Banned Feats: Is There an Alternative? And Other Houserules

[RickAllison]

Hi, all!

I'm gearing up to do a new campaign and I realized there are several feats that I don't like based on removal of balancing of mechanics or otherwise having a disproportionate impact. Namely, GWM, PAM, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and Spell Sniper. I'll explain my reasoning for each and I would appreciate feedback on either why I am wrong for those or changes I could make to remove the parts that are deleterious. I think all of these feats have good reason to be there, but that they also take away from other styles, especially TWF.

Sharpshooter: I really don't like this feat. Losing disadvantage at long range gives even more incentive to have groups of ranged people because they can put ridiculous amounts of distance between them and the targets. I'm also not a a fan of the -5/+10. Then, there is the ignoring of cover. I like the cover rules, I think they provide a nice balancing of ranged and melee combat. Throwing those out the window seems to defeat the purpose.

Spell Sniper: If I ban it for martials, it should be banned for casters as well. Unfortunately, no Polearm GFB/BB. Oh well, fair is fair.

Crossbow Expert and PAM: the auto-bonus action attack. This takes away one of the few advantages of TWF, which seems a little strange. Don't really have any complaints besides taking away the unique aspect of TWF.

GWM: This was for the -5/+10, but I'm not sure I really care. This might just go back as-is.

I also want to do something about Frenzy Barbarians and exhaustion, 4element, and BM, but I am still perusing old threads on those. Thoughts?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sharpshooter/Spell Sniper: it sounds like you dislike every part of the feat-- they should go.
Crossbow Expert and PAM: take away the bonus attack and make them half feats?
GMW: Take away the -5/+10 and make it a half feat? Limit it to once/round?
Frenzy Barbarians: Allow them to recover the level of exhaustion after a minute or three.
Monk: Reducing all ki costs by 1 is generally acceptable. You might also add a few more disciplines known.
Beastmaster: Varies wildly by taste; I like treating it like a Chain Pact familiar (independent for everything but attacks). At 7th level let it attack once as a bonus action.

[Shaofoo]

I think maybe you should just do a full ban on all feats for your game if you are wary. Much simpler and supported by the text itself, people are much less likely to complain.

Alternatively, ban V.Human so that feats only come online at 4th level for all. The wonky math says that the feats eventually balance out at higher levels (so I heard).

Also surprised that you don't say anything about Lucky,

[Zman]

You can see what I did with all of hose in my Tweaks.

Sharpshooter: One -5/+10 attack per round, only doubles short range, downgrades and does not ignore cover.

Spell Sniper: Downgrades Cover.

Crossbow Expert: I read it as you can make the bonus action attack, but loading still requires a free hand so it's only once per encounter?

PAM: Changed the bonus attack from d4+Str to d6.

GWM: Just one -5/+10

Lucky: Once per Short Rest


Two Weapon Fighting: If you have extra attack you gain a second offhand attack at 8th level.

[RickAllison]

Sharpshooter/Spell Sniper: it sounds like you dislike every part of the feat-- they should go.
Crossbow Expert and PAM: take away the bonus attack and make them half feats?
GMW: Take away the -5/+10 and make it a half feat? Limit it to once/round?
Frenzy Barbarians: Allow them to recover the level of exhaustion after a minute or three.
Monk: Reducing all ki costs by 1 is generally acceptable. You might also add a few more disciplines known.
Beastmaster: Varies wildly by taste; I like treating it like a Chain Pact familiar (independent for everything but attacks). At 7th level let it attack once as a bonus action.


Wow, I just realized I never noticed the list function in the taskbar :smallbiggrin:

I kinda like that treatment of CE and PAM, lets them take the flavorful and unique part of it without the part I think devalues TWF. GWM I think might work with Zman's tweak of limiting it (and lets the flavor of being a really big weapon shine through!). I also like the subclass recommendations.


I think maybe you should just do a full ban on all feats for your game if you are wary. Much simpler and supported by the text itself, people are much less likely to complain.

Alternatively, ban V.Human so that feats only come online at 4th level for all. The wonky math says that the feats eventually balance out at higher levels (so I heard).

Also surprised that you don't say anything about Lucky,

I'm not sure how I feel about Lucky. I don't have a problem with most feats, and even these were more for specific parts with only Sharpshooter being particularly egregious to me.


You can see what I did with all of hose in my Tweaks.

Sharpshooter: One -5/+10 attack per round, only doubles short range, downgrades and does not ignore cover.

Spell Sniper: Downgrades Cover.

Crossbow Expert: I read it as you can make the bonus action attack, but loading still requires a free hand so it's only once per encounter?

PAM: Changed the bonus attack from d4+Str to d6.

GWM: Just one -5/+10

Lucky: Once per Short Rest


Two Weapon Fighting: If you have extra attack you gain a second offhand attack at 8th level.

When I was thinking about this, your list was actually one of the first things I checked :smallbiggrin:. I don't agree with all of your modifications, but they are great for poaching certain things. I think I might take your modifications for Lucky and GWM, while using Grod's suggestions for PAM and CE.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

My general policy on system tweaks are as follows:
If something looks like a feat tax, err on the side of giving it to everyone as opposed to taking it away. In 4e GMs often baked the +attack feats into the system instead of forcing players to use feat slots on them, for instance. Better yet, 5e already takes on this philosophy with things like the finesse property on weapons.
If a martial feat looks weak relative to other martial feats, it's generally better to improve the weak feat rather than nerfing the strong feat. There are other strong feats out there.
With those in mind, here are my current house rules regarding these feats and related things:

General: Being able to trade off accuracy for damage, a trait normally exclusive to GWM/SS, is instead a property of being proficient in a weapon, and is -[prof]/+[2xprof] instead of -5/+10. This by itself buffs TWF, by the way.
GWF style: For speed of play, the benefit changes to: +2 damage with melee 2h weapons.
GWM/Sharpshooter: Become half feats. Both now seem fitting but not essential, though SS may need more tweaking. Perhaps its existing benefits are good enough for a full feat?
PAM: Applies to spears. The butt strike lacks reach.
TWF: In addition to the other benefits, the feat allows the off-hand attack to be part of the attack action instead of taking a bonus action.
Unchanged: XBX, Spell Sniper (I haven't seen these cause balance issues)

Edit: In particular I'd mention that casters love primary stat boosts more than Spell Sniper, and crossbow users aside from pure fighters tend to be trading off other uses of their bonus action.

[BigONotation]

With those in mind, here are my current house rules regarding these feats and related things:

General: Being able to trade off accuracy for damage, a trait normally exclusive to GWM/SS, is instead a property of being proficient in a weapon, and is -[prof]/+[2xprof] instead of -5/+10. This by itself buffs TWF, by the way.
GWF style: For speed of play, the benefit changes to: +2 damage with melee 2h weapons.
GWM/Sharpshooter: Become half feats. Both now seem fitting but not essential, though SS may need more tweaking. Perhaps its existing benefits are good enough for a full feat?
PAM: Applies to spears. The butt strike lacks reach.
TWF: In addition to the other benefits, the feat allows the off-hand attack to be part of the attack action instead of taking a bonus action.
Unchanged: XBX, Spell Sniper (I haven't seen these cause balance issues)


Love your house rules. Exactly how do you feat GWM/SS. Incidentally I allow full GWM because melee is a huge risk.

[djreynolds]

I think maybe you should just do a full ban on all feats for your game if you are wary. Much simpler and supported by the text itself, people are much less likely to complain.

Alternatively, ban V.Human so that feats only come online at 4th level for all. The wonky math says that the feats eventually balance out at higher levels (so I heard).

Also surprised that you don't say anything about Lucky,

True to that.

Playing without feats is all right. What I missed was gaining resilient con or wisdom.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Love your house rules. Exactly how do you feat GWM/SS. Incidentally I allow full GWM because melee is a huge risk.As of now I remove the -5/+10 from GWM and SS and turn them into half feats (edit: meaning, +1 str and +1 dex respectively), though I'm on the fence about SS still being too good potentially. I find that scaling the power attack/called shot by proficiency is actually better for the PC in a lot of situations and creates a more natural progression throughout the game, but to each his own.

