5
\$\begingroup\$

On again/off again with limited experience (never really ran anything past level 4), but getting back to DMing again after a long break. I never tried to homebrew really, but I wanted to figure out a feat to offer at my table similar to Crossbow Expert or Gunner for spellcasting to negate the penalty for being in melee (I know using spells requiring saves gets around that, but still). Looking around at other ideas, I didn't see anything that has a cool thematic element to it. So what I was thinking of doing was this:

Close-Quarters Caster

Prerequisite: The ability to cast at least one spell

  • Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose disadvantage on your ranged spell attack rolls.

  • If you make a spell attack against a creature within 30 ft, that attack ignores half cover and three-quarters cover.

  • When you cast a spell requiring an attack roll at a target within 30ft., as a bonus action, you may cast a spell with a cast time of 1 action that requires an attack roll with disadvantage at any target(s) within 30ft.

The first two parts seem in line with what similar feats offer and some ideas/posts I saw included those (although I'm a little unsure about the second one as it steps on Spell Sniper a bit), but the last one is what I especially want some feedback on. A 1 point ASI for WIS/INT/CHA or +1 to hit with ranged spell attacks would probably be simpler, but I was hoping to think of something with more flair. I'm not sure if this would be over/underpowered, or if there would be specific interactions with rules, class features, or feats that might be problematic.

Is disadvantage too harsh to make it useful? Is 30ft. too short or not short enough? Should it be limited to cantrips or spells up to a certain level? Should it be limited to ranged spell attack rolls? Should targeting be limited in some way? How would something like this interact with wands? Is it irredeemably overpowered and should be scrapped for a different idea entirely? Is the wording clear and correct? Is the name good?

Any feedback would be appreciated. As I mentioned before, never dipped into homebrewing, so I'm very unfamiliar with balancing this sort of thing. Thanks!

New contributor
Slothful Good is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
\$\endgroup\$
8
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm salivating a little at the idea of being able to cast eldritch blast twice a round, every round, even if half the shots get disadvantage. \$\endgroup\$
    – Carcer
    Nov 24 at 21:26
  • 6
    \$\begingroup\$ @Carcer The Illusionist's Bracers would like to know your location. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 24 at 21:30
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Do you intend the bonus action casting to allow spells of different casting times? How would this work with the existing rule around mixing centripetal and non-cantrip spells in one round? \$\endgroup\$ Nov 25 at 1:02
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Given the existing rule about bonus action casting, you have a kind of weird situation where in order to use the third feature with a non-cantrip spell, you have to first cast a cantrip as an action and then cast the other spell as a bonus action. I think most people would prefer to do these in the opposite order, so they can fire off their big spell first and then use the cantrip to clean up any survivors. \$\endgroup\$ Nov 25 at 3:37
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Please post revisions of the homebrew as a new question instead of editing this one. Editing the current version with revisions invalidates existing answers. We do ask that you wait at least 72 hours before posting revisions though. See How can I ask a good homebrew review question? \$\endgroup\$ 15 hours ago
1
\$\begingroup\$

This feat's first two points seem to work well enough to be balanced, if a bit heavy on the feet of Spell Sniper and Crossbow Expert. With your third point though, that one has a few issues, specifically from Eldritch blast, interactions with cantrip and level spell interactions, and the general damage boost.

Eldritch Blast
Now if you didn't know, Eldritch Blast makes 1-4 attack rolls depending on your level and with taking the Invocation- Antagonizing Blast, allows one to add their Charisma modifier to each individual attack Eldritch Blast makes. Which leads to some crazy numbers even with disadvantage. If you were to have this bonus action make it so you could only get 1 attack roll from it, then you'd avoid a lot of problems down the road. Disallowing Multi-classing would also be a stopgap measure to avoid this.

Spell Interactions
An interesting restriction with casting spells, as found here: Casting multiple spells in a single round is that you casting a cantrip as a bonus action (which is what most folks will use with this), you prevent yourself from using leveled spells with your reaction until your turn ends, which is pretty small window but felt it was relevant to bring up.

General Damage Boost
The other issue here is this is quite the buff to damage being done in a turn even without Eldritch Blast. Essentially, this feat would trade spending 2 sorcery points (for those you have Sorcerer levels) for disadvantage to deal 1-4 (d6/d8/d10) extra damage a turn.

Overall I think you should work on the last bullet to have some kind of restriction, such as only allowing a single attack roll for the bonus action. Cause as it stands, this feat gives a powerful at will bonus action that'd give feat's like Sharpshooter and Polearm Master a run for their money.

A potential other choice could be to have it so instead of allowing a character to get a bonus action spell, you instead make it a bonus action melee weapon attack roll (allowing for unarmed or a weapon type attack) that deals 1d4/d6 of the damage type of a cantrip you know plus has that canrtrips damage rider. Which puts it into a similar spot as Polearm master, but with a twist. Hope this was helpful.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ Between the multiple attacks of Eldritch Blast and cantrip progression in general, devaluing Quicken, messy interactions with casting multiple spells per round, as well as the thought of someone getting advantage to cancel out the disadvantage of the feat, I think I’m set on scrapping that 3rd feature and reworking it. I didn’t even think to look at Polearm Master as a baseline for what feat granted bonus actions can do, but I’ll rework the feature with that in mind. \$\endgroup\$ yesterday

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .