make a full Wizard guide, but many of our contributors would argue that investing into melee as a Bladesinger is usually actually a mistake despite the default lore for the class and the way most people suggest building them. Concentration on a spell like Tenser’s Transformation in Tier 3+, you could be concentrating on some reality shaping magic rather than trying to keep up with the martials in damage and putting yourself in melee.
I have to say that while I do agree with your ratings for Charger and Piercer, I do enjoy them when I get to play my Charger build (2 barb/x swashbuckler STRogue) and I use swashbuckler so no need for the mobile feat.
Not sure if you’re underselling Healer here, but the “Stabilized creatures gain 1HP” works like a mundane form of Healing Word (a consistent recommendation across your Cleric builds) to get allies back in the fight (as any HP regained ends the unconscious state). Advantages over Healing Word include infinite daily uses (barred only by money), no class restrictions, no verbal components, and no bonus action restrictions on number of per-turn heals or kinds of spells cast. Really, the out-of-combat healing is just a nice side perk in that it is better than a standard healing potion at a fraction of the price (5sp per charge vs. 50gp for the potion).
Although the opportunity cost of using an Action in combat for the Healer may be expensive, this can be mitigated with the Thief’s Cunning Action, with a Fighter’s Action Surge, with a spellcaster’s main action once Concentration is up (in lieu of Dodging), or even with a Haste action. If nothing else, Healer adds more options, which improves turn-to-turn optimization. Besides, the Action of the downed party member may be worth trading for your own.
This feat gets even better with a more generous interpretation of the text. A version I would consider RAI would be to treat the two bullet points separately, namely that the 1HP heal during stabilization is not limited by short rests or by taking the extra HP heal in the second option (if this were not true, why would the first bullet point even exist?). This means that the Healer feat can re-ressurect near-death allies an unlimited number of times while all party members also get a 1d6+4+HD heal per short rest.
Is all of this worth a feat, though? Eh, probably not. I would argue it’s on par with Inspiring Leader, though (similar per-rest heal with similar improvements to team survivability), which you rank at 4 stars.
Inspiring Leader can be done with no action economy which is a huge boon when you need to step on the gas in an encounter where someone going down is possible. Also, starting off with additional HP that makes it harder for you to drop unconscious in the first place is going to be far more valuable than being able to stabilize them using the healer feat. Having extra health to top your party off after a short rest is very good
Healer is more analogous to cure wounds, touch range and costs an Action. That forces you to get very close to the thing that downed your ally, not ideal for most characters. Using an Action to not take an additional attack Action with Action Surge is a huge tempo loss, it is not valuable to Action Surge just so you can stabilize someone and still have an Action. A caster that is concentrating with a spell up needs to stay dodging and they need to hang out far away from whatever just knocked the party member unconcious, running up to be next to whatever knocked out their party member is asking for trouble. Haste is not a good spell, we don’t recommend using it.
The action economy cost is huge for everyone that isn’t a Thief Rogue and Thief is a much worse subclass than Arcane Trickster and Rogue debatably is weaker than all classes that aren’t Monks or Barbarians.
I vaguely recall Crawford mentioning the infinite uses interpretation so sure you can do that repeatedly.
All this said we do not think this warrants a change in rating. It is not a good feat and Inspiring Leader is much better in practice. That said, there are some feats we will probably revisit with respect to ratings.
Thank you for your response, but are you suggesting that it is more optimal for a spellcaster to burn their Action on Dodge or a Fighter on Attack rather than bringing an ally back in the fight (you don’t lose an Action here – you swap Actions and get an additional Bonus Action, Movement, and maybe even a Paladin aura)? Perhaps in some circumstances, but making Death Saves is also a terrible use of Action economy. In addition, if we restrict our analysis to a purely optimized environment, everyone is within 10ft of the Paladin, so there’s not much in the way of “Front Lines” or anything that limits Touch spells.