[Giant2005]

This is what I'd recommend:


Sharpshooter: Just copy/paste GWM and have it apply to ranged attacks.
Spell Sniper: Change nothing. You don't hate the ability and only want to punish it to be fair for punishing Shapshooter. With the above change, SS is being compensated appropriately so there is no need to screw over Spell Sniper too.
Crossbow Expert and PAM: Give the bonus action attack disadvantage.
GWM: Don't change anything. If you think you are okay with things, then don't tinker with them - you will only break them.
Frenzy Barbarians: Let them sacrifice 1 of their Rage uses to recover from 1 step of Exhaustion.
Monk: Add +Wismod to their Ki pool.
Beastmaster: Short answer: give the beast more hi points and saving throws. Long answer: check out the Ranger Revised homebrew in my sig.

[ad_hoc]

The easiest thing to do is to just not have those specific feats. You won't damage the game by doing so. You could do away with all feats, but I don't see any reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

That said here are my remade feats for those you listed:

Polearm Master:

• When you are wielding a melee weapon with the heavy, two-handed, and reach properties, other creatures provoke an opportunity attack from you when they enter the reach you have with that weapon.
• If you use the Ready action to attack a creature when it enters your reach and you are wielding a melee weapon with the heavy, two-handed, and reach properties, double the weapon’s damage for that attack.

Great Weapon Master:

The following abilities only apply when you are wielding a melee weapon with the two-handed and heavy properties that does not also have the reach property.
• On your turn, when you score a critical hit or reduce a creature to 0 hit points, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.
• When you hit a creature which is huge or larger, you deal 1d6 additional weapon damage.
• You deal double damage to objects.

Sharpshooter:
• Increase your Dexterity score by 1, to a maximum of 20.
• The short range of all ranged weapons for you is doubled.
• You may spend your action to aim at a creature. Until the end of your next turn, all of your ranged weapon attacks against that creature deal double the weapon’s damage.


Crossbow Expert: Removed.

Edit:

Berserker - I think the main problem is that they don't get a social ability at level 3. Totems get a good exploration ability. Berserkers should get something related to intimidation. Maybe just expertise in it.

4 Elements - This takes a lot of work. There was a rework done that I liked but I don't have the link handy.

Beastmaster - I think they are good powerwise. Their main power comes from the extra hit points the beast adds to the party. That isn't that fun though. I think you need to remove spells to make the beast better. Also, don't just have a rule where their hit points are increased to a floor, while other things aren't. That just encourages people to take beasts that have low hit points.

[Zanthy1]

The only feat I have had issue with is Lucky, but thats mostly because one of my players saw a thread on here a while back and talked it up, and now they all take it. They have not discovered the potential in many of these other feats.

[RickAllison]

The only feat I have had issue with is Lucky, but thats mostly because one of my players saw a thread on here a while back and talked it up, and now they all take it. They have not discovered the potential in many of these other feats.

Since I'm using the extended rests variant (so overnight is a short rest, a week off is a long), Lucky shouldn't be quite so bad.

[rudy]

A change for the Frenzy Barbarian that has worked for me so far (can't provide in-play evidence for the others)

* First, a Frenzy Barbarian should be immune to exhaustion during rages. This means that you can have the fun RP and play mechanic of him being absolutely bone-tired as they creep down the hallway, but then turn into a first-class killing machine once his blood gets going again.

* Second, Exhaustion needs to be a bit easier (but not trivial) to recover. I recommend something like "You can recover three levels of exhaustion gained from your Frenzy ability as if it were one level of exhaustion." I don't recommend making it as simple as a few minutes rest, because that removes a lot of flavor.

[Isidorios]

Hi, all!


Sharpshooter: I really don't like this feat.

The amazing hypocrisy of DMs who found my dis-allowance of multi-classing continues to amaze me.

Also, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Feats as written, either as a concept or measured against one another. I've added Tool, Skill and Kit Expertise feats to my game on top of all the others, without removing a single one of them.

[Isidorios]

The only feat I have had issue with is Lucky

So what exactly is your issue with it?
Yes, it's effective. Yes it will keep low level guys alive. Yes it helps offset cruel RNG.

Which of these things is a problem for you?

[NecroDancer]

I tend to only allow multiclassing and feats if the player has RPed enough for it, for example if a person wants a toughness feat I will only allow it if they have taken a good amount of damage and not died (the damage can be taken in anyway such as sparring with a teammate). This tends to work out because someone is most likely to take a feat if it improves something they have already been doing a lot and it makes overpowered feats like luck hard to get.

[Isidorios]

I tend to only allow multiclassing and feats if the player has RPed enough for it

I am indifferent to how other people rule their own games, apply what rules you like and disallow what rules you don't.
But I find DMs who arbitrarily apply rules based on how individual players make them "feel" about their character especially annoying.
Would not play with.

[RickAllison]

I am indifferent to how other people rule their own games, apply what rules you like and disallow what rules you don't.
But I find DMs who arbitrarily apply rules based on how individual players make them "feel" about their character especially annoying.
Would not play with.

Then if you aren't going to be productive, stop trolling the thread.

[Isidorios]

Then if you aren't going to be productive, stop trolling the thread.

So what exactly is your point in punishing Martial characters by watering down their better Feats? Spellcasters continue to rule the roost in D&D land edition after edition, explain to me your reasoning for tempering the most damaging Martial feats.

The fighter class has two things going for it; multiple attacks and large numbers of Feats. With the exception of the Battlemaster, even the Archetypes add very little to their overall power and versatility. And at the end of the day, the Battlemaster is generally just adding an extra damage dice of RNG to a limited number of attacks.

Is it people combining Feat X with multiclass Y and ending up with overkill Z?
Because you know my solution for that problem. And it isn't thinking that I can balance the RAW rules better than the designers.

[Isidorios]

Thoughts?

To respond to your original Post

Sharpshooter: Hey, stop running all your games in open plains maybe? Start using dungeons rooms? Then if the entire party is archers/ranged attackers, they can enjoy attacking at -5 AND having disadvantage. Cover is rarely a big priority for DMs designing encounters, but the characters who burned a feat to be able to shoot people in cover should be able to effectively shoot people in cover. I've found the -5/+10 to be irrelevant unless you habitually throw 10 AC naked humanoids at parties.

So yes, if your campaign centers around overcoming naked tribal goblins Zulu swarming the dry plains, I could understand this to be a problem. However,l it's noteable that the Mongols conquered half the known world primarily because they were able to fight out in the open with bows on horseback. Did the Mongols require nerfing?

Spell Sniper: "If I weaken the archers, I should also weaken the casters but lol not really because they have far more options that AOE or just involve saves and everything else". What a sad rationale

Crossbow Expert and PAM: You don't even HAVE a rationale for this, you just find it odd that another Feat allows attacking as a bonus action. So? Crossbow masters, Pole Arm masters and Drizz't wannabes all want to flurry attacks on people. So does the Frenzied Berserker, who you want to make BETTER (which I actually agree with). You lack any decent rationale for this at all.

GWM: You don't even have or need a reason to Nerf this, you are just reflexively nerfing Martial Feats on autopilot at this point, or perhaps you've heard bad DMs whining about it on the forums.

Just stop.

[RickAllison]

So what exactly is your point in punishing Martial characters by watering down their better Feats? Spellcasters continue to rule the roost in D&D land edition after edition, explain to me your reasoning for tempering the most damaging Martial feats.

To preserve the use of cover rules so ranged combat (both spell-based and martial) isn't strictly better than melee and to preserve the use of TWF as a useful style instead of giving its unique ability to every other combat style in the game. PAM gives essentially the same benefit as TWF while also allowing a higher base damage weapon for all but the bonus action attack and leaving a hand available for spellcasting. Sharpshooter completely negates one of the disadvantages of ranged combat that is supposed to make up for being able to be out of the thick of danger while also allowing it to surpass the damage of many melee weapons with less of a net penalty due to the fighting style than the great-weapon-users do.

Or you know, you could actually read the OP rather than rushing to flame other posters. That works too.


The fighter class has two things going for it; multiple attacks and large numbers of Feats. With the exception of the Battlemaster, even the Archetypes add very little to their overall power and versatility. And at the end of the day, the Battlemaster is generally just adding an extra damage dice of RNG to a limited number of attacks.

