Homebrewed feat for finesse weapons. Overpowered?

[King Lincoln]

I've been reading the threads about finesse
weapons and dual wielding. specifically how underpowered dual wielding becomes later in the game. I was thinking about proposing the following feed at my table, but I worry that it may be too much. I was hoping you experts could tell me what you thought.

"You have mastered the use ofand has been able to vital weaknesses in your opponent's defense. Whether you're seeking themes in your opponent's armor or going for the jugular you or force to be reckoned with. You gain the following benefit:

before making a melee attack with a finesse weapon that you are proficient with, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to your attack roll. if it hits you add + 10 to the attacks damage."

It seems that adding this one feat would Balance the twf and the duelist builds against the gwf in later levels. I am sure I am missing something. I appreciate any imput.

[Giant2005]

That would be a seriously weak feat. You need to give it something else to do in addition.

[Easy_Lee]

If you're interested specifically in TWF, it really needs an overhaul. I made a post over in the homebrew (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?416214-TWF-Overhaul)section to fix the problems I have with TWF, raising its damage to somewhere between dueling and a great weapon rather than above both at level 1-4 and below both past 11.

For finesse weapons, by themselves they're overall fine. If you wanted a feat specific to finesse weapons, besides defensive duelist, I would try to think of what finesse weapons should do. The general formula for these kinds of weapon feats is:

When you take the attack action and attack with a finesse weapon, you may use your bonus action to make a single weapon attack with a finesse weapon you're holding.
One benefit unique to finesse weapons.

That benefit could be whatever you think that it should be, though it should be weaker than a bonus attack. Some ideas:

Opportunity attack when an opponent misses you (riposte-esque).
May increase your range to 10' for one attack each turn (lunging attack).
Just add the bonus action onto defensive duelist if you feel that feat is too weak.
Boost to initiative (finesse weapons are fast).

This probably should be in the homebrew forum.

[King Lincoln]

So not powerful enough and I posted in the wrong place. Gotcha. I like your dual wield proposal. I was trying to make twf balance more with gwf and duelist. I am disappointed that twf suffers so much late in game.
I appreciate the replies. Thank you.

[calebrus]

So now the main benefit of what are widely considered two of the most powerful feats in the game is too weak?
You guys amaze me.

[silveralen]

So now the main benefit of what are widely considered two of the most powerful feats in the game is too weak?
You guys amaze me.

Well, those feats do have other benefits, even if minor ones, so that alone does mean the feat is weaker than other comparable feats.

[Wartex1]

This feat would actually be kind of overpowered, seeing as how that the main reason behind using two-handed weapons is the GWM feat.

This allows you to use a shield as well, so with a slight damage decrease, you can boost AC by anywhere between 2-5.

With bounded accuracy, that's pretty broken.

[Easy_Lee]

This feat would actually be kind of overpowered, seeing as how that the main reason behind using two-handed weapons is the GWM feat.

The -5 / +10 thing is already doable with archery, though, via sharpshooter. You could say that also takes two hands, and you'll hear no complaints from me, but this is not unique to GWM.


So now the main benefit of what are widely considered two of the most powerful feats in the game is too weak?
You guys amaze me.

Last I heard, sentinel, luck, polearm mastery, and crossbow expert were all competing for most powerful. That said, both sharpshooter and GWM do the -5 / +10 thing, plus another (smaller) benefit. It wouldn't be unreasonable to add something small to -5 / +10, or even something large if one feels that this alone is too weak. Personally, I'd just say "you can ignore the light requirement for dual wielding if you wield a dagger in one hand, and doing so grants you +1 AC" and call it good enough.

[Wartex1]

Assuming no fighting styles, which favors one-handed with the Dueling fighting style, each GS hit does 1.5 more points of damage per strike.

That's nowhere near enough to make up for not having a shield, which can change your AC from 18 to 20.

Crossbow Expert isn't very powerful, especially with the new Feats article, with its only saving grace being sneak attacks and Sharpshooter synergy.

[Easy_Lee]

Crossbow Expert isn't very powerful, especially with the new Feats article, with its only saving grace being sneak attacks and Sharpshooter synergy.

Combined with sharpshooter it's the highest ranged damage of any mundane option, according to the charts I've seen. I think that quicken EB spam on a sorcerer/warlock beats it, but not much else.

[MeeposFire]

Assuming no fighting styles, which favors one-handed with the Dueling fighting style, each GS hit does 1.5 more points of damage per strike.

That's nowhere near enough to make up for not having a shield, which can change your AC from 18 to 20.

Crossbow Expert isn't very powerful, especially with the new Feats article, with its only saving grace being sneak attacks and Sharpshooter synergy.

The recent sage article did not change the damage value of crossbow expert. It only removed the ability to use a shield with the hand crossbow thus reducing defense.

