Weapon-mastery feats: Theory discussion

[Iguanodon]

For context:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/june-2016-dd-survey

In general, I feel like 5e is an elegantly designed game. Due to bounded accuracy, 5e characters remain more versatile throughout their careers compared to earlier editions. Even if specialized into a certain path, a player may attempt other things and still have a fighting chance. For example, a barbarian who dumped charisma can still have a (small) chance at success on a deception roll. IMO, these sorts of moments lead to some of the most fun experiences at the table, and it's great that 5e's mechanics encourage them.

All issues of overpoweredness aside, the weapon-specific feats (GWM, Dual Wielder, Shield Mastery, Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter to a lesser extent) throw all that out the window. By taking one of these feats, a player effectively constrains their options in the long run (fighting styles aren't as problematic since they apply to really broad categories of weapons). Here is an example:

Bob the fighter takes Polearm Master at level 6. Suddenly, Bob is dealing a lot more damage with his glaive and he and his companions are able to take on tougher threats (read: the DM increased the encounter difficulty to keep the game challenging). Before taking PM, a greataxe would have been just as viable damage-wise, and the trade-offs with decreased range might have made for some interesting strategy. Now, none of Bob's other options really compete with polearms. Furthermore, the hit to damage, which would have been negligible before, now makes a huge impact since it isn't accounted for in the DM's encounter planning. Later, when Bob finds a cool magic greataxe, he doesn't use it (and thus a rare magic item has gone to waste).

I can think of two ways to solve this problem:

Disallow weapon-specific feats. For now, this is my favored approach, though obviously there are some grey areas (Crossbow Master and Sharpshooter come to mind).
Make weapon-specific feats that are very flavorful but not as mechanically impactful. WotC seems to be going this route with its new weapon mastery feats in UA, with feats that allow certain weapons to give situational advantages or behave like other weapons rather than just increasing damage; from the survey questions, it's also clear that they are considering our complaints about the +1's.

Thoughts? In the wake of the UA article, I think it's important to discuss this.

TL;DR- Taking weapon-specific feats pigeonholes a player into using that weapon for teh rest of the game, which is antithetical to 5e's premise of versatility.

[jas61292]

For context:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/june-2016-dd-survey

In general, I feel like 5e is an elegantly designed game. Due to bounded accuracy, 5e characters remain more versatile throughout their careers compared to earlier editions. Even if specialized into a certain path, a player may attempt other things and still have a fighting chance. For example, a barbarian who dumped charisma can still have a (small) chance at success on a deception roll. IMO, these sorts of moments lead to some of the most fun experiences at the table, and it's great that 5e's mechanics encourage them.

All issues of overpoweredness aside, the weapon-specific feats (GWM, Dual Wielder, Shield Mastery, Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter to a lesser extent) throw all that out the window. By taking one of these feats, a player effectively constrains their options in the long run (fighting styles aren't as problematic since they apply to really broad categories of weapons). Here is an example:

Bob the fighter takes Polearm Master at level 6. Suddenly, Bob is dealing a lot more damage with his glaive and he and his companions are able to take on tougher threats (read: the DM increased the encounter difficulty to keep the game challenging). Before taking PM, a greataxe would have been just as viable damage-wise, and the trade-offs with decreased range might have made for some interesting strategy. Now, none of Bob's other options really compete with polearms. Furthermore, the hit to damage, which would have been negligible before, now makes a huge impact since it isn't accounted for in the DM's encounter planning. Later, when Bob finds a cool magic greataxe, he doesn't use it (and thus a rare magic item has gone to waste).

I can think of two ways to solve this problem:

Disallow weapon-specific feats. For now, this is my favored approach, though obviously there are some grey areas (Crossbow Master and Sharpshooter come to mind).
Make weapon-specific feats that are very flavorful but not as mechanically impactful. WotC seems to be going this route with its new weapon mastery feats in UA, with feats that allow certain weapons to give situational advantages or behave like other weapons rather than just increasing damage; from the survey questions, it's also clear that they are considering our complaints about the +1's.

Thoughts? In the wake of the UA article, I think it's important to discuss this.

TL;DR- Taking weapon-specific feats pigeonholes a player into using that weapon for teh rest of the game, which is antithetical to 5e's premise of versatility.

Obviously you can attempt to bring in better designed feats that apply to broad ranges of things, and are useful, but not overly powerful. That said, I tend to feel that, in the absence of such things already existing, the best option is simply to disallow the existing feats. They simply do not fit in with the game design principles of 5e, and many of them are arguably highly unbalanced. The game is just better without them.