And thus why I am getting input on alternatives so I can preserve the rules I think important to the balance of the game rather than just banning them. Why I stated in the OP that I was already questioning whether the ban on GWM was even necessary because the -5/+10 fits perfectly with being a hard-to-use, but powerful weapon. The discussion goes much smoother if you read rather than accuse and flame.


Is it people combining Feat X with multiclass Y and ending up with overkill Z?
Because you know my solution for that problem. And it isn't thinking that I can balance the RAW rules better than the designers.

No, it is things like archer Fighters being able to deal more damage from significantly further away than the TWF while giving out more attacks. Why engage in melee when they can deal more damage and get as many attacks from far away (and with CE, not even have a penalty for being put into melee)? Barring Paladins, PCs using GFB and BB, or other melee-only options, those feats make archers have the power of two-handers, the speed of TWFers, and arguably a greater defensive capacity than sword-and-board.

This isn't about a multiclass causing issues (they don't), this is about a single class option being so much better than the alternatives that there is little mechanical reason to take the others. If I have an archery Fighter and a TWF Fighter, the archer completely trounces the TWF in DPR and lasts longer. In exchange for being far behind in being a Fighter, the TWF gets to be one feat ahead, yippee, which gets to go to a few more utility options that are certainly nice, but probably not worth being outclassed in every way at what your class is supposed to be best at, fighting.

[MrStabby]

Hi, all!

I'm gearing up to do a new campaign and I realized there are several feats that I don't like based on removal of balancing of mechanics or otherwise having a disproportionate impact. Namely, GWM, PAM, Sharpshooter, Crossbow Expert, and Spell Sniper. I'll explain my reasoning for each and I would appreciate feedback on either why I am wrong for those or changes I could make to remove the parts that are deleterious. I think all of these feats have good reason to be there, but that they also take away from other styles, especially TWF.




Unfortunately the feats you have picked are the feats that allow less magic focused characters to remain as useful as the magic focused characters. If you seriously downgrade these feats I suspect you will have a table full of casters (nothing wrong with that, but some players like playing in a more diverse group).

I think the trouble is you have selected all the first-pick feats for fighters but none of the first pick feats for wizards. Warcaster is disproportionately taken, as are lucky and resilient but none of them make your list. Even spellsniper, as you note, is now taken as much by the more martial classes.

I also back the suggestion that you just play a featless game - it removes the problem feats but will reduce the perception of bias by your players. Of course the fighter class is then a very poor choice but you didn't want anyone to play that class anyway.

[RickAllison]

Unfortunately the feats you have picked are the feats that allow less magic focused characters to remain as useful as the magic focused characters. If you seriously downgrade these feats I suspect you will have a table full of casters (nothing wrong with that, but some players like playing in a more diverse group).

I think the trouble is you have selected all the first-pick feats for fighters but none of the first pick feats for wizards. Warcaster is disproportionately taken, as are lucky and resilient but none of them make your list. Even spellsniper, as you note, is now taken as much by the more martial classes.

I also back the suggestion that you just play a featless game - it removes the problem feats but will reduce the perception of bias by your players. Of course the fighter class is then a very poor choice but you didn't want anyone to play that class anyway.

That's the problem, I do want there to be Fighters, I just want cover to actually matter so ranged combat doesn't dominate, and for TWF to be something that is considered special. Resilient hurts everyone except paladins to ban, Warcaster is one I hadn't thought of, but may be something that has to be looked at. Lucky should not be a great problem for the same reason I'm not as concerned about spellcasters, I am using the longer rest variants so there will be longer periods between long rests that tempers any abilities that rely on recharge at those times.

[Isidorios]

That's the problem, I do want there to be Fighters, I just want cover to actually matter so ranged combat doesn't dominate, and for TWF to be something that is considered special.

Ranged combat doesn't dominate unless you consistently run outdoor encounters with large distances not broken up by full cover. (houses, boulders, whatever). If you run this sort of thing, or gigantic battle-mat sized rooms, then YOU have created the situation where Ranged combat is super-advantageous. Your style of designing encounters is the problem.
My friend's wife plays a HB non-spellcasting Archer Ranger in my campaign, who has advantage on attacks when her opponents have no cover (and a WIS bonus to damage). She's added Sharpshooter at 4th level. And it hasn't broken anything. She's mighty glad when she gets to fight outdoors with a clear shot and kick some ass, and not trying to avoid getting bogged down in tunnel/room fights in dungeons. But such is life.
The shieldmaster/sentinel Champion lives for those close-in shoulder to shoulder battles. Neither of them feel the other is overly powerful, nor do the caster feel there is an issue.

As for TWF, it's been "special" in D&D for way too long now. They've consistently deformed the Ranger class with this need to coddle Drizz't-style gameplay, I barely consider him a Ranger, more like a Fighter with a damn Figurine of Wondrous Power. But that's the Ranger class' particular issue; trying to be everything to everybody.


But really, you come across as either a guy who has real issues with fighters being good; or someone who's never ran a campaign where Casters hit mid-level and really came into their own.

[Isidorios]

, Warcaster is one I hadn't thought of, but may be something that has to be looked at.

"I should definitely fix any Feat players seem to want to take"

My sides are travelling the Astral Plane at this point.
Why do you even allow Feats in the first place????

[Isidorios]

Of course the fighter class is then a very poor choice but you didn't want anyone to play that class anyway.
Eh, actually he becomes the guy with 20 dex/con and str who's looking for Elven chainmail and a book/blessing that raises his stat cap.

[MrStabby]

That's the problem, I do want there to be Fighters, I just want cover to actually matter so ranged combat doesn't dominate, and for TWF to be something that is considered special. Resilient hurts everyone except paladins to ban, Warcaster is one I hadn't thought of, but may be something that has to be looked at. Lucky should not be a great problem for the same reason I'm not as concerned about spellcasters, I am using the longer rest variants so there will be longer periods between long rests that tempers any abilities that rely on recharge at those times.

The problem is that for fighters and extra feat is a level 6 class feature. By diminishing the value of what they can take you are diminishing that class.

Resilient is useful to everyone, but I think it is especially good for casters as it supports concentration.

If your problem is TWF, then maybe that is where you should focus your effort? Saying that the problem is with spells, ranged weapons, two handed weapons and polearms basically only leaves two weapon fighting, unarmed, throwing and sword and shield styles.

As to ranged combat dominating - I haven't seen that in my games, but that may depend on the game style. Most of my encounters are indoors so field of view is limited. Darkness, fog, dust etc. limit visibility further. I haven't had many people running across fields towards the party. At both my tables all the martial players are playing melee focused characters. The only possible exception is the valor bard using a bow. The ability to shove prone or knock back an enemy is preferred to ease of targeting as well as the threat of opportunity attacks; this may not be right but it seems to be the perception at my tables.

[Isidorios]

As to ranged combat dominating - I haven't seen that in my games, but that may depend on the game style.

I keep having this niggling feeling that RickAllison only runs 5e theoretically, and not factually.
It's probably wrong, but I have trouble avoiding that perception.

[RickAllison]

The problem is that for fighters and extra feat is a level 6 class feature. By diminishing the value of what they can take you are diminishing that class.

Resilient is useful to everyone, but I think it is especially good for casters as it supports concentration.

If your problem is TWF, then maybe that is where you should focus your effort? Saying that the problem is with spells, ranged weapons, two handed weapons and polearms basically only leaves two weapon fighting, unarmed, throwing and sword and shield styles.

As to ranged combat dominating - I haven't seen that in my games, but that may depend on the game style. Most of my encounters are indoors so field of view is limited. Darkness, fog, dust etc. limit visibility further. I haven't had many people running across fields towards the party. At both my tables all the martial players are playing melee focused characters. The only possible exception is the valor bard using a bow. The ability to shove prone or knock back an enemy is preferred to ease of targeting as well as the threat of opportunity attacks; this may not be right but it seems to be the perception at my tables.

I run my games as CaW, so while there are not likely to be any open plains they are fighting on, forests, expansive ruins, and other places with lots of movement and lots of cover are a common arena. Unless there are structures that are specifically built for a purpose that fits (like the Tomb of Horrors), conventional dungeons don't feature much. While there are some places that melee will be much more important for (urban warfare, specific rooms in ruins), ranged can have a much greater presence in these more realistic areas. Normally, melee-users could hop from cover to cover and be difficult to hit with ranged attacks. With Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper, not so much.