If anything it only buffed the damage value of the feat since now it for sure works with only a single hand crossbow and thus means you only need one magic crossbow rather than two to get max damage. This is a slight buff considering there were people saying that the single crossbow explanation was wrong (and now it is the only one that really works at all) and finding a second magic weapon as good as your first could be difficult.

[silveralen]

The recent sage article did not change the damage value of crossbow expert. It only removed the ability to use a shield with the hand crossbow thus reducing defense.

If anything it only buffed the damage value of the feat since now it for sure works with only a single hand crossbow and thus means you only need one magic crossbow rather than two to get max damage. This is a slight buff considering there were people saying that the single crossbow explanation was wrong (and now it is the only one that really works at all) and finding a second magic weapon as good as your first could be difficult.

Yeah, it basically buffed the damage of the style by a decent margin.

[MeeposFire]

Yeah, it basically buffed the damage of the style by a decent margin.

It is a fairly mild buff honestly and may be none what so ever if you were in a game like mine that allowed the use of the single hand crossbow to activate the feat ruling before this came out.

IN my game's case the only thing we would lose is the ability to use shields with the hand crossbow which oddly was not even though up as a debate before. We are just going to ignore that part since the same argument would eliminate what we consider the iconic sling and shield wielding cleric from working.

[langal]

Not sure if twf and finesse need any boost. Dexterity-based fighters should do less damage. They get to dump strength and focus almost entirely on the most important stat in the game.

[HoarsHalberd]

Not sure if twf and finesse need any boost. Dexterity-based fighters should do less damage. They get to dump strength and focus almost entirely on the most important stat in the game.

And they need a feat to have equal AC to plate armour and a feat to use two weapons and twf is worse than duelling for damage at level 20, and is far too close in damage at level 11. 3*(d8+2+5+0.05(d8)) vs 4*(d8+5+0.05(d8)) which is 35.17 vs 38.9, with duelling doing better during action surges.

Duelling gets 3.72 more DPR (assuming everything hits, which obviously it won't.) For the cost of 1 AC, a bonus action, weaker OA's, weaker novas AND a feat slot. Without the dual wielder feat they are actually behind duelling DPR at that level and 2AC behind.

For comparison, greatsword gets 3(2d6+5+1.3+0.05(2d6+1.3)) and hence has 41 DPR, which scales better with crit chance from champion and gets a much better nova from action surge. Or if you want to compare TWF and GWF with feats:

3(d10+5+0.8+0.05(d10+0.8)+(d4+5+0.5+0.05(d4+0.5)) = 42.995
OR
3.14(2d6+1.3+5+0.05(2d6+1.3)) = 43~
Which gives TWF +1 AC vs reach, a much more deadly and reliable OA, +4 DPR and a much more powerful nova round. OR 4 DPR, an assured bonus attack when they kill an enemy and an even more powerful nova round.

[ruy343]

The benefit of finesse weapons is that you are less multi-ability-dependent (MAD) because you can cover many bases at once in melee combat. My concern with this sort of feat is that it further unbalances DEX as a primary ability. DEX also feeds into armor class, and allowing a feat that lets a player to do crazy damage AND have a (relatively) high AC because of their DEX modifier feels broken to me. I've had an entire party skip on STR before because they could do just as well with DEX in combat and carry their stuff with a cart.

Personally, I think that finesse weapon feats should allow other benefits that more accurately fit into the idea of footwork/speed in combat. Think of the Monk: its abilities don't necessarily make it the biggest damage-dealer late in the game but it has utility that represents the character's training and dexterity that make it just as useful as a high-damage-dealing character.The feat should do something to make the character more useful in combat, but not necessarily do more damage.

Here's my suggestion for a finesse weapon feat (intended not to replace defensive duelist or mobile feats):

Fencing Prodigy

You are a prodigy of fast combat, allowing you move around the battlefield in ways that slower oafs can't. You gain the following benefits:

When you take the disengage action while wielding one or two light finesse weapons, you may move 5 feet without provoking attacks of opportunity. Additionally, you may make one weapon attack before of after the move (though you cannot make a second with a second weapon or the Extra Attack feature).
When an enemy within 5 feet of you misses you with a melee attack, you may use your reaction to make one weapon attack against the target.

[coredump]

One of the main balancing issues between finesse and str weapons, I'd that str weapons have better feat support. If you duplicate those fears for finesse.... They are just plain better.

[langal]

The benefit of finesse weapons is that you are less multi-ability-dependent (MAD) because you can cover many bases at once in melee combat. My concern with this sort of feat is that it further unbalances DEX as a primary ability. DEX also feeds into armor class, and allowing a feat that lets a player to do crazy damage AND have a (relatively) high AC because of their DEX modifier feels broken to me. I've had an entire party skip on STR before because they could do just as well with DEX in combat and carry their stuff with a cart.

Personally, I think that finesse weapon feats should allow other benefits that more accurately fit into the idea of footwork/speed in combat. Think of the Monk: its abilities don't necessarily make it the biggest damage-dealer late in the game but it has utility that represents the character's training and dexterity that make it just as useful as a high-damage-dealing character.The feat should do something to make the character more useful in combat, but not necessarily do more damage.