[R.Shackleford]

5e is really elegant on the caster side.

These feats are band aids for martials, nothing more.

If you play levels 1 - 3 in a martial class you have played levels 1 - 20.

These are character options that could potentially improve the game but what is happening is that it is putting a bigger divide between martials and casters.

Even without all that these feats were poorly executed and looks like 5 different people made feats based off the same principal and they slapped it together (this is an ongoing theme to 5e).

[DeAnno]

For example, a barbarian who dumped charisma can still have a (small) chance at success on a deception roll. IMO, these sorts of moments lead to some of the most fun experiences at the table, and it's great that 5e's mechanics encourage them.

On the other hand, those same mechanics mean it's difficult to really be good at anything, which causes a lot of frustration when you're a wilderness Ranger and take every possible option to be good at that and still end up botching more than half your checks. Outlier events can be funny, but in 5e the deceptive barbarian and clueless Ranger aren't outliers, they're just the way the world works.

And yeah, as some others have said, all the feats being targeted here are for martials, who already have a hard time keeping up with casters, especially at higher levels. The feats may be a band-aid, but if you pull off the band-aid then you have an open wound instead.

[Grod_The_Giant]

TL;DR- Taking weapon-specific feats pigeonholes a player into using that weapon for teh rest of the game, which is antithetical to 5e's premise of versatility.
That's... the entire point of those feats. You're saying "this is who I want to be, I'll be good at it." It's not shoehorning yourself into something, it's defining part of your character. 5e has few enough choices as it is. Don't make characters any blander than you have to. The versatility here is "no one weapon type is any better to focus on"-- remember 3.5 where using anything but a two-handed weapon was a fool's game?-- not "I can pick up and use any weapon." If the DM puts in a magic axe when he knows the player wants to use polearms, that's entirely his fault.

[Iguanodon]

And yeah, as some others have said, all the feats being targeted here are for martials, who already have a hard time keeping up with casters, especially at higher levels. The feats may be a band-aid, but if you pull off the band-aid then you have an open wound instead.

This makes sense. I just think that the way the weapon feats are currently implemented focuses too much on numerical benefits (though this may change soon depending on how WotC handles the new feats from UA).

Remember that feats are an optional rule in 5e. Featless games are a thing and work adequately, but I agree that there is definitely a gap between martials and casters. It's just not the "open wound" that it was in earlier editions.

The gap between casters and martials isn't about DPR--casters will just always have more versatility and utility than martials, due to the nature of spell lists. A good weapon feat, in my opinion, would add a new technique or ability to the weapon to allow it to fill multiple niches at once. I think the shove bonus action from Shield Master is a good example of this. This obviously isn't as impactful as an ASI, so maybe these would be half feats (also increasing Str/Dex as WotC suggests in the survey). This way the party DPR isn't increased to the point that the DM has to rebalance encounters around it.

[SMac8988]

For context:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/june-2016-dd-survey

In general, I feel like 5e is an elegantly designed game. Due to bounded accuracy, 5e characters remain more versatile throughout their careers compared to earlier editions. Even if specialized into a certain path, a player may attempt other things and still have a fighting chance. For example, a barbarian who dumped charisma can still have a (small) chance at success on a deception roll. IMO, these sorts of moments lead to some of the most fun experiences at the table, and it's great that 5e's mechanics encourage them.

All issues of overpoweredness aside, the weapon-specific feats (GWM, Dual Wielder, Shield Mastery, Crossbow Expert, Polearm Master, and Sharpshooter to a lesser extent) throw all that out the window. By taking one of these feats, a player effectively constrains their options in the long run (fighting styles aren't as problematic since they apply to really broad categories of weapons). Here is an example:

Bob the fighter takes Polearm Master at level 6. Suddenly, Bob is dealing a lot more damage with his glaive and he and his companions are able to take on tougher threats (read: the DM increased the encounter difficulty to keep the game challenging). Before taking PM, a greataxe would have been just as viable damage-wise, and the trade-offs with decreased range might have made for some interesting strategy. Now, none of Bob's other options really compete with polearms. Furthermore, the hit to damage, which would have been negligible before, now makes a huge impact since it isn't accounted for in the DM's encounter planning. Later, when Bob finds a cool magic greataxe, he doesn't use it (and thus a rare magic item has gone to waste).