[Isidorios]

You are specifically running type of game where having Feature X is advantageous.
You dislike (for whatever reason) that players want to use Feature X a lot because you've made it super-effective.
Time to nerf feature X.
Also time to nerf everything vaguely related to feature X.

Here's an idea; stop tailoring your encounters so that they resemble the Battle of Hoth, and people will stop glomming onto Sharpshooter.
Don't punish Martial players by fiddling with their good stuff because you have trouble designing encounters.

[MrStabby]

You are specifically running type of game where having Feature X is advantageous.
You dislike (for whatever reason) that players want to use Feature X a lot because you've made it super-effective.
Time to nerf feature X.
Also time to nerf everything vaguely related to feature X.

Here's an idea; stop tailoring your encounters so that they resemble the Battle of Hoth, and people will stop glomming onto Sharpshooter.
Don't punish Martial players by fiddling with their good stuff because you have trouble designing encounters.

I don't think this can be quite the whole truth. With the GWM and PAM criticism in there as well it isn't just the styles made good by the setting but also those ones that are relatively poor.

[Isidorios]

I don't think this can be quite the whole truth. With the GWM and PAM criticism in there as well it isn't just the styles made good by the setting but also those ones that are relatively poor.

The criticisms of the other feats are half-heartedly thrown in there for their "similarity" to Sharpshooter or just some desire for more two weapon fighters (?)

His main complaint is clearly Sharpshooting, and the fact that his players are kiting his encounters across his generous battlefields.

I've already suggested the clear solution to his "non-problem", which is designing his encounters so they aren't easily solved by shoot-outs, but I'm a big meany-head so he's not going to take that answer, he's intent on ruining the balance between Casters and Martials first.

[RickAllison]

I don't think this can be quite the whole truth. With the GWM and PAM criticism in there as well it isn't just the styles made good by the setting but also those ones that are relatively poor.

I don't think I really have an issue with GWM. It is flavorful and doesn't really take anything away from other styles. My only problem with PAM was the bonus action attack rendering TWF pointless, but I think Grod's suggestion of simply taking away that benefit and making it a half feat would leave it fine. Crossbow Expert has a similar complaint to PAM, with the bonus action together with the lack of disadvantage in melee meaning a hand crossbow-user is functionally equivalent to a TWF in melee (-1 AC and up to +3 damage with no fighting style and the Dual-Wielder feat, -1 AC and -2 damage but +2 to-hit with fighting style), but also being able to disengage and be as good at range. Sharpshooter is the only one that is particularly egregious. Almost as much damage as great weapons (probably made up for with the +2 to-hit from fighting style) and more than any other style, having the potential to go even farther out of range when appropriate (usually isn't, as 150' is about as far as non-open field encounters will go anyway, but devastating when it does work), and getting to negate the defenses that melee-users normally try to block out ranged personnel.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I run my games as CaW, so while there are not likely to be any open plains they are fighting on, forests, expansive ruins, and other places with lots of movement and lots of cover are a common arena. Unless there are structures that are specifically built for a purpose that fits (like the Tomb of Horrors), conventional dungeons don't feature much. While there are some places that melee will be much more important for (urban warfare, specific rooms in ruins), ranged can have a much greater presence in these more realistic areas. Normally, melee-users could hop from cover to cover and be difficult to hit with ranged attacks. With Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper, not so much.In most of the locations you listed, total cover should be an option. Relying on something like half cover generally doesn't cut it anyway. Also, while Sharpshooter obviously benefits from long-range encounters featuring more heavily in your game, Mobile benefits far more.

[Isidorios]

Also, while Sharpshooter obviously benefits from long-range encounters featuring more heavily in your game, Mobile benefits far more.

"Mobile is one I hadn't thought of, but may be something that has to be looked at."- RickAllison

I feel we should start a fundraiser to buy Rick some Dungeon flip mats so he run the game as intended and stop screwing Martials in his open-field adventures.

[MrStabby]

I don't think I really have an issue with GWM. It is flavorful and doesn't really take anything away from other styles. My only problem with PAM was the bonus action attack rendering TWF pointless, but I think Grod's suggestion of simply taking away that benefit and making it a half feat would leave it fine. Crossbow Expert has a similar complaint to PAM, with the bonus action together with the lack of disadvantage in melee meaning a hand crossbow-user is functionally equivalent to a TWF in melee (-1 AC and up to +3 damage with no fighting style and the Dual-Wielder feat, -1 AC and -2 damage but +2 to-hit with fighting style), but also being able to disengage and be as good at range. Sharpshooter is the only one that is particularly egregious. Almost as much damage as great weapons (probably made up for with the +2 to-hit from fighting style) and more than any other style, having the potential to go even farther out of range when appropriate (usually isn't, as 150' is about as far as non-open field encounters will go anyway, but devastating when it does work), and getting to negate the defenses that melee-users normally try to block out ranged personnel.


Sharpshooter aside, if PAM makes TWF pointless, and if Crossbow Expert makes TWF pointless - why not change TWF rather than changing the other two feats?

[Pex]

Everyone talks about feats being overpowered and everyone takes particular ones. With all my experience playing 5E I found:

1) Only one player has taken Sharpshooter, and she doesn't even use it all that much. No one complains when she does and everyone's happy with the contribution of damage she provides for taking out the bad guys.

2) No one has taken Polearm Master

3) No one has taken Great Weapon Master

4) No one has taken Spell Sniper

5) No one has taken Lucky

6) Two players have taken Crossbow Expert but asked the DM first if he's ok with double light hand crossbows and both DMs (I'm one of them.) said ok.

Certainly everyone has their own tastes and I'm not going to say you're playing wrong if colloquial you don't like them, but I will say it is not true that these feats are universally overpowered everyone takes them they make those who don't take them The Suck. If you really, really don't like them, fine, I would just hope you don't like them because of your own particular tastes and not because that's what "everyone" says.

[Isidorios]

Sharpshooter aside, if PAM makes TWF pointless, and if Crossbow Expert makes TWF pointless - why not change TWF rather than changing the other two feats?

Because the attack with the hand crossbow LITERALLY IS two weapon fighting, and the Polearm master feat is only a 1d4 swipe with the butt of a weapon, literally less damage than any offhand weapon that isn't a dagger or knife? Because neither Feat hurts anything, and Rick is simply lost down the rabbit-hole of screwing with RAW because he refuses to run the thing that's literally the first word in the name of the game he's running?

[RickAllison]

Sharpshooter aside, if PAM makes TWF pointless, and if Crossbow Expert makes TWF pointless - why not change TWF rather than changing the other two feats?

Because removing those was the easier answer :smallbiggrin:. No, I'll probably have to figure out a more nuanced solution. Otherwise, we lose out on the drow signature style and a classic maneuver of polearm use.

The best solution I can think of off the top of my head is just adding an attack to the Attack action, but I'm not sure how much that would imbalance the game. I might take Zman's suggestion of giving the bonus action attacks a flat damage die without the bonus from Strength/Dexterity. Would give a dedicated TWFer the edge while leaving those styles intact.

[Isidorios]

Certainly everyone has their own tastes and I'm not going to say you're playing wrong if colloquial you don't like them, but I will say it is not true that these feats are universally overpowered everyone takes them they make those who don't take them The Suck. If you really, really don't like them, fine, I would just hope you don't like them because of you're own particular tastes and not because that's what "everyone" says.

It's at the point where Rick needs to just not use Feats, or just pick them for everybody, either of which would be less effort than trying to "re-balance" them for his game.

I only give him a hard time because he took up the chorus of people admonishing me for not using Multi-Class optional rules and "limiting player freedom" which seems super-ironic given the subject of this thread.

I'm really soaking in the irony here, Rick.

PS I have pop-ups blocked Rick, respond like you have a pair or don't bother PMing me.
I'm interested in the difference between me being a "super-tyrant limiting player options" and you stripping down the bread-and-butter Feats of the Martials.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Everyone talks about feats being overpowered and everyone takes particular ones. With all my experience playing 5E I found:*snip*Out of curiosity, what do people take instead, in your experience?

[Isidorios]

Out of curiosity, what do people take instead, in your experience?

In my game, the Ranger-Archer took Athletics then Sharpshooter, the Travel Domain Cleric took Mobility then Defensive Duelist, the Trickster took Keen Mind and then a Dex boost, the Champion took Sentinel then Shield Master.

Probably my own fault for roleplaying out their backgrounds so extensively, they took Feats to match their background. The ranger grew up working with her father painting cliffside murals, so she took Painter's tools and Athletics to represent her skill at climbing. Probably triggers Munchkin OCD.

[TheUser]

Alright...after reading what you wrote I have to respectfully disagree.
You may think your reasoning is solid but removing feat options to bring things in line with TWF is ridiculous.



Sharpshooter: I really don't like this feat. Losing disadvantage at long range gives even more incentive to have groups of ranged people because they can put ridiculous amounts of distance between them and the targets. I'm also not a a fan of the -5/+10. Then, there is the ignoring of cover. I like the cover rules, I think they provide a nice balancing of ranged and melee combat. Throwing those out the window seems to defeat the purpose.

Warlocks at level 2 can have a 300ft range on their eldritch blast without disadvantage as well as many other casters with long range AoE spells. You shouldn't be crippling your ranged characters against cover because they will literally suck so much harder than melee it won't be funny (not only do they not flank but your own allies can provide cover for enemies against ranged attacks...WTF do you just hate range?)



Spell Sniper: If I ban it for martials, it should be banned for casters as well. Unfortunately, no Polearm GFB/BB. Oh well, fair is fair.

So what about spells that have no attack rolls? You are only forcing your ranged casters to pigeon hole themselves into not using ray attack spells. So casters can still ignore this removal by modifying their spell list but ranged remain screwed. This just makes it so they can't use feats to specialize in their ray attacks.




Crossbow Expert and PAM: the auto-bonus action attack. This takes away one of the few advantages of TWF, which seems a little strange. Don't really have any complaints besides taking away the unique aspect of TWF.

Ok so... if you get the extra attack feature at level 5 you just can't use crossbows if you want two attacks? Or the whole using a long pole-arm to hit someone before they come into melee range (which is the whole niche that the weapon is designed to fill in the first place) is now gone.... Your gripe seems to be with the fact that TWF is being replaced by a feat. The reason that both of these feats have bonus attacks attached to them is to help up their combat value.

TWF exists so that **without feats** you can use a bonus action to attack with your offhand. The Dual Wielder feat removes some of those limitations and allows a character to draw both weapons at once and use their offhand weapon to improve AC.

TWF is a combat style; not a feat. Stop comparing apples to oranges.

Listen to me carefully; Variant Humans are the problem here. They are called optional for a reason. Every group I've played with IRL has disallowed their use because we all know that getting a feat at level 1 is OP AF. Just save yourself the trouble of trying to homebrew a bunch of feat restrictions and just opt out of Human Variant.


4Elements Monk best balance adustment is to make Ki costs = spell level instead of spell level+1

BM ranger is actually great if you make beast attacks on bonus actions and give your ranger the chance to equip barding on their animal companion.

[Isidorios]

Listen to me carefully; Variant Humans are the problem here. They are called optional for a reason. Every group I've played with IRL has disallowed their use because we all know that getting a feat at level 1 is OP AF. Just save yourself the trouble of trying to homebrew a bunch of feat restrictions and just opt out of Human Variant.


Variant Humans are to encourage players to select Halflings/Elves/Dwarves ect out of a desire to roleplay said race, and not just to "optimize" a class with those races specific abilities. Which was a thing through the iterations of the D&D game. Weighted against the various sense, resistances and abilities of the demihumans, they are hardly overpowering, and the fact that Munchkins doing Feat builds use Humans as the first step in their elaborate plans doesn't change this.
And likely Volo's will introduce at least one Race "better" than the ones in the PHP.

Feats are optional for a reason too: they add complexity to a game that inexperienced DMs might not want to deal with right off.

He's creating his own "problems" by setting up primarily outdoor encounters where the party can kite foes. He needs to put the Dungeons back in Dungeons and Dragons.
Rick just needs to stop using Feats altogether until he's better at DMing encounters.

[Socratov]

Everyone talks about feats being overpowered and everyone takes particular ones. With all my experience playing 5E I found:

1) Only one player has taken Sharpshooter, and she doesn't even use it all that much. No one complains when she does and everyone's happy with the contribution of damage she provides for taking out the bad guys. I ahve taken sharpshooter, de powerattack mechnaic often does less good then it tends to do bad in terms of to-hit. In terms of range, well you gotta get indoors sometime and by then range is a moot point anyway. As for the damage, it is offset by a very nasty penalty (-5 to hit in bounded accuracy is pretty bad, especially if combat doesn't take too long and it makes you miss 2 out of 5 rounds: there -40% damage dealing opportunities taken). And then the remainder is cover. it speeds up play, makes discussion of half or 3/4 cover irrelevant unless full cover. And the times it does apply are great since you have taken a feat and you get to use it to not become totally useless as an archer indoors. You still can be disadvantaged on extremely short range though, and speaking from experience, it hurts. Bad.

2) No one has taken Polearm Master nope, too specific in terms of weapons for my taste

3) No one has taken Great Weapon Master less useful then you think. The damage is nice, but unless you can really relaibly hit the enemy on an 8 it gives less damage then you'd think. The moments it hits are glorious and ake for epic battles and good fun, the moments it misses you regret taking the feat in favour of something more useful in more situations like magic initiate

4) No one has taken Spell Sniper This is a really fun feat, not only blahblah, cover is full or GTFO, pewpew. And lots of fun. It adds flavour, more toys, without breaking a character.

5) No one has taken Lucky You know, it applies less often then you'd know. It might be great at some moments, but you are not going to use it that much, hell, I rarely use my halfling's version of lucky, saving it for a rainy day.

6) Two players have taken Crossbow Expert but asked the DM first if he's ok with double light hand crossbows and both DMs (I'm one of them.) said ok. I have not yet had the opportunity to use this feat and while the 3.5 point blank shot is a great addition to the game, I think the getting bonus actionshots off is a bit wonky. but that is just my preference. On the other hand, it's not as if 1d6 twice a round is breaking anything

Certainly everyone has their own tastes and I'm not going to say you're playing wrong if colloquial you don't like them, but I will say it is not true that these feats are universally overpowered everyone takes them they make those who don't take them The Suck. If you really, really don't like them, fine, I would just hope you don't like them because of your own particular tastes and not because that's what "everyone" says.
to add on more anecdotal evidence, my comments in red


On the OPness of ranged combat: there is a reason ranged combat has gotten the preference over melee: instead of killing someone with the enemy in your face (where he can reliably return the pain in your face), you can so while at some distance, taking away at least 1 option for experiencing pain (i.e. punching your face, and it's brother: shanking your kidneys). In dnd there is a great way to deal ranged lots of damage: warlock 2/[other]18: 5 beams of 1d10+abmod, at 600' (no range differentiation), for the price of 2 invocations (paid for by 2 classlevels) and a feat, nevermind the option to take sorc 3 for distant spell (and other metamagic for more funny boosts and quickens). I'd say give the martials their options on outputting damage, they don't have much else, if anything, seek to balance the casters.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Alright...after reading what you wrote I have to respectfully disagree.
You may think your reasoning is solid but removing feat options to bring things in line with TWF is ridiculous.
To be fair, while some people here are being unnecessarily nasty, this is a fair point-- TWF is the most problematic combat style. It requires a class feature to enable, rather than a feat, lags behind in damage, and as you've noted bonus-action attacks are easy to come by. I suggest switching the Fighting Style benefit (+stat to damage) with the Dual Wielder's oversized-weapon option, and note that if you have Extra Attack you can make your off-hand attack as part of the attack option. That should bring it more in line with other things.

You might also look at adding some support for remaining styles. The game offers TWF, _____-and-shield, polearm, heavy weapons (often crossing over with polearms, making them the optimal melee weapon), mounted melee, ranged weapons and crossbows. You might look at adding feats for one-weapon-and-open-hand and throwing styles, at the very least.

Also, I suggest a universal power attack rule, as I think someone else suggested. It helps turn accuracy (Bless, Advantage, many attacks, etc) into extra damage, which is nice, and it decoupling it from feats keeps the game from favoring certain combat styles.


Warlocks at level 2 can have a 300ft range on their eldritch blast without disadvantage as well as many other casters with long range AoE spells. You shouldn't be crippling your ranged characters against cover because they will literally suck so much harder than melee it won't be funny (not only do they not flank but your own allies can provide cover for enemies against ranged attacks...WTF do you just hate range?)
Half Cover is +2 AC. Which, coincidentally, is the same bonus the Archery combat style gives. Dedicated archers essentially do ignore half cover, though in a convoluted way. Could be worth removing Archery Style's attack bonus and replacing it with a more explicit "downgrade cover one step" ability.

Also, to everyone attacking RickAllison-- it's not about weakening the players, which is a stupid accusation to throw around. Keeping cover as a factor is about keeping tactical elements in the game, which ultimately rewards players, and keeping long ranges long helps keep the party from splitting up (hard on the GM) or prevents the archers having several more turns than anyone else (also good for the game as a whole).


So what about spells that have no attack rolls? You are only forcing your ranged casters to pigeon hole themselves into not using ray attack spells. So casters can still ignore this removal by modifying their spell list but ranged remain screwed. This just makes it so they can't use feats to specialize in their ray attacks.
What. The. ****? How does removing a "make option X better" feat force casters to not use that option at all? There's no AoE boosting feat, so does that screw area blasters somehow?


Ok so... if you get the extra attack feature at level 5 you just can't use crossbows if you want two attacks? Or the whole using a long pole-arm to hit someone before they come into melee range (which is the whole niche that the weapon is designed to fill in the first place) is now gone.... Your gripe seems to be with the fact that TWF is being replaced by a feat. The reason that both of these feats have bonus attacks attached to them is to help up their combat value.
Which becomes excessively high, now-- a polearm is a better weapon than a sword even one-on-one and a hand crossbow better than a longbow, because of those bonus attacks. Which can usually benefit from Sharpshooter/GWM, mind, for an excess of damage most other styles can't match.

[Isidorios]

Also, to everyone attacking RickAllison-- it's not about weakening the players, which is a stupid accusation to throw around. Keeping cover as a factor is about keeping tactical elements in the game, which ultimately rewards players, and keeping long ranges long helps keep the party from splitting up (hard on the GM) or prevents the archers having several more turns than anyone else (also good for the game as a whole).
.

Sharpshooter offers the dedicated archer a tactical response to the enemy casters who can ignore cover with AOE or save based spells or options like Magic Missile. Dungeons and dragons is generally not played like a paintball match in an arena (at least in my experience, which I feel is considerable). As for parties "splitting up" or archers taking extra turns, I have to wonder if you and Rick are playing Dungeons and Dragons, or Warhammer Fantasy Battle. While I do have the occasional outdoor skirmish, I don't regularly have setpiece battles where the archer can sit and shoot at enemies on the horizon. Archers can't shoot through a forest, because even if the individual trees don't offer sufficient cover against attacks, you can still only see so far in them.

The deadly archer in my campaign has twice gotten to shoot at enemies at very long range, both times where I set that situation up to really let her shine in combat. In the usual skirmishes she has to try to carefully place herself in corners/beyond allies much like a Wizard, and gets hard pressed when enemies force her into melee.

As for "attacking RickAllison", he's one of the fellows who took umbrage for DAYS on my rejection of multiclassing in my games, because he felt I had a flimsy reason for disallowing the optional rule because it limited players. So I don't have a problem hanging around in HIS thread to enjoy the fact that he's willing to unilaterally strip the RAW rules for a much flimsier reason, which is that he apparently can't stage fights to his satisfaction, and TWF "need to be more special". Neither of which is a decent reason to disempower the favored Martial Feats.


it's not about weakening the players, which is a stupid accusation to throw around..
This is the kind of commentary I take heat for. I don't mind you Grod, and I don't think you are trying to pick anything. But yes, from his perspective it's certainly about weakening the Martials. He's offhandedly deciding to strip off GWF and the other feats that give you options to use your Bonus actions regularly, which are of immense use to Martials who don't get more than two attacks (or really any martials tbh). Which is why I suggested that he drop the optional Feat Rules altogether, rather than tinkering about with them without a clear understanding of how they boost Martial effectiveness in the midgame when things start getting really dangerous.

[imneuromancer]

I would say ban feats and then make sure you give people neat magic items to "balance out" coolness factors. (especially for martial characters, since they disproportionately benefit from feats)

[djreynolds]

For TWF I use two weapon rend, it is an easy fix, manageable and easily tracked. Just use it, if you hit with both weapons, you rend for double proficiency bonus in damage.

SS and GWM and PAM tend to annoy some people. An idea for SS and GWM is make that +10, 1d10 instead. Could work.

PAM is odd, as to me it is a form of TWF, so simply have the PC take the duel wielder feat before he gets the bonus attack from PAM.

These are just ideas.

[Pex]

Out of curiosity, what do people take instead, in your experience?

(Away from book. Please excuse if I get feat names wrong.)

For my Mountain Dwarf maul wielding Paladin I took an ability score boost at 4th level. For 8th level I'm leaning heavily towards Resilient Con since it's at 15 and I need the boost to hit points and Concentration because I'm target a lot. (Not a complaint.) For my Variant Human Sorcerer I took Magic Initiate for Hex and Eldritch Blast for when Fire Bolt won't work.

A Paladin took Heavy Armor Master. Two Sorcerers took Actor. A Cleric has Observant. A Druid has Alert. Others take ability score boosts.

[NecroDancer]

I feel we should start a fundraiser to buy Rick some Dungeon flip mats so he run the game as intended and stop screwing Martials in his open-field adventures.

Sorry I already spent my money pre-ordering Volo's guide to monsters and Sandman Overture

[Isidorios]

I hear ya.
I own all of the Piazo flipmats, plan to use 4 of them this week, even the blank ones are good stuff tho.
Archery amazingly stops becoming an "annoying" issue when you're in an actual dungeon.

Martial feats in general stop being a concern when the party hits 5th level or so, and the spellcasters start kicking incredible ass.
Stuff like GWF and Sharpshooter are what allows the Martials to hang in there and not be reduced to 2e irrelevancy by the casters decimating everything with 3rd-5th level magic.

I suspect people who complain about those feats rarely keep campaigns going into the mid-level, and play a lot of pick-up and rd20 online gamery. Could be wrong tho.

[jas61292]

I know this is not what the intent of the thread originally was, but I see this thread has once again boiled down to "are the combat feats unbalanced." And I always find it hilarious to see certain arguments on both sides that completely miss the point. But to me, the worst are those that try and bring casters into a discussion about martial balance, like these:


So what exactly is your point in punishing Martial characters by watering down their better Feats? Spellcasters continue to rule the roost in D&D land edition after edition....


But really, you come across as either a guy who has real issues with fighters being good; or someone who's never ran a campaign where Casters hit mid-level and really came into their own.


"I should definitely fix any Feat players seem to want to take"


...he's intent on ruining the balance between Casters and Martials first.

(It was not intentional, but I find it funny how these all ended up being from posts by the same person)

Martial characters and Caster characters are very different, and arguably the casters are stronger once you get past low levels. But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of these feats. People try and act like the feats are necessary for martials to keep up, but they do absolutely nothing of the sort. I mean lets look for a second at the situation here. What is it that makes casters "supreme?" Well, one thing is for sure, it is not the damage they do. Martial characters outdamage spellcasters, feats or no. Yes, a caster can nova harder than a martial, but nova's should be the exception, not the rule. If you are able to nova all the time, then your balance problem is the DMs fault, not the games.

No, the thing that casters have over martials is everything else EXCEPT damage. They have better control abilities. They can buff. They can debuff. And they have spells that are actually useful for non-combat scenarios. Their features cover all 3 pillars of the game, while many martials have only one feature (if that) that is ever relevant outside combat. That right there is the biggest imbalance. The ability to circumvent encounters entirely is far stronger than any combat ability.

So what is the point here? These feats buff the only thing that martials don't need buffed. They are pure combat feats, and they don't even expand what they can do in combat. They just take what they are already doing, and let them do it more often, more reliably, or more powerfully. That's great and all, but it does absolutely nothing to affect the power gap between them and casters. You can pour as much extra damage as you want into a martial character and it won't change the fact that casters overshadow them due to their ability in every other aspect of the game.

So, if people don't like the feats because they utterly destroy the internal balance of martial characters, making only a few styles even remotely viable, that is their prerogative. Coming in and telling them they are wrong because casters exist is not only a terrible response, but its also completely missing the point.

Now with that said, personally, I do not allow those specific feats. And that's not just me as a DM, but my group as a whole, regardless of which one of us DMs. I find it is just easier to keep these weapon feats out completely than trying to rework them so that each combat style is relatively balanced. If you can find a homebrew that works, great. But I personally find there is no problem to just not having the feats at all.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No, the thing that casters have over martials is everything else EXCEPT damage. They have better control abilities. They can buff. They can debuff. And they have spells that are actually useful for non-combat scenarios. Their features cover all 3 pillars of the game, while many martials have only one feature (if that) that is ever relevant outside combat. That right there is the biggest imbalance. The ability to circumvent encounters entirely is far stronger than any combat ability.
<applause> more quiet applause

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The argument that comes up in every thread isn't just "casters are better." It's the idea that external balance matters. In this case, you don't even have to mention casters; you can just point out that TWF is the problem as opposed to ranged or polearms, and that a feat like Sharpshooter isn't actually that dominant once it gets compared to non-DPR feats like Mobile, Lucky, and Alert.

Besides that, you might say that martials don't need help in the damage department, and that their "cool feats" should be the ones that expand rather than enhance, but I'm not sure that's entirely true. From my view they really only have a consistent damage advantage with those enhancing feats; otherwise they merely break even... in the one facet where they're supposed to be superior.

And finally, regarding how apparently boring feats like GWM are, there's an argument to be made that most feats should be modifications of existing abilities, if cool and interesting modifications. You don't want the 3.5 problem of needing a feat to do anything with any remote chance of success. Many feats people don't complain about, like Observant and Resilient, "merely" improve existing abilities with little or no frills.

[MrStabby]

Martial characters and Caster characters are very different, and arguably the casters are stronger once you get past low levels. But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of these feats.

there is a difference between something being irrelevant and you not seeing the relevance. If the oportunity cost of playing a caster is giving up whatever abilities a martial character has, then of course it is relevant as it impacts player choice. Th player who thinks "I like damage, but whilst fireball is great I prefer the single target damage that a barbarian can do" is influenced by the balance of damage between fireball and what an attack can do. Simply saying it is irrelevant does not make it so.




People try and act like the feats are necessary for martials to keep up, but they do absolutely nothing of the sort. I mean lets look for a second at the situation here. What is it that makes casters "supreme?" Well, one thing is for sure, it is not the damage they do. Martial characters outdamage spellcasters, feats or no. Yes, a caster can nova harder than a martial, but nova's should be the exception, not the rule. If you are able to nova all the time, then your balance problem is the DMs fault, not the games.

I don't know what you mean by "keep up"? What does that mean in this context? Do you mean have fun? Well it depends on the player. Do you mean be effective at advancing the plot and protecting the party from setbacks? If the latter, then the amount of in combat prowess has to be sufficient to overcome the lack of out of combat power - avoiding encounters through spell is nice but if you can bust through them with equal ease then the abilities are equivalent.



No, the thing that casters have over martials is everything else EXCEPT damage. They have better control abilities. They can buff. They can debuff. And they have spells that are actually useful for non-combat scenarios. Their features cover all 3 pillars of the game, while many martials have only one feature (if that) that is ever relevant outside combat. That right there is the biggest imbalance. The ability to circumvent encounters entirely is far stronger than any combat ability.


I agree that different classes have different strengths, but it is the balance of these different strengths that makes the game fun. I wouldn't expect a great weapon barbarian to be as good at battlefield control as a Monk, for example - but then I wouldn't expect people who wanted battlefield control to play the barbarian as long as the monk's battlefiels control was good enough to warrant the drop in damage.

So what is the point here? These feats buff the only thing that martials don't need buffed. They are pure combat feats, and they don't even expand what they can do in combat. They just take what they are already doing, and let them do it more often, more reliably, or more powerfully. That's great and all, but it does absolutely nothing to affect the power gap between them and casters. You can pour as much extra damage as you want into a martial character and it won't change the fact that casters overshadow them due to their ability in every other aspect of the game.



So, if people don't like the feats because they utterly destroy the internal balance of martial characters, making only a few styles even remotely viable, that is their prerogative. Coming in and telling them they are wrong because casters exist is not only a terrible response, but its also completely missing the point.

This at least I partially agree with. It is fine for people to be upset at the balance between two groups and to not worry about the balance between other groups. As you say, that is their prerogative. On the other hand if someone comes and says "hey, I have some ideas to change the game - what do you think?" then answering "I think many players will find they make the game less fun for the following balance related reasons" is likely to be a pretty useful response to anyone who was actually looking for something more than an echo of their own views.

l

Now with that said, personally, I do not allow those specific feats. And that's not just me as a DM, but my group as a whole, regardless of which one of us DMs. I find it is just easier to keep these weapon feats out completely than trying to rework them so that each combat style is relatively balanced. If you can find a homebrew that works, great. But I personally find there is no problem to just not having the feats at all.

If that works for your table then that's fine. Nothing wrong with reporting that disallowing the feats can keep one table happy. If your priority is balancing combat styles over the balance damage and control, then that is also fine. What isn't fine is to pretend that it is wrong for anyone else to care about this issue and to pretend that everyone at the OP's table will not care about this issue.

[Isidorios]

So what is the point here? These feats buff the only thing that martials don't need buffed. They are pure combat feats, and they don't even expand what they can do in combat. They just take what they are already doing, and let them do it more often, more reliably, or more powerfully. That's great and all, but it does absolutely nothing to affect the power gap between them and casters. You can pour as much extra damage as you want into a martial character and it won't change the fact that casters overshadow them due to their ability in every other aspect of the game.


The very REASON the core ability of the fighter is Extra Attacks/Rapid Attribute-Feat Progression is that they are supposed to be Statting and Feating up to do the things they do very well; absorb attacks (with high AC as opposed to the Barbarian absorbing Hits) and dealing out lots of attacks, preferably with Reaction and/or Bonus attacks piled on top of it. They aren't intended to be sparkling fountains of versatility/utility/board control, they are primarily there to anchor a party with their formidable abilities to absorb punishment encounter after encounter, and dish out worse than they take.

Their very Strengths ARE the thing they need buffed. The reason they are in a party with Stealthy/Observant/Sorcerous/Healing characters is so they don't have to dilute themselves ******* around with Magic Initiate or Observant or whatever.

Are you seriously advocating the terrible sameness that made 4e such trash?

[Talamare]

Everyone talks about feats being overpowered and everyone takes particular ones. With all my experience playing 5E I found:

1) Only one player has taken Sharpshooter, and she doesn't even use it all that much. No one complains when she does and everyone's happy with the contribution of damage she provides for taking out the bad guys.

2) No one has taken Polearm Master

3) No one has taken Great Weapon Master

4) No one has taken Spell Sniper

5) No one has taken Lucky

6) Two players have taken Crossbow Expert but asked the DM first if he's ok with double light hand crossbows and both DMs (I'm one of them.) said ok.

Certainly everyone has their own tastes and I'm not going to say you're playing wrong if colloquial you don't like them, but I will say it is not true that these feats are universally overpowered everyone takes them they make those who don't take them The Suck. If you really, really don't like them, fine, I would just hope you don't like them because of your own particular tastes and not because that's what "everyone" says.

With my experiences, I have found

A few people took GWM and SS, which caused them to destroy everything and make the game boring for the rest of the table

Then the DM had to make the monsters significantly harder to make it more interesting, which caused the weaker members to be pushed out of battles completely

Then the DM heavily reduced the amount of battles, since half the table was absolutely hating battles because of how broken they felt

Most short games most people either ALL use it, or agree that no one uses it

Overall, just Ban them

[jas61292]

The very REASON the core ability of the fighter is Extra Attacks/Rapid Attribute-Feat Progression is that they are supposed to be Statting and Feating up to do the things they do very well; absorb attacks (with high AC as opposed to the Barbarian absorbing Hits) and dealing out lots of attacks, preferably with Reaction and/or Bonus attacks piled on top of it. They aren't intended to be sparkling fountains of versatility/utility/board control, they are primarily there to anchor a party with their formidable abilities to absorb punishment encounter after encounter, and dish out worse than they take.

Their very Strengths ARE the thing they need buffed. The reason they are in a party with Stealthy/Observant/Sorcerous/Healing characters is so they don't have to dilute themselves ******* around with Magic Initiate or Observant or whatever.

Are you seriously advocating the terrible sameness that made 4e such trash?

First off, your quote totally says its from the wrong person somehow, so I almost missed this.

But anyways.... The base fighter in a vanilla game (no feats) already deals out more attacks and more damage than anyone else. Yes, that is what they are made to do. They are also bulky, getting heavy armor and the option of a defensive fighting style. And you are correct that their class features are not designed to be versatile. But where your are wrong is in believing that is not the exact problem that they have.

Indeed, where you are completely wrong is that their lack of versatility somehow justifies the feats. No, their strengths are not what needs to be buffed, because they are weaker than other classes precisely because that is their only strength. It doesn't matter how much you buff it, cause they will still be behind. Like, maybe if you had some completely different argument, this might be a semi-reasonable line of thought. But, no, your argument is laughable, because your entire premise is that fighters are worse than casters, and yet you are advocating for buffing fighters in literally the only way that does not close the gap between them and casters.

The game of D&D has three pillars. Any character that does not have abilities for all three will be worse than a character that does. The weakness of martial characters is their lack of features outside the combat pillar. What you call "diluting themselves" with utility feats, I call "making them viable characters outside a battle simulator." Adding more combat to those best at combat in an attempt to make them on par with versatile characters is an exercise in futility.

And while I have no interest in an edition war, know that I have never once played 4e. I have read about it and seen it played though, and it is not at all what I am talking about here. Just as two characters can be completely different mechanically and still be viable in combat, so can two characters be completely different mechanically and still be viable in the other pillars of the game. Pretending that you need to have classes be carbon copies with different fluff to all be viable outside of combat is just a ridiculous assertion.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

With my experiences, I have found

A few people took GWM and SS, which caused them to destroy everything and make the game boring for the rest of the table

Then the DM had to make the monsters significantly harder to make it more interesting, which caused the weaker members to be pushed out of battles completely

Then the DM heavily reduced the amount of battles, since half the table was absolutely hating battles because of how broken they felt

Most short games most people either ALL use it, or agree that no one uses it

Overall, just Ban themAnd in my experience, people tend to migrate towards full spell casters, and the remaining martials and half-casters take these "broken" feats to try and compensate. But we still don't ban spell casters, because we recognize that the "problem" lies in differences in player skill, as it did (to a far greater extent) in 3.5.

[djreynolds]

First off, my hat's off to Rick. And i mean that.
No one wants to ask these questions. Some feats unbalance the game, or more precisely, some players better understand the game.

For me, the issue I see having played without feats is how powerful static damage is. Such ability modifiers, 20 strength is +5 damage. Stronger than you think, same with saving throws proficiency.

Have your players roll 1d10 is place of +10. Or even 2d4+2. This could work. Without any other changes needed.

Try to have, I know it's an evil word, perquisites for GWM/SS. Just an 18. It will mean most builds cannot have these feats till 8th level. A fighter could have it at 6th.

I once said PAM is basically TWF and got spanked here. Well it is. If you want to get the strength bonus on the off-hand strike, you will need the style. Tell the paladin he can select the style, and the barbarian, oh well he will need to multiclass.

These are ideas. No disrespect intended.

[Socratov]

With my experiences, I have found

A few people took GWM and SS, which caused them to destroy everything and make the game boring for the rest of the table

Then the DM had to make the monsters significantly harder to make it more interesting, which caused the weaker members to be pushed out of battles completely

Then the DM heavily reduced the amount of battles, since half the table was absolutely hating battles because of how broken they felt

Most short games most people either ALL use it, or agree that no one uses it

Overall, just Ban them
I disagree, I have frequently been the only to use such a feat (see my previous post in my thread) and rarely done anything better then the party warlock. I find this very DM dependant and if the DM can't balance the enemies around a party with feats, then stop using feats. Any feat that increases numbers of any kind will break the game since the optional rule will alter the numbers as assumed by the MM. Please remind the DM that they can use tactics too (unless they have int1 or int-), as animals like wolves can hunt intelligently and in packs. If enemies move like sitting bags of blood, gold and xp then yes, the DM is doing it wrong.

And in my experience, people tend to migrate towards full spell casters, and the remaining martials and half-casters take these "broken" feats to try and compensate. But we still don't ban spell casters, because we recognize that the "problem" lies in differences in player skill, as it did (to a far greater extent) in 3.5.
This is the real problem with DnD: less so with this version, and even less with 4e and in a major way the only real problem 3.5 had: caster will dominate from a certain point. Either through having a batman tool belt in terms of spells, or through the sheer power their spells have. And yes, caster can frequently (by spending resources) out damage a evenly levelled martial character. If the caster even needs to resort to the low form of magic that is dealing damage to solve an encounter.

This is a real problem and I think that if you have feats that favour the martial class into giving them a real way to be the best in a certain category it will only make the game more interesting since everyone will have his/her niche.

First off, my hat's off to Rick. And i mean that.
No one wants to ask these questions. Some feats unbalance the game, or more precisely, some players better understand the game.
at the risk of making a straw man, to me this feels like some players are inherently better at creating characters and thus should have less toys. It's like having a kid in class who is really great at math and to make him equal to the rest to take away his calculator privileges. In that case I think a better way to solve the problem is to talk to them about sharing their knowledge and and to have the player tone him-/herself down a bit. Obviously the really broken combo like wish+Simulacrum is a good veto candidate, but other then that it's fine.

For me, the issue I see having played without feats is how powerful static damage is. Such ability modifiers, 20 strength is +5 damage. Stronger than you think, same with saving throws proficiency.
I have lost the links, I have read a couple of threads on the actual benefit of feats versus straight AB.Score increases and a +1 boost to a mod is stronger then you'd think, especially in bounded accuracy. [/quote]
Have your players roll 1d10 is place of +10. Or even 2d4+2. This could work. Without any other changes needed.
[/quote]I still think people think too lightly about the -5 penalty, which is steep in the current system, I'd think that a -prof./+2*prof. is fine, but I think the risk/reward should not go below a factor 2.

Try to have, I know it's an evil word, perquisites for GWM/SS. Just an 18. It will mean most builds cannot have these feats till 8th level. A fighter could have it at 6th.
Or just outlaw Vuman and make 'regular' human worth playing beyond the +1 to all stats and instead make the statboosts float (but capped at +2 to a single stat).

I once said PAM is basically TWF and got spanked here. Well it is. If you want to get the strength bonus on the off-hand strike, you will need the style. Tell the paladin he can select the style, and the barbarian, oh well he will need to multiclass.
Or fix the frenzy archetype's achilles heel

These are ideas. No disrespect intended.
one taken (at least by me) and none intended in return :smallsmile:

[TurboGhast]

I think Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper could be redesigned to not break close range tactical combat by making it require an action to get the second benefit.

Would having this in place of the second benefits of those feats work to both let the feats have an ignore cover type benefit while making cover still meaningful?

New Second Benefit: As an action, you can focus your aim. Until the end of your next turn or when you leave your location (whichever happens first), your ranged attacks you make ignore ½ and ¾ cover.

[imneuromancer]

I think Sharpshooter and Spell Sniper could be redesigned to not break close range tactical combat by making it require an action to get the second benefit.

Would having this in place of the second benefits of those feats work to both let the feats have an ignore cover type benefit while making cover still meaningful?

New Second Benefit: As an action, you can focus your aim. Until the end of your next turn or when you leave your location (whichever happens first), your ranged attacks you make ignore ½ and ¾ cover.

For almost ALL of the benefits, you could work it like Savage Worlds does their Marksman Edge: You get the bonus (basically the Aim maneuver) only if you don't move that round. Basic idea being that if you don't move you can make more accurate shots.

So if you make the feat require that the shooter doesn't move, this may make sense for people.