Here's my suggestion for a finesse weapon feat (intended not to replace defensive duelist or mobile feats):

Fencing Prodigy

You are a prodigy of fast combat, allowing you move around the battlefield in ways that slower oafs can't. You gain the following benefits:

When you take the disengage action while wielding one or two light finesse weapons, you may move 5 feet without provoking attacks of opportunity. Additionally, you may make one weapon attack before of after the move (though you cannot make a second with a second weapon or the Extra Attack feature).
When an enemy within 5 feet of you misses you with a melee attack, you may use your reaction to make one weapon attack against the target.


These are a lot better than just adding damage. Like you, I think "warriors" with 8 strength are already too commonplace.

[MeeposFire]

These are a lot better than just adding damage. Like you, I think "warriors" with 8 strength are already too commonplace.

Actually that is something that I miss from AD&D and old D&D which are effective warriors that do not require str. Granted my favorite type was a high int warrior that was effective in 2e AD&D.

So for me I wish there were more ways to do that.

[Wartex1]

Solution to not having a good high INT-fighter.

Factotum/Savant class or Fighter subclass.

[MeeposFire]

Solution to not having a good high INT-fighter.

Factotum/Savant class or Fighter subclass.

That could be a future idea of course though right now it is not supported too well.

[Easy_Lee]

One of the main balancing issues between finesse and str weapons, I'd that str weapons have better feat support. If you duplicate those fears for finesse.... They are just plain better.

Gonna need a citation and some math that actually supports that claim.

There is nothing inherently better about finesse weapons that makes it so that they shouldn't have feat support. After all, the best ranged weapons are already dex-based.

[langal]

Actually that is something that I miss from AD&D and old D&D which are effective warriors that do not require str. Granted my favorite type was a high int warrior that was effective in 2e AD&D.

So for me I wish there were more ways to do that.

AD&D did not have any dex-based bonus to attack for melee. I think it was just not a game that min-maxers and numbers crunchers analyzed as much. I would ideally like a system that did not "penalize" balanced attributes. Sometimes it feels like ppl may just be looking for another reason to completely dump a stat.

[Giant2005]

AD&D did not have any dex-based bonus to attack for melee. I think it was just not a game that min-maxers and numbers crunchers analyzed as much. I would ideally like a system that did not "penalize" balanced attributes. Sometimes it feels like ppl may just be looking for another reason to completely dump a stat.

If you are going Dex-based, then Str is already a dump stat.

[MeeposFire]

AD&D did not have any dex-based bonus to attack for melee. I think it was just not a game that min-maxers and numbers crunchers analyzed as much. I would ideally like a system that did not "penalize" balanced attributes. Sometimes it feels like ppl may just be looking for another reason to completely dump a stat.

Well funny enough those AD&D fighters did not need to have high str to be effective. In fact building for high str was really a trap compared to what you could get from high int, dex, and con. Str was a terrible score to put as your best stat for any character unless you could get an 18/XX score.

Anything less and the other ability scores were better investments. Dex gave bonuses to AC 9great in the early game) and reduced penalties to two weapon fighting. Con of course gave you much better HP. Int gave you bonus prof which could give you great bonuses if you look into the rules enough. Those bonuses were often better than ll but the highest high str scores (and would stack too if you could get a higher str by spell or item). All these ability scores had the advantage of giving nice bonuses earlier than str as well thus letting you have more balanced ability scores and actually get something out of it.


As for you desire to bring back balanced ability scores AD&D did it by mostly making ability scores irrelevant unless you got a high score in something and even then it was often a small bonus (str being the worst offender though it also provided the biggest bonus assuming you could get it high enough).

If you really want more balanced ability scores to be a thing and follow the general guidelines to this edition what you could do is make more ability scores apply to more things such as attack rolls being a combo of str/dex/int etc. In this case you could spend more points and have a higher individual score (which you would balance by giving each ability something that rewards doing that slightly) or spread the points around and since so many basic stats use a bunch of ability scores in concert the combined effort could be as high or higher than the single attribute guy (though he will be weaker in those abilities that are keyed directly to that one ability score).

[Sindeloke]

In 3rd my group and I tried setting all weapons of all kinds to Dex to attack, Str to damage, with the exception of finesse weapons (Int to damage) and crossbows (no attribute, but high base dice). Ultimately it made no difference whatsoever in how everybody built their characters, once we finished adding on morale/enhancement/feat/class feature/circumstance/spell/whatthehellever bonuses. I wonder if it might be worth trying again under bounded accuracy.

I like ruy343's modifications, if only because I hate the -5/+10 thing period, but I'm not sure it meets the "don't just add more damage" criterion. Adding more opportunities to make attacks is essentially adding more damage, albeit in a slightly more dynamic and interesting way than "any time you have advantage just add a free +10."