Talk:Anatomy Expert (5e Feat)

Another neat feat I like. What if the crit multiplier started as soon as you took the feat so threat range is 19-20 on the selected type. I don't see a need for this feat to scale either. Then, instead of a flat +2, the character adds his/her wisdom bonus to the crit damage in addition to str or dex? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2017 (MDT)

Hey changes were made! Sweet :) I do think this will remained tagged until the scaling is removed from it. Just doesn't hit the flavor and I think most would agree it is too strong. If a fighter took this feat, the critical threat range would be "over powered"BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2017 (MDT)

I would remove undead from the types list, as their anatomy is usually irrelevant, particularly with noncorporeal undeal. Marasmusine (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2017 (MD

Added clarification for the few cases in which this feat would overlap with other feats or a few select class features that give similar abilities. In most cases a superfluous addendum, but it allows for proper freedom to create characters. --Meep (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2017 (MST)

adding this additional stuff just creates a way to exploit this feat with outer features or its useless because if I recall right, there's no other core features/traits that increase critical threat range. Either way, your edit muddles the feat, which is balanced. If it overlaps, oh well. Plenty of cases in 5e where something overlaps and you do not get anything extra. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2017 (MST)

First party features and traits that give increased critical range that I know of are Champion Fighters, Hexblade Warlocks, and Oath of Conquest Paladins.

To better suit those classes and as a companion to this feat, for characters that are looking to further their understanding of creatures, I have created the Physiology expert feat --Meep (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2017 (MST)

Man, you really got me. way to go, load the wiki with more variants ;-) ..... BigShotFancyMan (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2017 (MST)

Variant

Rather than change a page to work differently than it’s original idea, creating a variant would be more appropriate or add a variant rule to the page. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2018 (MDT)

Quality Article Nomination

— This article did not become a quality article. Yanied (talk) 10:17, 29 December 2023 (MST)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the QA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

It's not too often you see balanced feats on here. -- User:DevonTheTaylor (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2020 (PDT)

Comment. A Quality Article is more appropriate for a feat. I changed it for you. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:00, 19 October 2020 (MDT)

Much obliged. -- User:DevonTheTaylor (talk) 1:12 PM, 19 October 2020 (PDT)

• Oppose. Honestly does seem like it could be a variant to Ranger's Favored Enemy that's more combat focused rather than exploration focused, only if it gets nerfed a bit from being able to pick two creature types at once, instead of one. The fact that you can also choose this multiple times allows for a total of 10 out of the 11 available creature types to be chosen, which is 7 more than the Ranger class can even get. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lavie (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

• Oppose. This feat doesn't seem to evoke the feelings of being an anatomy expert as the mechanics of the feat don't match its flavor. Beyond that, the features seem bland, feats can't be taken more than once, and pc's mileage for this feat depends heavily on the enemies you face, which isn't too great of a design decision. --Blobby383b (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2021 (MST)

• Oppose. Flavour-wise, the mechanics don't line up with the idea of the feat. If I was shown the mechanical effects of this feat, I wouldn't have thought it was about anatomical knowledge. Granted, hacking up creatures isn't something players (often) do in DnD games, so this being a combat feat does make sense, but the implied logic of "You know a lot about the creatures' organs = you do more damage on criticals" strikes me a bit too gamey. Also, it adding your Wisdom score on criticals, instead of intelligence, seems to be eschewing flavor in favor of making it work for extra angry rangers. It's mechanically sound, but the text/name should be reworked. Even then, I agree it's a bit boring to be a quality article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vladulenta (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.