I’ll admit, Healer is a strange hill to die on – potions (if available) do everything it can do without the feat investment (provided you can administer them to unconscious allies). Still, I think we’ve yet, as a site, to fully discuss contingencies and preparedness for unexpected situations, though a lot is already baked into analysis of feats like Lucky or Alert. No plan survives contact with the enemy. Against a Green Dragon with Breath Weapon up, Dodging or Running won’t exactly do much – it may be worthwhile to have other useful Actions on hand. Similarly, Dodging is best used as a means of conserving resources like HP or spell slots, but dire situations may risk sacrificing either or both. Pass Without Trace (PWT) is an excellent spell because any party should be able to win comfortably given a Surprise round, but can a party truly be optimal if it can’t survive without one? What if the party itself is Surprised? Preventative measures can only go so far – there must be an emergency response.
I also think Healer finds its niche once we consider a full party composition, another topic I believe yet to be fully explored here. Many Flagship builds crank out with the same list of spells even though many (like Bless or PWT) do not stack. There is value in redundancy for combat spells/abilities (like Bless or Healing), but less so for prepared ones (like PWT). Is Wood Elf Magic really a 4-star feat for giving one more way to access PWT? It legitimizes the Wood Elf chassis, but that race isn’t exactly optimal. Does a feat like Healer become better when we understand that someone else has Inspiring Leader or when we’re trying to top off an expanded HP pool after daily spells like Aid or Heroes’ Feast?
Bruh this is probably the worst rating list for feats I’ve ever seen. You put Mobile and Dual Wielder as 1. Have you never played fighter or rogue lol
I’m not one of the site authors, but I can point you to the comment higher up made by Quetz explaining in-depth why Mobile has the low rating. Dual Wielder as a feat gives you damage and convenience other fighting styles have without a feat, let alone one making use of Crossbow Expert.
You’ve likely missed the Core Tenets of the website. Essentially, these ratings are not designed with ‘I am going to limit myself to this concept, so now how do the feats compare?’ and are instead based on just the most optimal configurations.
So, Mobile, for example; the extra 10ft Speed is not enough to function alone to allow a skirmishing playstyle – we have consider it only for classes already particularly mobile: Monks and Rogues. The problem here is, both are just more optimal to play as ranged builds; so the feat has no niche. In fact, other than straight-classed Paladins, there are no classes that cannot be played as ranged – and Paladins have Find Steed and are not mobile enough otherwise. Furthermore, the optimal Paladins go ranged as well via Warlock multiclassing.
If we limit ourselves to -melee- Rogues and Monks? Sure. However, why would we rate on potentially ever-narrowing self-limitations?
Have you considered that you simply don’t actually understand the mechanics of 5e? Mobile isn’t good; it allows mediocre builds to be functional, but it can’t make them comparable with good builds. As the creators said all over the place, they HAVE played rogue, and rogues are unquestionably – and I mean mathematically – better at range. If you’ve chosen to play a melee rogue, that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t make Mobile a good investment, it just confirms that you’ve decided to make bad investments to play the character you want. Which is fine! But it isn’t optimal, and so criticizing a guide about optimization because your pet-feat is rated poorly (with a detailed explanation why) is bad form.
I think tough is about where it should be but I notice I end up taking it in my games. I find it useful for not dying to Meteor Swarm in these games where my characters reactions are already bloated but in AL I imagine this scenario is much less common
Don’t take Tough. Not even if you already have all your character defining feats and your mainstat is at 20.
If you have or can get 13 CHA, don’t take it because you can get Inspiring Leader instead and that’s basically Tough but for your whole team and repeatable multiple times a day.
If you don’t, don’t take it because you could take Alert instead and use your higher initiative to go first and stop whatever was about to Meteor Swarm you from doing that, which again gives a lot of help to your whole party instead of a little help to only you.
Oh! I also have been using skulker much more. Using the goblins bonus action hide with twilight sanctuary makes it… passible in combat? I’m not sure, will have to play with it more. I think this is more applicable in a game that’s “oops all wizards” but I imagine its still handy in more normal and AL games
I’m surprised bountiful luck isn’t getting a little more love. It’s ok in combat, but I think it really shines outside of combat. Could be just a difference of gaming styles.
I certainly wouldn’t take it before “finishing” my build, but if you got the feat slot, your party will love all the potential big swings it can deliver.
Prodigy is not *technically* strictly worse than skill expert. It does give a tool and a language. So actually, it’s just almost always worse.
You might want to add Silvery Barbs to the Fey Touched feat. Wisdom Casters love that.
Heavily Armored really is a mostly useless feat. I would give it half a star more though because it can be interessting in a fringe amount of builds. E.g. you’re a MAD valour or swords bard, aren’t allowed to MC and want to use strength based weapons to at least deal *some* melee damage. Of course this isn’t a super optimized build but imo still better than the alternative doing ineffectual rapier pokies
don’t suppose you could add a big summary table at the bottom with just the feats and their colours, like you have for the race/lineage guide? would be helpful, thanks
Not as compact, but one option would be to sort the table by rating column.
Hey there. I agree with most of the article, but it leaves me curious about two of the ratings: Dragon Fear and Metamagic Adept.
Dragon Fear has been buffed substantially by the alternate Dragonborn in Fizban’s, essentially turning the Pipes of Haunting into a half-feat – actually, the feat is a fair bit better than the pipes, as it does not offer an automatic save, repeated applications are guaranteed to work properly, and it even has a slowly scaling DC and use number, so… given how much several other articles on this site (rightly!) praise the pipes, I’m more than a bit surprised to see it only given 3 stars.
Then there’s Metamagic Adept. The blurb frankly makes no sense to me (except the tentative recommendation of Subtle Spell, that’s usually my secondary pick). To me, the primary use case of that feat has always been letting my Clerics/ Druids/ Wizards use Extended Spell to circumvent DMs who oppose rest casting (especially with upcast Aid or Tiny Servant, and Foresight end-game), without the need to “dip” 3 levels in Sorcerer.
Thats my two cents on it. I’d love to know what thought processes brought y’all to these two ratings.
I agree.
You can build around dragon fear.
Metamagic adept doesn’t turn you into a sorcerer but is it really worse than eldritch adept? I know it’s not a lot of sorcery points but it represents a fairly large power spike when you really need it.
i was shocked when i saw the rating of mobile, i can agree on crusher being superior to it, but sometimes your enemies are a size larger than you, sometimes you didnt hit at all, sometimes you dont deal bludgening damage, i see it this way, just beacause there is something that is slightly better, does´nt mean you have to rate it bad
Hi, great site and great table. You mention not having an odd number ability score a few times, why? Is it because the max is 20 and improvements are 2 points? But can’t they be split, or combined with a half feat?
Half feats are exactly the reason.
If you have an odd ability score and you pick a half feat that increases it, on that ASI you get both the feat effect and also a +1 increase in your modifier, making it a great value, while if you had an even ability score you’d get only the feat effect (and would set up to get a full bonus on your next ASI, but that would take a while and have the chance to never see play, as the campaign may end before that).
This is one of the reasons it’s good for a full caster to start with 17 on their main ability score, on level 4 they can get both the benefit of a half feat and also taking their score to 18, keeping up with the regular progression.
There’s a minor error in Fey Touched. It says both spells are added to your spell list. It should say both spells can be recast with slots.
There’s an error in the description of Shield Master: “you gain a +2 bonus to Dexterity saves versus effects that only target you, and if you save, you can use your reaction to take no damage”. The second benefit applies to DEX saves for half damage, not to DEX saves targeting only you. Also (minor point), you add your shield bonus to DEX saves targeting only you, not necessarily +2 (you may have a magic shield, for example).
I think it would be helpful to add a “mendoza line” where ASI would be here. at 3 stars? 4? It would be nice for newer folks to get a reference bearing of which feats they could disregard in favor of just investing in ability scores.
I used to think Mobile had a niche for heavy armour characters that dumped strength. But then who would actually fall into that niche? For characters that focus on Dex Medium Armour Master is *strictly* better, albeit niche itself. Wizards have Longstrider. So we’re basically looking at Sorcerers who dipped HA cleric, want to dump both Str AND Dex, and don’t want to play a speedy race, nor a small race so they can get a mule. all for 1 AC; it’s just not worth it.
Hi! Great article and overall really enjoying this site!
I’m just wondering about the classification of the different schools for the Strixhaven Initiate feat. Can you give your reasoning for why these ratings have been chosen?
Many thanks