I can think of two ways to solve this problem:

Disallow weapon-specific feats. For now, this is my favored approach, though obviously there are some grey areas (Crossbow Master and Sharpshooter come to mind).
Make weapon-specific feats that are very flavorful but not as mechanically impactful. WotC seems to be going this route with its new weapon mastery feats in UA, with feats that allow certain weapons to give situational advantages or behave like other weapons rather than just increasing damage; from the survey questions, it's also clear that they are considering our complaints about the +1's.

Thoughts? In the wake of the UA article, I think it's important to discuss this.

TL;DR- Taking weapon-specific feats pigeonholes a player into using that weapon for teh rest of the game, which is antithetical to 5e's premise of versatility.

One of my players in a current monthly sessions has PM and was mainly using a glaive, to give him more options I also gave a magic sword with minor life steal, also slowly currutping him from lawful good due to stealing life from another thing is far from good. This makes him consider what is more helpful at that time. I also gave him a good glaive with a throw ability.

I feel these feats due hold character into a certain mindset but it's a matter of the dm giving then options that can sway away from only using one weapon.

[R.Shackleford]

I also feel like knocking a shield aside is way too specific mechanically to be any real use. How many enemies are going to use a shield?

A DM shouldn't have to throw creatures at you specifically so your feats work. Feats can be specific, most of Fell Handed is, but the "knock a shield aside" is almost a ribbon ability due to how few creatures typically have shields.

These feats should also have been a bit... More consistent.

Feat Name
+1 to Str, Dex, or Con (pick two for the feat option)
Special: If you are a full caster you can not take this feat. (You are spending to much time perfecting your magic in order to also perfect your weapon to this degree) MC is *ask your DM*.

Passive Ability:
Bonus Action Ability:
Reaction Ability:

So for spear master

Spear Mastery
+1 Str or Dex
Special: If you are a full caster you can not take this feat.

(Passive) Whenever you wield a spear or trident in two hands the damage die is increased by one. This has no effect on features that already increase the damage die.

(Bonus Action) You may use your bonus action on your turn to increase the reach of a spear or trident by 5'. This effect last until the start of your next turn.

(Reaction) While You are wielding a spear or trident you may make an OA against a creature that has moved at least 20' toward you with the spear or trident. This OA does additional damage (d8 if the spear or trident is used in one hand or d10 if used in 2 hands). This extra damage is piercing.


Why I like this feat

The original spear mastery have a +1 to attack. I don't want to go down that road. I'm not a fan of the ASI v Feat system so I would allow people to improve an ASI and gain a cool ability.

When I first saw the feats my mouth watered on the idea of a cleric having some fun. Then read the initial feats and they were bad BUT it is a straight power boost to clerics and other full casters that don't need power boost. This feat is for martials and partial martials only.

This feat also allows players who don't always have a use of their Bonus Action or Reaction to gain a new use for those. Martials are pushed into the idea that they have to hurry up so that the casters can take their time... I don't like that ideology and think that everyone can have cool and fun abilities. 3e and 4e weren't slow because of martial players no matter how much WotC tries to pawn off that idea.

This feat falls in line with the current ideology of 5e (except for barring casters from something... Oh the humanity!) and I think does it's job well. It is more a bit more polished and brings out the utility more. Setting the spear (or trident) against a charge feels like something that should be a reaction... If a feat can allow me to cast Animal Friendship or Power Word Kill as an OA I think setting a spear to do an OA should be in the realms of possibilities.


Why I don't like this feat

I don't think it is dynamic enough. Yes it is usable "at-will" but this feat is not really doing anything new that a martial couldn't do before (damage). Yes it improves damage but you really don't need to improve damage. The only utility this does is increase your reach which... Sometimes maybe helpful. Maybe.

It screams "I move and attack".

In all honesty this is the type of feature I would expect to see a Fighter Martial Archetype Spear Master, Samurai (they used spears too! Lol), or Master Fisher rather than a feat.

[DeAnno]

Why I don't like this feat

I don't think it is dynamic enough. Yes it is usable "at-will" but this feat is not really doing anything new that a martial couldn't do before (damage). Yes it improves damage but you really don't need to improve damage. The only utility this does is increase your reach which... Sometimes maybe helpful. Maybe.

Dagger Master

You gain +1 to your Dexterity.
You can draw or sheathe daggers without needing to use your object interaction for the turn.
When you take the Dodge action, you can make an attack with a dagger as a reaction against a creature that attacks you, whether it hits or misses.
You can use a dagger as if it was a set of thieves' tools to disarm a trap or open a lock. When you do, apply your proficiency bonus in Thieves' Tools instead of in daggers. Disarming a trap or opening a lock in this way can be done as a bonus action.


Is something like that last ability what you're looking for? It basically lets you open locks and/or disarm traps in combat, or after losing most of your gear.

EDIT: Changed the passive advantage when I realized thrown daggers could be cool.

[BrianDavion]

5e is really elegant on the caster side.

These feats are band aids for martials, nothing more.

If you play levels 1 - 3 in a martial class you have played levels 1 - 20.

These are character options that could potentially improve the game but what is happening is that it is putting a bigger divide between martials and casters.

Even without all that these feats were poorly executed and looks like 5 different people made feats based off the same principal and they slapped it together (this is an ongoing theme to 5e).

remember the stuff in UA is being openly tested so it stands to reason they're alll slightly differant and all have some quirks.

[Lombra]

I don't get why specialization is bad for you. Isn't it natural that a character aims at his favourite play style and enhances it being able to be better than someone that never invested time and effort in that particular argument? Anyone can keep the character eclettic, a fighter that uses S&B, greatswords, bows and halberds will have the versatility advantage over a fighter that voted himself to polearms and wants to capitalize on their power thus differentiating the gameplay among two characters eith the same class.

[BrianDavion]

specialization is sort of a double edged sword as it can also sometimes remove variaty and tactics from the game, just for example, 3.5 had a number of creatures with DR/5 slashing etc. the idea being that when fighting a skelliton a mace would be the best choice. but if my fighter had weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc with a long sword? I'd proably be better off just using my flipping long sword.

[Lombra]

specialization is sort of a double edged sword as it can also sometimes remove variaty and tactics from the game, just for example, 3.5 had a number of creatures with DR/5 slashing etc. the idea being that when fighting a skelliton a mace would be the best choice. but if my fighter had weapon focus, weapon specialization, etc with a long sword? I'd proably be better off just using my flipping long sword.

And that's exactly what is supposed to happen? You focus a character to succeed most of the time with one playstyle. In that particular case a fighter that invested time in specializing with a longsword is very likely to be as effective as any other random guy with a mace.

Edit: even by a roleplay aspect, if I want to play an Indiana Jones character I'm going to stick to whips the whole game and will have to think different when the whip isn't the best choice, specialization doesn't remove dynamic strategies from the game.

[Grod_The_Giant]

specialization is sort of a double edged sword as it can also sometimes remove variaty and tactics from the game
That's the point of these feats- you're choosing to trade a bit of flexibility for a bit of power.

Your point is also undermined by the fact that 5e weapons are essentially identical bar the damage dice. There isn't even a little bit of tactical flexibility to the choice- not unless you factor in feats, which add tactical options.

[JakOfAllTirades]

For context:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/june-2016-dd-survey



TL;DR- Taking weapon-specific feats pigeonholes a player into using that weapon for teh rest of the game, which is antithetical to 5e's premise of versatility.

If being versatile means performing equally poorly at pretty much everything, I'll take specialization, thank you.

And since when is versatility a "premise of 5e" anyway? By 3rd level, every single character picks an archetype within their class, which is (wait for it...) their specialty! Everyone in 5e is a specialist; it's hard-coded into their character progression, even if feats aren't being used.

[LaserFace]

I like to see Fighters who use more than a single weapon, but, I don't see a problem with them wanting to specialize. If I really want to challenge them to not just hit the bad guy with the magic sword, I just have stuff happen in-game.

Maybe the magic sword breaks or gets knocked out of the PC's hands, and into a pit. Or maybe enemies are shooting arrows from horseback. Or maybe magnetic fields make using metal weaponry impossible. Or badguys cast Heat Metal. I dunno, stuff.

The major thing I dislike about the feats is the +1, because it just kinda seems like one of those "duh" feats that now everyone wants to take.

[BurgerBeast]

I have been having a similar discussion with one of player/DMs in my current group. He is on the side of specialization and I’m on the side of generalized capabilities.

My stance is basically this: give it all to the martials. When a fighter levels up, don’t make him choose between two-hander, sword & board, two weapon, duelling, unarmed, or ranged. Just give them the benefit in all styles. Effectively, they’re really only getting one or two benefits, because they can’t use more than one or two at a time anyway.


If the DM puts in a magic axe when he knows the player wants to use polearms, that's entirely his fault.

I totally disagree with this. If my party uses whip, scimitar, glaive, and quarterstaff… then all of a sudden the treasure hoards contain those weapoins instead of longswords, daggers, and battleaxes? I find this to be way too tailored. I’m not here to spoil my players. I’m here to provide a sensible fantasy world.


If being versatile means performing equally poorly at pretty much everything, I'll take specialization, thank you.

This seems like a criticism against poor performance instead of versatility. If versatility means performing well at pretty much everything, then do you prefer it?

To respond the the criticism that seems to be held by some (my friend, and I think some of the things written here also sound similar), that players should be able to specialize to be good at something if they so want: well, I think this is actually a criticism of bounded accuracy. Let me try to explain (below).

If someone’s character concept is to make the “strongest fighter in the land,” then ultimately, the response of the 5e rules is “too bad. Strength is capped at 20. You can devote resources to get 20 strength, but never more unless you make a barbarian and reach level 20.” You might say this isn’t fair because it is preventing a player from achieveing his character concept. But by and large, we accept this limitation because it improves the game. In other words, we let the principle of bounded accuracy override the freedom to create the highest ability score in the land.

If someone’s concept is to create the best “swordsman in the land,” then ultimately, the response of the system is “too bad.” There are some feats you can take to improve your swordsmanship, but ultimately you hit a limit. This is largely the same answer, but now some people are complaining that this limits peoples’ ability to fulfill a character concept. To my eyes, this is the same argument, and the answer is consistent. If you want to open feats at the expense of bounded accuracy, then just open ability scores, too. But I don’t want that.

[Lombra]

I have been having a similar discussion with one of player/DMs in my current group. He is on the side of specialization and I’m on the side of generalized capabilities.

My stance is basically this: give it all to the martials. When a fighter levels up, don’t make him choose between two-hander, sword & board, two weapon, duelling, unarmed, or ranged. Just give them the benefit in all styles. Effectively, they’re really only getting one or two benefits, because they can’t use more than one or two at a time anyway.



I totally disagree with this. If my party uses whip, scimitar, glaive, and quarterstaff… then all of a sudden the treasure hoards contain those weapoins instead of longswords, daggers, and battleaxes? I find this to be way too tailored. I’m not here to spoil my players. I’m here to provide a sensible fantasy world.



This seems like a criticism against poor performance instead of versatility. If versatility means performing well at pretty much everything, then do you prefer it?

To respond the the criticism that seems to be held by some (my friend, and I think some of the things written here also sound similar), that players should be able to specialize to be good at something if they so want: well, I think this is actually a criticism of bounded accuracy. Let me try to explain (below).

If someone’s character concept is to make the “strongest fighter in the land,” then ultimately, the response of the 5e rules is “too bad. Strength is capped at 20. You can devote resources to get 20 strength, but never more unless you make a barbarian and reach level 20.” You might say this isn’t fair because it is preventing a player from achieveing his character concept. But by and large, we accept this limitation because it improves the game. In other words, we let the principle of bounded accuracy override the freedom to create the highest ability score in the land.

If someone’s concept is to create the best “swordsman in the land,” then ultimately, the response of the system is “too bad.” There are some feats you can take to improve your swordsmanship, but ultimately you hit a limit. This is largely the same answer, but now some people are complaining that this limits peoples’ ability to fulfill a character concept. To my eyes, this is the same argument, and the answer is consistent. If you want to open feats at the expense of bounded accuracy, then just open ability scores, too. But I don’t want that.

So... you have a player in the party you are ruling that wants to roleplay as one of the three mosqueteers, therefore he's a swashbuckler-rapier-wielding-light-armored guy, or at least that's how he wants to play his character. During the course of the adventure he finds a treasure chest with a +2 quarterstaff of life stealing and a medium armor of magic resistance which is way better than his silvered rapier and studded leather armor. Now he will feel down because he would have liked to improve his playstyle through better equipement, not only because he invested in light armor master and dueling feat, but because this way he is feeling that his playstyle is not getting rewarded and is not growing. If a player wants to build a specific character with a specific mindset he has to have the opportunity to feel at the same level of the random fighter that adapts picking the equipment with the highest stats.

Obviously as a GM you don't have to feed your players with what they always want because it would become boring, but as a GM you have to understand wishes and styles and reward the players for what and how they want to play.

[Socratov]

I have been having a similar discussion with one of player/DMs in my current group. He is on the side of specialization and I’m on the side of generalized capabilities.

My stance is basically this: give it all to the martials. When a fighter levels up, don’t make him choose between two-hander, sword & board, two weapon, duelling, unarmed, or ranged. Just give them the benefit in all styles. Effectively, they’re really only getting one or two benefits, because they can’t use more than one or two at a time anyway.



I totally disagree with this. If my party uses whip, scimitar, glaive, and quarterstaff… then all of a sudden the treasure hoards contain those weapoins instead of longswords, daggers, and battleaxes? I find this to be way too tailored. I’m not here to spoil my players. I’m here to provide a sensible fantasy world.



This seems like a criticism against poor performance instead of versatility. If versatility means performing well at pretty much everything, then do you prefer it?

To respond the the criticism that seems to be held by some (my friend, and I think some of the things written here also sound similar), that players should be able to specialize to be good at something if they so want: well, I think this is actually a criticism of bounded accuracy. Let me try to explain (below).

If someone’s character concept is to make the “strongest fighter in the land,” then ultimately, the response of the 5e rules is “too bad. Strength is capped at 20. You can devote resources to get 20 strength, but never more unless you make a barbarian and reach level 20.” You might say this isn’t fair because it is preventing a player from achieveing his character concept. But by and large, we accept this limitation because it improves the game. In other words, we let the principle of bounded accuracy override the freedom to create the highest ability score in the land.

If someone’s concept is to create the best “swordsman in the land,” then ultimately, the response of the system is “too bad.” There are some feats you can take to improve your swordsmanship, but ultimately you hit a limit. This is largely the same answer, but now some people are complaining that this limits peoples’ ability to fulfill a character concept. To my eyes, this is the same argument, and the answer is consistent. If you want to open feats at the expense of bounded accuracy, then just open ability scores, too. But I don’t want that.


So... you have a player in the party you are ruling that wants to roleplay as one of the three mosqueteers, therefore he's a swashbuckler-rapier-wielding-light-armored guy, or at least that's how he wants to play his character. During the course of the adventure he finds a treasure chest with a +2 quarterstaff of life stealing and a medium armor of magic resistance which is way better than his silvered rapier and studded leather armor. Now he will feel down because he would have liked to improve his playstyle through better equipement, not only because he invested in light armor master and dueling feat, but because this way he is feeling that his playstyle is not getting rewarded and is not growing. If a player wants to build a specific character with a specific mindset he has to have the opportunity to feel at the same level of the random fighter that adapts picking the equipment with the highest stats.

Obviously as a GM you don't have to feed your players with what they always want because it would become boring, but as a GM you have to understand wishes and styles and reward the players for what and how they want to play.

It's one thing to coddle players with their christmas lists (one extreme), quite another to deny them everything and thrusting the rule of RNGesus through their throats. Teh best way lies somwhere in the middle.

Consider the following points:


what would the party need to be successful in your adventure? if you have them encounter lots of were-beasts, then putting some weapons in their way that complement their playstyle and are effective against were-beasts wouldn't be a stretch. One might even call it sensible storytelling.
is the equipment the party is using of an exotic nature (ice devil spear/minotaur battleaxe/elven thinblades in palces that do not generally feature those races), then yes, such equipment should be rare (on a lucky roll) or non existent. this is to not break suspension of disbelief
is the equipemnt the party is using of a more common nature (axes, greataxes, long/shortsowrds, etc. in their natural environment) and has the party invested resources in its usage (like PAM, HWM, Sharpshooter, etc.) then yes, maybe you should 'help' RNGesus along a bit to stash some more appropriate weapons in the chest behind the monster.


Why? beucase it's fun. Getting items to use is fun, it adds to your effectiveness (more kills/damage/awesomeness!), but it could also add to versatility, be a quest reward in itself, and so on. ultimately it comes down to this gettin gstuff is neat and while you can't expect to get exactly what you want as a player, you should get something you need.

Tl;dr - while the Stones were right that "You can't always get what you want", let's not play Alanis Morisette's 'Ironic' and give a player 1000 spoons when all you need is a fork.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I totally disagree with this. If my party uses whip, scimitar, glaive, and quarterstaff… then all of a sudden the treasure hoards contain those weapoins instead of longswords, daggers, and battleaxes? I find this to be way too tailored. I’m not here to spoil my players. I’m here to provide a sensible fantasy world.
Now, I admit that I may be wrong in what I'm about to say, because I haven't really looked at the 5e loot tables, but.... I was under the impression that magic items in 5e are supposed to be rare, interesting, and special. Something to name and cherish, not discard as soon as something with a higher bonus comes a long. Something with a story attached, as opposed to random loot roll number 738. So... yes, you should tailor the loot to your party-- otherwise it's just "big sack of money." Would you drop... I dunno, a Necklace of Prayer Beads in a party without a divine caster? It doesn't have to be every treasure chest, but one way or anther they should absolutely run across items they can use.


This seems like a criticism against poor performance instead of versatility. If versatility means performing well at pretty much everything, then do you prefer it?
I don't want the +1 to attack, which is both poor and lazy design. I want the "you've specialized in this weapon; here are some extra options for how you can use it" benefits. The game in no way tries to cap options (coughspellcasterscough). "The best swordsman in the land" is absolutely something the system should support because it's a standard fantasy trope that's completely appropriate for the kind of game D&D focuses on. I mean, that probably means a high level as well, but you should be able to take a feat or two as well to define yourself as a swordsman, not just a fighter.

[Joe the Rat]

"If only I had a sword!"
"If only you stopped talking about it!"

The direction of the UA feats - special tricks and advantages with specific weapons - I find a good direction. It's a bit more Crossbow Master than Great Weapon Master in that regard. There's a mix of choice actions (parry reaction), and situational bonuses (better against shields, Damage on a Disadvantaged Miss). What they did here is use a single mechanic type for most of their feats: Action selection, situational bonuses, and Advantage/Disadvantage dice exploits. It's a good way to show off cool ideas, and having Feats that use a specific mechanic are cool. But they need to spread the love. Action/Reaction option, situational benefit, cool mechanic. Disad Damage on a Miss could as easily be given to blademaster as Fell-Handed. Hell, replace the -5/+10 heavy weapon benefit of GWM with the Fell-Handed A/D, and you have a more interesting benefit (smack 'em down!, swing mad and still hit!)

Clearly they are aware the +1 to hit is contentious, given their "+1 to hit or +1 to stat?" question.


On specialization: It should be an option. Being a generalist is an option: Boost your Strength. You get +1 to hit, +1 to damage with all melee weapons. Or boost dex for +1 hit/damage with finesse and ranged, and +1 to a few skills. The proposal here is +1 to hit, and maybe a situational damage boost, and more cool choices with a specific weapon subset (or +1/2 (round down) to hit/damage if you use the +1 stat instead). You might be slightly better with swords or axes or a spear than the other guy, but thanks to the opportunity cost of taking the feat, the other guy is slightly better with everything else. It's a bit Champion vs. Battle Master here.

[Markoff Chainey]

IMO the "+1" to hit sucks big time with bounded accuracy, as does the "-5/+10"

The feats are already optional enough by being a feat... nobody has to take it, there are plenty of other nice options.

I like that the (basic) combat rules are simple and I think the route they took half-way is actually very good - that they introduce weapon-specific rules for maneuvers like disarm or ready a spear and stuff. This way, it makes combat more interesting for combat oriented characters without overpowering others. I am a big fan of the "if both dice rolls would hit" - mechanic and some passive options like increasing the range of a spear or defensive stance, because all that brings more versatility to the quite plain and boring weapon table.

That said, the UA feats are unbalanced, inconsistend as a group and do not match the existing ones. I hope they will also change the old ones from the PHB when the new ones come out in some official place, but I fear they are not open-minded enough to touch the "original material".

And on another note, I think 3 options (active, passive and either bonus action or reaction based one) is enough for a feat, the +1 to a stat is a lazy fix for not giving those options enough power and annoying because you have to build your char from level 1 in a certain way or be punished when you take those feats afterwards.

[djreynolds]

We are playing CoS, and players couldn't make so we had a break. During this break those of us who could make it rolled up 20th level characters. I chose a champion because I really wanted to see just how good the survivor feature was, and how good is defensive duelist.

What I discovered is what Mr R.Shackleford has already said, play a fighter or rogue at levels 1-3 is the same at level 20.

I mean the elf wizard bladesinger is already doing as much damage as the PAM fighter is practically, as is the bladelock... and both are full casters.

And now you want to take away PAM and GWM, or the new spear master, sounds like hogwash.

This is how the game has always run, martials start off strong and casters finish strong. A 4th level caster really needs that big bruising fighter, and that 16th level fighter now really needs the wizard.

Even without feats and multiclassing, a caster is very cool. A fighter and rogue, can be boring.

Its about time, they started coming out with new feats

[jas61292]

We are playing CoS, and players couldn't make so we had a break. During this break those of us who could make it rolled up 20th level characters. I chose a champion because I really wanted to see just how good the survivor feature was, and how good is defensive duelist.

What I discovered is what Mr R.Shackleford has already said, play a fighter or rogue at levels 1-3 is the same at level 20.

I mean the elf wizard bladesinger is already doing as much damage as the PAM fighter is practically, as is the bladelock... and both are full casters.

And now you want to take away PAM and GWM, or the new spear master, sounds like hogwash.

This is how the game has always run, martials start off strong and casters finish strong. A 4th level caster really needs that big bruising fighter, and that 16th level fighter now really needs the wizard.

Even without feats and multiclassing, a caster is very cool. A fighter and rogue, can be boring.

Its about time, they started coming out with new feats

Simple doesn't mean bad. Just cause you are doing nothing new, doesn't mean what you do is not good. And, no, no full caster is approaching the damage of the fighter in melee , at least not without dying a horrible death in the process.

I get that people want more from martial classes, but unbalanced feats are bad for the game, no matter what their power level is compared to something unrelated.

What's even more concerning to me though is that people talk like it's the lack of new options for martials that makes them weak, but then they focus on feats that do nothing but make them better at the one thing they already do. Good feats, like shield master, expand options. Feats like polearm master or great weapon master that do nothing but make you attack more powerfully and/or more often are just badly made.

If you want to fix the "problem," you need to actually address the "problem." Adding power without purpose does nothing to fix the issue, while exacerbating the problem of internal fighting style imbalance.

[N810]

How about Piercing, slashing, and blunt mastery ?
(or blades, axes, and bludgeons) ?

or dagger and buckler mastery ?

or gladiator weapons mastery (tridents, nets, etc..) ?

or exotic weapons mastery ?

you get the idea...

[Vogonjeltz]

Bob the fighter takes Polearm Master at level 6. Suddenly, Bob is dealing a lot more damage with his glaive and he and his companions are able to take on tougher threats (read: the DM increased the encounter difficulty to keep the game challenging).

That's a bad DM right there deliberately screwing up the game balance.

Also, PM doesn't increase damage, it enables another attack. Technically using a Polearm still does less damage than using say, a Greatsword, even with the extra attack, there's also the opportunity cost (the PM could have been GWM or Savage Attacker, both feats which actually do increase the damage dealt).

I'd also challenge the notion that having greater ability with a particular weapon type necessarily prevents the use of other weapons, especially when opponents might disarm the character, requiring the use of backup weapons.

The best option, from the DM's side of things, is not to disallow some feats (if any are allowed, all should be) but to exploit the weaknesses inherent in a character using one weapon to the exclusion of all others. If they don't carry backup weapons, use tactics that punish them for such a lack of foresight.


Clearly they are aware the +1 to hit is contentious, given their "+1 to hit or +1 to stat?" question.

I'm not a fan of the +1 to hit in that it's not particularly interesting (even though it stacks with maximized strength or dexterity); nor do I find it particularly meaningful in regards to the specific weapon type.

I'd much prefer some kind of unusual passive or active feature in keeping with almost all the other combat feats in the game.

Breakdown of feats:

Charger: 2 new bonus actions with passive benefits
Crossbow Expert: 2 passive benefits, 1 new bonus action
Dual Wielder: 3 passive benefits
Grappler: 1 passive benefit, 1 new action (3rd was errated out)
Great Weapon Master: 1 passive benefit (toggle), 1 new bonus action
Mage Slayer: 1 new reaction, 2 passive benefits
Mobile: 3 passive benefits
Mounted Combatant: 2 passive benefits, 1 new non-action option
Polearm Master: 1 new bonus action, new passive benefit
Sentinel: 2 passive benefits, 1 new reaction
Sharpshooter: 3 passive benefits (1 toggle)
Shield Master: 1 new bonus action, 1 new reaction, 1 passive benefit
Skulker: 2 passive benefits, one action enhancement
Spell Sniper: 2 passive benefits, one new option (new cantrip).
Tavern Brawler: 3 passive benefits, 1 new bonus action
War Caster: 2 passive benefits, 1 enhanced reaction

There are some outliers; but in general I wouldn't stray too far from that formula (i.e. re-roll feats like Lucky and Savage Attacker; Lucky has limited uses per day and Savage attacker is limited to once per round, both are the sole feature of the feat).