Dungeons & Dragons 5.1E — Houserules to Revise & Revamp the Game

[thoroughlyS]

I have been playing Dungeons & Dragons for about half of my life, first introduced to the game at the tail end of v3.5. I have been playing 5E since its release, and it is my favorite version of the game. I feel like the rules are simple, elegant, and cohesive... for the most part. But no game is truly perfect, even to an individual, and there are some rules that I feel were suboptimally implemented. Some build options in the game outshine others, leading to an oversaturation in play. Meanwhile, other build options are so underwhelming that they are neglected an are often called for reworks.

In this thread, I present my list of houserules (listed in red) which have the sole purpose of trying to make bad options good, and the best options merely great. In doing so, I hope to allow players at my table a greater breadth of concepts to explore, simply by making everything worth playing. These houserules are also available (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1lz8YhftBnDWTN9ZoR3KqK_5yv1n_iAlV?usp=sharing) as a set of Google Docs and PDFs.


Playing the Game & Feats (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621546-D-amp-D-5-1E-%97-Playing-the-Game-amp-Feats)

Races (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?621547-D-amp-D-5-1E-%97-Races)

Classes
As a rule I have increased the number of spells known for classes which use that system. In fact, I have done so with the express intent that they have access to more spells at once than a spells prepared caster. This is to create a balance between the two methods. One is more versatile in the short term, the other in the long term. To see a class's new number of spells known, check the individual PDF linked in the individual threads or in the docs above.
Barbarian (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629362-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Barbarian)
Bard
Cleric (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629363-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Bard-amp-Cleric)
Fighter (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629696-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Fighter)
Monk (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629698-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Monk)
Paladin (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?629696-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Fighter)
Ranger (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631197-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Ranger)
Rogue (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631198-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Rogue-amp-Wizard)
Sorcerer (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631200-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Sorcerer)
Warlock (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631203-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Warlock)
Wizard (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631198-Dungeons-amp-Dragons-5-1E-%97-Rogue-amp-Wizard)

[thoroughlyS]

Cantrips (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631488-D-amp-D-5-1E-%97-Cantrips)

etc.

[thoroughlyS]

Post moved to new thread.

[thoroughlyS]

Reserved for subclasses, etc.

[MoiMagnus]

My opinion:

Playing the game:
Fully agree on those changes. I'm surprised you didn't include a paragraph to handle the weird exception of unarmed strike. IMO, unarmed strikes should be a special case of improvised weapons, not their own special category.

Feats:
Weapon master: I don't like it, but because of a small detail. I would want the "once per turn" to only apply if you succeed, so something like:
Choose one simple or martial weapon: Before you make an attack while you are wielding the chosen weapon, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage, and you can't use this power again until the beginning of your next round.
Crossbow expert: I really liked the fact that the old feat could be used on homebrew guns. But I understand that you cannot put firearm explicitly in the feat as they are not in the weapon list.
Great Weapon Master: Meh. I feel like there are so many other ways to knock prone targets. Not sure I'd ever chose a non-reach two handed weapon over a shield if that's the effect I get from it. What do you think about adding the choice between knocking prone and pushing 5ft away? (or both?)

I've not read the classes.

[thoroughlyS]

Playing the game:
Fully agree on those changes. I'm surprised you didn't include a paragraph to handle the weird exception of unarmed strike. IMO, unarmed strikes should be a special case of improvised weapons, not their own special category.
I currently don't have any problem with unarmed strikes, but I'd like to hear more about this proposal?

Weapon master: I don't like it, but because of a small detail. I would want the "once per turn" to only apply if you succeed, so something like:
Choose one simple or martial weapon: Before you make an attack while you are wielding the chosen weapon, you can choose to take a -5 penalty to the attack roll. If the attack hits, you add +10 to the attack's damage, and you can't use this power again until the beginning of your next round.
I really like that. I'll make that change now. Upon further thought I have reversed this change because the only difference is that it can cause extra misses.

Crossbow expert: I really liked the fact that the old feat could be used on homebrew guns. But I understand that you cannot put firearm explicitly in the feat as they are not in the weapon list.
That just seems like the kind of rule in a sidebar. Definitely feels like it's campaign specific issue.

Great Weapon Master: Meh. I feel like there are so many other ways to knock prone targets. Not sure I'd ever chose a non-reach two handed weapon over a shield if that's the effect I get from it. What do you think about adding the choice between knocking prone and pushing 5ft away? (or both?)
I'm not against it. Do you thing that makes the feat feel more viable? I feel like knocking prone is kind of the obvious choice here. It also somewhat competes with charger? It is worth mentioning that this feat also works for polearms, just like in the base game. I think the idea there is just that you don't really need as much investment for a greatsword.

[JNAProductions]

Drawing Weapons
Good.

Unseen Attackers
Okay-seems sensible.

TWF
Would like to see it tested, but unlikely to break anything.

Multiple Spells
If I cast Fireball on my turn, I can't cast Shield against an enemy attack. Not sure I like this change-I might make it "You cannot cast more than one leveled spell per turn," not per round.

Somatic
Good change.

Weapon Master
I don't like how it locks you into one weapon-I might make it so you can change which weapon you have selected with, say, practice over a long rest.

Crossbow Expert
Okay, cool.

Defensive Duelist
Might be a little too good on Rogues-they only get one attack anyway, so they can Dodge and Attack without losing much.

Dual Wielder
I think it should be either advantage on AoO or roll both weapons' damage dice. Not both.

GWM
Seems too much of a nerf. It's now not worth taking, in my opinion.

Polearm Master
Seems okay.

Sharpshooter
Okay.

Charger
Still seems a mediocre feat, but okay.

Grappler
The restrain change is good, but completely uncapping the size may elicit raised eyebrows. I like it, but something to keep in mind.

Healer
Okay.

HAM
My preferred change is to make it grant DR equal to your proficiency bonus against bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Also, it needs to include a "to a minimum of zero," to avoid negative damage shenanigans.

Inspiring Leader
Okay.

Keen Mind
Why frightened? Seems an odd choice.

Mage Slayer
Yup, good change.

MAM
Okay, good.

Moderately Armored
Seems fair.

Ritual Caster
Okay.

Savage Attacker
Still probably not worth it, so obviously not broken.

Skilled
Requiring two proficiencies to be traded for one Expertise seems a bit much. What I would do is make it only cost one, but no more than one skill or tool can be upgraded to Expertise per time taken.

Tough
Oki.

Rage
Good change.

Danger Sense
Might make Barbarian too dippable, for that tasty init boost.

Driving Vigor
Oki.

Brutal Critical
Okay.

Feral Instinct
Okay.

Relentless Rage
Powerful... Might be a bit too much so. But not so much that I'd instantly reject it-so I'd say, requires testing.

Punishing Strikes
Okay.

Reckless Assault
Might be a bit too good with a 19-20 crit range AND two extra dice. That's more than a 1/4 chance of a crit every attack.
Cantrips
Oki.

JoAT
Oki.

Song of Rest
Oki.

Countercharm
Oki.

Superior Inspiration
Seems okay-but potent enough that I'd like testing.
Divine Strike
I'd let specific domains choose different damage types (like thunder or lightning from Tempest) but otherwise, okay.

Divine Intervention
Okay.
No content, no comment. :P
Protection
Neat! I like the change!

Extra Attack
Good change.

Fighting Stance
Seems a little quick to switch-but probably won't break anything.

Indomitable
Okay.

Counterstrikes
Okay.

Peerless Combatant
Okay.
Martial Arts
Not sure they need better damage. The second change is good, though.

Ki
Okay.

Step Of The Wind
Okay.

Unarmored Movement
Feels a little good, but not so much I'd reject it.

Stunning Strike
Little iffy on this, but okay.

Diamond Soul
Makes PalaMonks a lot stronger, since they can get gonzo saves at level 15 and still get the second Paladin Aura.

Abundant Step
Okay.

Decisive Strike
Okay.

Ki Sense
Okay.

Empty Body
Okay.

Perfect Self
This feels WAY too strong. You get Stunning Strike, Flurry Of Blows, the Diamond Soul save reroll, Step of the Wind, Ki Sense... All for free!
Aura Of Protection
I get why you felt the need to nerf this, but I don't agree with it. especially considering you're buffing all other classes, far as I can see.

Aura Of Courage
Okay.
Favored Enemy
Okay.

Land's Stride
Okay.

Natural Explorer
Okay.

Ritual Casting
Good.

Conclave Spells
Good.

Primeval Awareness
Okay, good.

Greater Favored Enemy
No. Full stop, no. If you face a common type of enemy, that's advantage on all saves. No.

Vanish
Okay.

HiPS
Okay.

Foe Slayer
Okay.

Rugged Endurance
Okay.

Feral Senses
Feels a little too good. Blindsense might be better.

Master Of Ambush
The ability to stay permanently hidden feels too good. I think just letting it last one turn would be enough.
Blindsense
Probably too good with the "no disadvantage" clause.

Slippery Mind
Good.

Stroke Of Luck
Every short rest feels a little much.
Casting
Okay. Is neat.

Font Of Magic
Imbue is fine. Unbound might be too much.

Metamagic
More choices is fine.
Careful, good.
Elemental, good.
Enduring, okay.
Extended might be too good on one minute spells. I might make it one minute to ten, ten to an hour, hour gets doubled to a cap of 24.
Seeking, okay.

Virtuoso
Feels like you have too much going on.
Cantrips
Okay.

Invocations
Makes warlocks even more dippable.

Chain
Okay.

Blade
Okay.

Mystic Arcanum
Okay.

Eldritch Master
Okay.
Arcane Recovery
So fixing a typo? I didn't even realize it was there. In other words, absolutely fine.

Spell Mastery
Big nerf. But I guess okay?

Signature Spells
Yeah, that feels like a more appropriate capstone.

Overall! You definitely put a LOT of work into this. And it shows!

I would say that, by and large, it's good. There are some nitpicks and whatnot, but I do like it.

[thoroughlyS]

Multiple Spells
If I cast Fireball on my turn, I can't cast Shield against an enemy attack. Not sure I like this change-I might make it "You cannot cast more than one leveled spell per turn," not per round.
It is actually once per turn. I understand it's a little confusing because I say "until the start of the next turn" which sounds a lot like "until the start of your next turn". I just thought "until the end of the turn" wasn't quite appropriate.




Defensive Duelist
Might be a little too good on Rogues-they only get one attack anyway, so they can Dodge and Attack without losing much.
This applies almost exclusively to melee rogues, who I feel have less going for them. I don't disagree with your point, but I think some context helps here. Do you have any suggestions?

Dual Wielder
I think it should be either advantage on AoO or roll both weapons' damage dice. Not both.
I think it bears mentioning that the first two points are still worse than just bumping Dex. I think this feat needed some oomph, because it really had nothing. Adding the damage die basically brings your opportunity attacks up to par with a two-handed weapon wielder, so it wouldn't really be an advantage. The bonus to hit chance seems like a real benefit.

GWM
Seems too much of a nerf. It's now not worth taking, in my opinion.
This seems to be a common opinion. I am kind of at a loss here for a third benefit. Any suggestions?

HAM
My preferred change is to make it grant DR equal to your proficiency bonus against bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. Also, it needs to include a "to a minimum of zero," to avoid negative damage shenanigans.
The negative damage thing is directly addressed in the books ("Damage Rolls", Player's Handbook p.196). That aside, your change doesn't fix the problem that it starts too strong (if taken at 1st via Variant Human), and drops off fast. With your change it only becomes worthwhile if you get hit more than once. My change makes it worthwhile as long as your get hit once.

Keen Mind
Why frightened? Seems an odd choice.
If I'm honest, it is really just to cover my bases, because this is such a lackluster feat to begin with.

Skilled
Requiring two proficiencies to be traded for one Expertise seems a bit much. What I would do is make it only cost one, but no more than one skill or tool can be upgraded to Expertise per time taken.
I really think Expertise shouldn't just be handed out so commonly. I have only addressed the Player's Handbook in this post (with the exception of Hexblade because it warps the game that much), but I also dislike Prodigy.




Danger Sense
Might make Barbarian too dippable, for that tasty init boost.
This used to be the barbarian's thing, and the fact that they get outclassed at it know is a tragedy. I agree that this is good, but I don't think this will result in a slew of Barbarian 2 dips.

Reckless Assault
Might be a bit too good with a 19-20 crit range AND two extra dice. That's more than a 1/4 chance of a crit every attack.
This is a Tier 4 feature, which needs to compete with fighters getting a fourth attack at the same level. An extra 13 damage every other turn seems reasonable, when a fighter has a better than 50% chance to deal 13.33 damage every turn.

Superior Inspiration
Seems okay-but potent enough that I'd like testing.
My one defense is that I want capstones to feel really worth taking 20 straight levels in one class.

Martial Arts
Not sure they need better damage. The second change is good, though.
At high levels their damage really suffers, which I wanted to change. I'm not sure how clear it is, but I don't want monks to think they are supposed to be using Flurry of Blows every turn. In my mind the standard procedure should be: move in, punch (stun attempt), punch (stun attempt), punch, move out. This plan only spends 2 ki points a turn. Flurry is supposed to be an expensive way to up your damage for fights where stunning isn't helpful.

Diamond Soul
Makes PalaMonks a lot stronger, since they can get gonzo saves at level 15 and still get the second Paladin Aura.
I believe this interaction is addressed by the change to Aura of Protection.

Perfect Self
This feels WAY too strong. You get Stunning Strike, Flurry Of Blows, the Diamond Soul save reroll, Step of the Wind, Ki Sense... All for free!
Maybe I went a little overboard with this capstone? What would you suggest to bring it back down?

Aura Of Protection
I get why you felt the need to nerf this, but I don't agree with it. especially considering you're buffing all other classes, far as I can see.
I knew this was going to be contentious, because you're right that I buff basically every other class, but nerf paladins (except for their capstones, which are not explained in this post). However this feature stomps on bounded accuracy even more than Expertise. I love that it buffs bad saves, but it goes too far making good saves even better.

Greater Favored Enemy
No. Full stop, no. If you face a common type of enemy, that's advantage on all saves. No.
Wow, I'm surprised at such a strong reaction. I took this directly from the Revised Ranger, because it didn't seem all that wild to me. The main time I see this being a problem would be in a campaign like Curse of Strahd or Storm King's Thunder. Do you have an alternative, or do you think this should just be made into a second favored enemy?

Feral Senses
Feels a little too good. Blindsense might be better.
Blindsense isn't a thing. Unless you mean giving them the rogue's 14th level feature? I just cribbed this from Treantmonk. It basically does the same thing as the printed feature, just cleaner.

Master Of Ambush
The ability to stay permanently hidden feels too good. I think just letting it last one turn would be enough.
I can see that.

Blindsense
Probably too good with the "no disadvantage" clause.
I'm not really seeing it. The number creatures that actually turn invisible is pretty low.

Stroke Of Luck
Every short rest feels a little much.
This feels comparable to the new fighter capstone, considering they both let you do a handful of things which together make you feel powerful.

Font Of Magic
Imbue is fine. Unbound might be too much.
I don't really think of Subtle Spell as being one of the best Metamagic options the sorcerer had access to. And this gives them something to do with sorcery points at 2nd level.

Extended might be too good on one minute spells. I might make it one minute to ten, ten to an hour, hour gets doubled to a cap of 24.
I can see the concern, but I'd like to stress test this version first if I could.

Virtuoso
Feels like you have too much going on.
It is very wordy, I agree. It has a bunch of small boosts that amount to doing metamagic better than before. But do you think it's too powerful?

Invocations
Makes warlocks even more dippable.
To address that, I locked a bunch of the invocations behind 3rd level (or potentially higher). I honestly don't think the options that you have to choose from now make this any more tempting than a level of cleric.

Spell Mastery
Big nerf. But I guess okay?
I mostly just wanted to boost the wizard's versatility in the late game. Can you suggest a better approach to that?

In general it seems you thought my changes to the capstone features were too strong. After seeing them all side by side, do you feel like they have an equal share of power? And do you feel like the level I've given to them is appropriate at the last stages of the game?

[JNAProductions]

Spells
Ah, garch.

Defensive Duelist
Not sure on DD. Though notably, you say you want to cut down on feats that are great T1 and worse later on-this feat fits that to a t, given that no one has multiple attacks at levels 1-4 except TWF.

Dual Wielder
Fair.

GWM
Not sure.

HAM
Eh... Still not a big fan. I kinda like that it's not as impactful against one big attack, but better against many small ones.

Keen Mind
I guess. I'd still like to see something else.

Skilled
To each their own.

Paladin Auras
The thing is, is high defense BAD? It makes the game less rocket taggy, it means players get to play more, and they feel like badasses. I don't see anything wrong with high saves, if you cluster by your Paladin friend.

Greater Favored Enemy
I'm against Favored Enemy in general, since it typically goes from too good (only Favored foes) or not good enough (the opposite). But yeah, advantage on saves is too good to be handed out like that.

[NigelWalmsley]

It is actually once per turn. I understand it's a little confusing because I say "until the start of the next turn" which sounds a lot like "until the start of your next turn". I just thought "until the end of the turn" wasn't quite appropriate.

"You can't cast more spells until the end of your turn" or "you can't cast more spells during your current turn" seem fine to me, and avoid the ambiguity with what you have.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Duplicated point.

[JNAProductions]

Duplicated point.

The next turn, not your next turn.

So it's one leveled spell per TURN, not round.

I made the same reading error, so it's definitely something that should be cleaned up, but the actual rule is fine.

[thoroughlyS]

"You can't cast more spells until the end of your turn" or "you can't cast more spells during your current turn" seem fine to me, and avoid the ambiguity with what you have.
Alright, this is clearly an issue. I changed the wording to match Multiattack Defense, of all things.

Defensive Duelist
Not sure on DD. Though notably, you say you want to cut down on feats that are great T1 and worse later on-this feat fits that to a t, given that no one has multiple attacks at levels 1-4 except TWF.
I have a rather drastic change to Variant Humans that fixes that problem. I only allow them to choose half feats. This doesn't stop them from taking Heavy Armor Master (which is why I try to smooth the progression), but it does mean that they can't abuse this feat. With that change they have to give up a +2 to their main stat to get a major benefit for a single level.

GWM
Not sure.
This also seems to be a change that people aren't super enthused about. I'd like to make this an appealing option, without making it feel mandatory.

Paladin Auras
The thing is, is high defense BAD? It makes the game less rocket taggy, it means players get to play more, and they feel like badasses. I don't see anything wrong with high saves, if you cluster by your Paladin friend.
I don't like how this raises the ceiling of saves. I want this to bring bad people up, not raise good people higher. Not across the board as a constant effect.

Greater Favored Enemy
I'm against Favored Enemy in general, since it typically goes from too good (only Favored foes) or not good enough (the opposite). But yeah, advantage on saves is too good to be handed out like that.
I believe the official favored enemy is a fun ribbon with some history to it. I liked the theme the Revised Ranger added, which made it feel like your ranger could "handle" bigger threats. As long as I can provide that flavor, I'm okay with bumping this down.

[Yakk]

Critique:
* You need to decide pubicly, up front, how good feats should be. If you tweak on a feat by feat basis you won't be anywhere near a mark.

Two-Weapon fighting:
* Have extra attack(2) work on the side weapon.
* Styles are a seperate issue.
* Feat support is a seperate issue.

Observe:

2SS:
L1: 2d6+stat (10)
L5: 4d6+2stat (22)

LS:
L1: 1d8+stat (7.5)
L5: 2d8+2stat (17)

2HS
L1: 2d6+stat (10)
L5: 4d6+2stat (22)

Extra Attack(3) and (4) may or may not work with the offhand weapon.

XBE:
* This has the downside that it makes the hand crossbow the deadliest crossbow.
* I suggest replacing point 3 with:

** You can make an attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action.
** If you haven't moved this turn, you can make an attack with any crossbow as a bonus action. This reduces your speed and the speed of your mount to 0 until the start of your next turn.

Drawing Weapons
* I actually put this in Duelist style.


One broad change that was made is that I clarified that you gain the features while you are wielding the specific weapons (like with Shield Master).
While XBE had an issue (it let you cast spells easier?), I like the idea that mastering a weapon gives you something you can use with other weapons.


You can attempt to grapple a creature even when they are more than one size larger than you.
This is sort of broken. Grapple is a non-save immobalization that breaks many legendary creatures.


Once per turn, when you are hit by a weapon attack while wearing heavy armor, you can reduce the attack’s damage by half your level (no action required, minimum 1)
Meh. Make it "reduce weapon damage by your proficiency". It scales nicely, remains relevant. (And require magic armor for magical weapon damage).

Moderately Armored
* This makes light armor proficiency worth less. A unarmored PC is more likely to take this than someone with light armor proficiency, because their benefit is larger.

Charger
* Steal the orc's "bonus action to move your speed towards a hostile creature".

Skilled
Way too complex. Go with:
* 1 skill
* 1 tool or language
* 1 expertise

Sure it isn't as flexible. But it also removes a whole raft of trap options.

Danger Sense
Remove the "effects you can see". It is a pain to deal with as a DM or a Player (if someone casts a spell behind you, no advantage?), and this is supposed to be danger _sense_ not "danger vision".

Brutal Critical
Good.

Punishing Strikes
Meh. OAs are at most 1/round.

To give you an idea, +2 more critical dice would be worth about 5 DPR. You'd have to make an OA on 50% of your turns at level 20 for this to match that.

And OAs are heavily DM dependent.

Find something active for the barbarian to do.

Superior Inspiration
I had a variant where you regain a use of inspiration whenever you cast a bard spell.

Mystic Arcanum
My solution is slightly different. You gain a 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level arcanum at level 11-17 as usual. But they call cast as a spell of the highest level arcanum you have. You can cast each one once.

I think this is a very warlock-esque buff.

---

While GWM/SS gets lots of guff, XBE/PAM is actually a much stronger set of feats. When they combine with a reliable source of advantage they start looking really gross, and people see the per-hit damage and go "waa".

But it is the 3 hits that make the per-hit damage important.

Take a level 5 character with 18 attack stat attacking a 18 AC foe. They have a +1 weapon and advantage.

GWM+2HS(-5/+10) is +3 to hit for 22 damage per swing. With advantage they hit 51% crit 10% (+7 damage). for 11.92 damage per swing. 2 swings is 23.8 damage per round.
PAM is +8 to hit for 10.5, 10.5, 7.5 damage swings. With advantage they hit 80% crit 10% so deal 24.2 damage per round.

And without advantage PAM blows GWM away.

The same holds for XBE vs SS.

---

If your baseline "feat power" is XBE/PAM, most of your feats are seriously sub-par. Seems a waste to rewrite a feat and still end up with something not good enough.

[NigelWalmsley]

Greater Favored Enemy
I'm against Favored Enemy in general, since it typically goes from too good (only Favored foes) or not good enough (the opposite). But yeah, advantage on saves is too good to be handed out like that.

Favored Enemy should give you a bonus that is useful against tactics that are generally employed by that type of creature, rather than just a numeric bonus when fighting that type of creature. So instead of Favored Enemy (Dragon) giving you +2 damage against Dragons or Advantage when attacking Dragons or whatever the hell, it'd give you energy resistance (because breath weapons). That way, instead of the Ranger being slightly too good against some enemies and slightly too bad against others, he's good in a wide variety of situations that happens to include whatever creatures it is that he hates. I remember seeing a 3.5 Ranger writeup that did that at some point.

[Yakk]

Favored Enemy should give you a bonus that is useful against tactics that are generally employed by that type of creature, rather than just a numeric bonus when fighting that type of creature. So instead of Favored Enemy (Dragon) giving you +2 damage against Dragons or Advantage when attacking Dragons or whatever the hell, it'd give you energy resistance (because breath weapons). That way, instead of the Ranger being slightly too good against some enemies and slightly too bad against others, he's good in a wide variety of situations that happens to include whatever creatures it is that he hates. I remember seeing a 3.5 Ranger writeup that did that at some point.
This plus 1 million.

Basically, Ranger fighting styles.

[Dienekes]

On GWM, the thing is, in my experience if players pick a big honking monstrosity as their weapon of choice they do so because they want to do boatloads of damage. If you take away the means of doing boatloads of damage from the feat you end up with the problem of it not doing what the key feature of the style is to people.

So, personally, I’d just lean into that in the easiest way. When holding a melee weapon in two hands add double your Strength modifier to damage. For every class except Fighter that’s only a +10 damage per round at about 8th level which is not the end of the world. But a simple +2 or 3 or even rolling something like a 1d4 if you want those sweet critical hits works fine.

Sure Fighter’s break it a bit. But they’re fighters being better at weapons is kind of their thing. And If that proves too much it can be switched to “the first two attacks made per round.”

Though totally honest, I’ve been growing more of the opinion that differentiating martial based off how many attacks they make on their turn was a poor choice.

[Yakk]

My version of the -5/+10 fix is a few things.

1) It becomes "sacrifice your proficiency bonus to hit to gain twice that bonus to damage".

2) I modified SS and GWM to use it.

3) I added it built-in to barbarian reckless attack (all strength-based attacks with it).

---

(1) is actually a buff. -5/+10 at level 1 is a bad idea, but -2/+4 can be a good idea. And -6/+12 at level 20 is better than -5/+10. This keeps it relevant at every level. It also makes it clear that it cannot stack, as you cannot sacrifice the same thing twice.

(3) is because barbarian reckless attack is far too tied to GWM in my experience. By including it in the feature I increase build choice and remove trap options.

---

Instead of making GWM/SS not work, I went after S+B and TWF styles and boosted them.

Shields can be sacrificed to get resistance against an instance of damage (magic shields aren't destroyed unless you use it too much per day).

TWF DW feat is boosted to deal damage similar to GWM/SS when you have advantage using a different mechanic.

[thoroughlyS]

* You need to decide pubicly, up front, how good feats should be. If you tweak on a feat by feat basis you won't be anywhere near a mark.
I agree with that sentiment. I have a rough benchmark in my mind, but it isn't easy to know if I hit it in practice. I want a single feat to compete against an ASI by adding versatility as opposed to linear power. For example, at 4th level, a cleric could take +2 WIS for higher save DCs and spell attack mods, as well as maybe granting a boost to a subclass feature, and a small boost to skills. Or that same cleric could take war caster, to beef up their concentration and allow for casting something like hold person as an opportunity attack.

In my opinion, the way GWM and SS work now basically lets you trade things like skill bumps for even more damage. Sharpshooter trades away more (Dex save bump, AC bump, initiative bump) but benefits more from the associated fighting style (-3/+10). I don't like that this trade is so obvious that both of these feats are basically mandatory if you use that fighting style.

Two-Weapon fighting:
* Have extra attack(2) work on the side weapon.
* Styles are a seperate issue.
* Feat support is a seperate issue.
I agree with your second and third point here. Two-weapon fighting needs to be addressed within the base rules of the game. I do not like your proposed fix because it exacerbates the action economy imbalance. If you need to spend your bonus action, you would pay an even higher opportunity cost. Conversely, my change removes the opportunity cost with the acknowledgement that you lose your edge in damage. I like this change, because I do actually want to respect that two-handed fighting should deal the most damage in a vacuum.

XBE:
* This has the downside that it makes the hand crossbow the deadliest crossbow.
* I suggest replacing point 3 with:

** You can make an attack with a hand crossbow as a bonus action.
** If you haven't moved this turn, you can make an attack with any crossbow as a bonus action. This reduces your speed and the speed of your mount to 0 until the start of your next turn.
I never noticed that crossbow expert makes light crossbow deal the most damage. That's really annoying. I actually kind of like your change, but will need to give it more consideration.

Drawing Weapons
* I actually put this in Duelist style.
I find this odd, because it precludes barbarians and monks. I just feel like everyone should be allowed to throw weapons.


You can attempt to grapple a creature even when they are more than one size larger than you.This is sort of broken. Grapple is a non-save immobalization that breaks many legendary creatures.
I'm not really sure how this breaks anything. Grappling a creature sacrifices at least one attack, and just means that a creature will probably focus damage on you. And most big creatures will have reasonable Strength scores, so its not a guarantee that you will always get them. And when you get to higher CRs, usually those creatures will have reasonable ranged options.

That said, I do also buff monsters by allowing them to trade a melee attack from their multiattack action to shove a creature (which could be used to push a grappler away and break the grapple).


Once per turn, when you are hit by a weapon attack while wearing heavy armor, you can reduce the attack’s damage by half your level (no action required, minimum 1)Meh. Make it "reduce weapon damage by your proficiency". It scales nicely, remains relevant. (And require magic armor for magical weapon damage).
That would still be too good at 1st level, and rely on getting hit multiple times at high levels to be worth it.

Moderately Armored
* This makes light armor proficiency worth less. A unarmored PC is more likely to take this than someone with light armor proficiency, because their benefit is larger.
I'm not really sure what to say here. I just don't see this as a problem? This change is really to help full casters get armor without just multiclassing. That said, perhaps I should make this not a half feat.

Charger
* Steal the orc's "bonus action to move your speed towards a hostile creature".
Are you saying to replace the entirety of this feat with that trait? Or add that trait to what I have here? Or add it to the original?

Skilled
Way too complex. Go with:
* 1 skill
* 1 tool or language
* 1 expertise

Sure it isn't as flexible. But it also removes a whole raft of trap options.
That sounds like a more mechanically sound alternative. I'm strongly considering it.

Mystic Arcanum
My solution is slightly different. You gain a 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th level arcanum at level 11-17 as usual. But they call cast as a spell of the highest level arcanum you have. You can cast each one once.

I think this is a very warlock-esque buff.
That does seem like a pretty good change as well, but I am going to stick with mine, because it allows you to use your high level spells more than once each if you want to.




While GWM/SS gets lots of guff, XBE/PAM is actually a much stronger set of feats. When they combine with a reliable source of advantage they start looking really gross, and people see the per-hit damage and go "waa".

But it is the 3 hits that make the per-hit damage important.

Take a level 5 character with 18 attack stat attacking a 18 AC foe. They have a +1 weapon and advantage.

GWM+2HS(-5/+10) is +3 to hit for 22 damage per swing. With advantage they hit 51% crit 10% (+7 damage). for 11.92 damage per swing. 2 swings is 23.8 damage per round.
PAM is +8 to hit for 10.5, 10.5, 7.5 damage swings. With advantage they hit 80% crit 10% so deal 24.2 damage per round.

And without advantage PAM blows GWM away.

The same holds for XBE vs SS.
The scenario you chose is slightly slanted. The higher the base AC of the enemy, the better polearm master will look, and at this level, the average AC of an enemy is 15 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14Ia7HQk7-NOojTW0FWGT8wMvDSKbnN1PGDW3RtblCu4/edit#gid=1919885679) (which is in line with what the DMG expects on p.274.

I propose a slightly revised scenario:

6th level eldritch knight fighter (I chose eldritch knight because it has no impact on this comparison)
great weapon fighting style
ASI at 4th level for 18 STR
respective feat at 6th level
+1 weapon
enemy is CR 6 with 15 AC (in line with average)

Polearm Master: 2 attacks * (70% chance to hit * (6.3 weapon + 4 STR + 1) + 0.315 damage from crit potential) + 1 attack * (70% chance to hit * (3 weapon + 4 STR + 1) + 0.15 damage from crit potential) ≈ 22.2 average damage per round

Great Weapon Master: 2 attacks * (45% chance to hit * (8.33 weapon + 4 STR + 10 feat + 1) + 0.4165 damage from crit potential) ≈ 21.8 average damage per round

The polearm master deals 0.37 more dpr. With advantage, the polearm master's chance to hit jumps to 91% giving 29.4 dpr and the great weapon master's chance to hit jumps to 69.75% giving 34.2 dpr. The great weapon master deals 4.81 more dpr. Things shake out similarly if you remove the +1 weapon. As you increase AC, things get better for the polearm master. In fact, the first time the polearm master deals more damage with advantage is actually at AC 18.

[Yakk]

Sure, the more you boost your ATK, the better GWM looks.

Try a level 1 human fighter, or a level 4 fighter.

Second, PAM not only gives you the extra bonus action tap, but it also gives you that relatively reliable reaction tap. If you value it as low as 0.25 attacks/round, that is a rather large buff to PAM.

Third, the weapon has reach. That can lead to less control and can let you swing when a greatsword could not.

---

GWM over +1 to hit has some fun math. You are basically comparing +1/+1 to -5/+10.

You could pretend this is something you decide on a round by round basis, and you are asking "would I take -6/+9 on this attack". If the answer is yes, you are better off with GWM this round, if no it you are better off with an ASI stat boost.

Without advantage, -6 to hit means 30% of rounds what would have been a hit becomes a miss.

If your swing, like your level 6 EK, does about 13 damage, that means -6 to hit costs you 3.9 damage per round.

For -6/+9 to be worth it, we need:
+9 * (base hit chance - 30%) > 3.9 damage
base hit chance - 30% > 0.43
base hit chance > 73%

So if you hit on an 6+ (or lower) prior to the ASI/GWM feat, then GWM increases damage. If you would need a 7 or higher to hit, GWM decreases damage compared to an ASI.

You do get the crit/kill bonus action attack out of it, and on advantage GWM is often better than an ASI.

[thoroughlyS]

I feel like we're getting off topic here. Your original point is that polearm master is more beneficial than great weapon master. I actually don't really have any opposition to your main point. I just dislike the example you chose, as it is niche. Of all stat blocks of CR 5-10 (i.e. belong to tier 2), there are 68 with an AC of 18 or higher, while there are 297 of AC 17 or lower.

As to the matter at hand, it is clear that my changes to great weapon master make it not worth consideration to those of you who have responded. I would like to fix it, without directly adjusting damage output, because that is the laziest method. I want these feats to be taken to increase versatility rather than improve damage, because if you just want that, then you should just bump Strength.

Additionally, the point was made that polearm master is far stronger than the benchmark I would like. I have a handful of restrictions I place on it at my tables that I think bring it down sufficiently: the reach of the bonus action attack is 5 feet, and it does not benefit from the weapon being magical. I neglected to include those changes in this thread, because I thought it might draw attention away from changes I'd like to see discussed. Perhaps it would be better to split my changes into individual threads instead of having one large repository...

[thoroughlyS]

I have decided to move this thread to multiple smaller ones, so that I can hopefully get more people to read at least part of these changes.

[dopl]

Hope I'm posting in the right thread for giving thoughts/Feedback, since I didn't see a mini-thread for it, so hoping the index is the right spot.

First up, love a lot of the ideas presented! Love everything for the monk and sorcerer especially.

That said, I strongly disagree with quite a few things. The nerfs to damage being the biggest. Martials get incredible DPR with GWM and Sharpshooter, but I would argue the issue with their prevelance stems moreso from a painful lack of equivalent (preferably unique) options for other weapons moreso than them just being too strong. They allow for incredible DPR yes, but not damage on par with a high level spell, which is the point. Martials offer a strong consistent option compared to the resources Casters can spend. I think just having it scale with proficiency bonus to lock it out from being crazy in the early tiers would better balance it than outright gutting a large amount of damage for most martials, unless you also intend to drop the damage high level casters are capable of.

My sentiment on this subject extends to how you've handled Warlocks as a whole. It is true they are psuedo-casters, with versatile options, but the best way to look at them is as magically flavored martials. Eldritch Blast is basically a bow attack, and while I agree on Agonizing Blast being too much at level 2 (or 1 with your changes), it definitely doesn't need damage gutted as well. I'm also confused why repelling blast is being nerfed. It can be silly with a Sorcerer multiclass, but I certainly wouldn't consider it broken. If anything just making it 3rd level (5th at most) would probably balance it fairly easily due to the delay in casting.

Other than that: Polearm Master + Sentinel is quite powerful, but I would look at it as a 3rd level spell, where instead of a slot you are expending HP. Since Vumans can only take half feats, they can have this combo at level 6 at the earliest. They can stop enemies from getting to their friends fairly easily and it's incredibly strong, yes. But at tier 2 a caster could just put up a threatening effect to force enemies to find a way around anyways, and this is the focus of the build. You delay enemy approach for a turn, but are going to be targeted by everyone you block most likely, and enemies with ranged attacks can hit you like crazy. The Vuman change is plenty to balance this I think.

Final thought I have. I think you should change the name of crossbow master and let it work with thrown weapons too. Throwing things at someone 5 feet away isn't particularlu out there realistically, and crossbows are likely still the best use, but this change makes something very important happen. Nets are a very weird weapon that are almost useless. Crossbow Master is the one way they can be used well, allowing a hand crossbow BA attack after throwing the net, and letting you do so at 5 feet. This feat is what let Nets be remotely useable and I can't see a power reason to not allow it to continue working with thrown stuff.

A question also:

Do you think it would be too much to let the Warlock recall it's pact weapon with a free action? This would allow a warlock to call forth shadowy daggers or javelins and throw them at foes, which makes for a quite fun aesthetic that I don't believe breaks anything.

[thoroughlyS]

That said, I strongly disagree with quite a few things. The nerfs to damage being the biggest. Martials get incredible DPR with GWM and Sharpshooter, but I would argue the issue with their prevelance stems moreso from a painful lack of equivalent (preferably unique) options for other weapons moreso than them just being too strong. They allow for incredible DPR yes, but not damage on par with a high level spell, which is the point. Martials offer a strong consistent option compared to the resources Casters can spend. I think just having it scale with proficiency bonus to lock it out from being crazy in the early tiers would better balance it than outright gutting a large amount of damage for most martials, unless you also intend to drop the damage high level casters are capable of.
I agree wholeheartedly that part of these two feat's prevalence stems from the lack of equivalent options. That said, these feats are popular in no small part because they flatly increase damage output. In my mind, if you want to do that, you should just increase your primary ability score. On top of that, the way they synergize with more attacks is just too much. It makes martials do crazy amounts of at-will damage. I feel that your comparison to casters is valid, the ideal trade-off being consistent and respectable damage (martials) vs limited and explosive damage (casters). I believe the way to achieve that paradigm comes from the classes, rather than the feats.

On the topic of the other "style" feats, if you have any ideas as to how to make them more tempting I would love to hear them. Especially if they are unique options rather than looking like GWM/SS.

My sentiment on this subject extends to how you've handled Warlocks as a whole. It is true they are psuedo-casters, with versatile options, but the best way to look at them is as magically flavored martials. Eldritch Blast is basically a bow attack, and while I agree on Agonizing Blast being too much at level 2 (or 1 with your changes), it definitely doesn't need damage gutted as well. I'm also confused why repelling blast is being nerfed. It can be silly with a Sorcerer multiclass, but I certainly wouldn't consider it broken. If anything just making it 3rd level (5th at most) would probably balance it fairly easily due to the delay in casting.
It has only just occurred to me that I left out a pretty important bit of information for warlock that better illustrates what I want from them: I have adjusted their spell slot progression. My changes to the warlock are meant to make it feel more like a caster, and less like a martial. This change lets you throw out more spells more often, so you don't have to rely on your cantrip spamming. Ideally, this change will be met with changes to the spell list to provide better extended duration spells (so that you rely on them for damage more often than cantrips).

Agonizing Blast is unique among spell damage boosting features because it is the only one that applies to multiple hits. It is also available to be acquired significantly earlier than equivalent features. I wanted to bring it more in-line with those other features, but also preserve some of its strength. My change is made to make warlocks better against many smaller enemies than against one larger enemy.

As for Repelling Blast, it comes down to the fact that it is just leagues better than the Open Hand monk's push, and that has always bugged me. Open Hand requires a save, requires melee range, and only triggers on a Flurry (which requires resource expenditure). Comparatively, the official version of Repelling Blast is automatic on a hit, can be done at range, and has no resource cost. I buff the open hand one to be automatic on a hit, and trigger off of the Attack action (and therefore require no resources), and I limit Repelling Blast to once per target per turn to compensate for the range. But perhaps this is less of a fix and more of a houserule. I have removed this from the list of changes.

Other than that: Polearm Master + Sentinel is quite powerful, but I would look at it as a 3rd level spell, where instead of a slot you are expending HP. Since Vumans can only take half feats, they can have this combo at level 6 at the earliest. They can stop enemies from getting to their friends fairly easily and it's incredibly strong, yes. But at tier 2 a caster could just put up a threatening effect to force enemies to find a way around anyways, and this is the focus of the build. You delay enemy approach for a turn, but are going to be targeted by everyone you block most likely, and enemies with ranged attacks can hit you like crazy. The Vuman change is plenty to balance this I think.
A character can do what you are suggesting with just the Sentinel feat and careful positioning. That is what the Sentinel feat is for. The only thing a Sentinel build gains from this interaction is that it can be lazier about positioning, and there is a non-zero chance they can halt an enemy while still outside that enemy's reach (and therefore stop that enemy from even attacking them).

Final thought I have. I think you should change the name of crossbow master and let it work with thrown weapons too. Throwing things at someone 5 feet away isn't particularlu out there realistically, and crossbows are likely still the best use, but this change makes something very important happen. Nets are a very weird weapon that are almost useless. Crossbow Master is the one way they can be used well, allowing a hand crossbow BA attack after throwing the net, and letting you do so at 5 feet. This feat is what let Nets be remotely useable and I can't see a power reason to not allow it to continue working with thrown stuff.
This sounds like your problem is with the net, and not the feat. With any other thrown weapon the solution to this is simple, just stab them with it instead of throwing. I agree that the net is weirdly implemented. I do not think the solution should be to make it synergize with Crossbow Expert. Maybe include a new feat?

Do you think it would be too much to let the Warlock recall it's pact weapon with a free action? This would allow a warlock to call forth shadowy daggers or javelins and throw them at foes, which makes for a quite fun aesthetic that I don't believe breaks anything.
I'm unsure how to feel about this suggestion. I agree that this wouldn't break anything, but I don't really see the need to support this concept? It doesn't seem particularly common in media. Maybe fold it into the Improved Pact Weapon invocation instead? That seems to be how to represent fighting styles.

[dopl]

agree wholeheartedly that part of these two feat's prevalence stems from the lack of equivalent options. That said, these feats are popular in no small part because they flatly increase damage output. In my mind, if you want to do that, you should just increase your primary ability score. On top of that, the way they synergize with more attacks is just too much. It makes martials do crazy amounts of at-will damage. I feel that your comparison to casters is valid, the ideal trade-off being consistent and respectable damage (martials) vs limited and explosive damage (casters). I believe the way to achieve that paradigm comes from the classes, rather than the feats.

On the topic of the other "style" feats, if you have any ideas as to how to make them more tempting I would love to hear them. Especially if they are unique options rather than looking like GWM/SS

Honestly don't have too many ideas. A feat that could give you AC when grappling, to encourage grappling and one handed weapons with no shields? Something that gives a flat +1 to damage for each 5 feat in a straight line you move before hitting someone with an attack for mount builds? Personally a big fan of Spear Mastery for it's giving the spear a lot of uses, so feats like that are always fun.


It has only just occurred to me that I left out a pretty important bit of information for warlock that better illustrates what I want from them: I have adjusted their spell slot progression. My changes to the warlock are meant to make it feel more like a caster, and less like a martial. This change lets you throw out more spells more often, so you don't have to rely on your cantrip spamming. Ideally, this change will be met with changes to the spell list to provide better extended duration spells (so that you rely on them for damage more often than cantrips).

That certainly changes things. I can respect that even if I strongly disagree with it, given how interesting a consistent damage caster is, though I'm biased towards it with it being the first class I ever used. Great reasoning I hadn't thought of for Agonizing tbh. Having Warlock able to output martial levels of consistent damage as the total amount in an AoE like Casters specialize in doing is an excellent idea for for the hybrid. Mulling over it I can say I really like the concepts even if I prefer the original still.


A character can do what you are suggesting with just the Sentinel feat and careful positioning. That is what the Sentinel feat is for. The only thing a Sentinel build gains from this interaction is that it can be lazier about positioning, and there is a non-zero chance they can halt an enemy while still outside that enemy's reach (and therefore stop that enemy from even attacking them).

Very fair, but this is more going to exist as an issue at low levels, with higher CR foes having more and more ways to get around such a threat, which is why I had thought you locking Vumans to half feats fixed this already. Most classes can't have the combo until 8th level, with Fighter having it at 6th at the earliest, a level behind 3rd level spells at the earliest. Compared to having it online in tier 1 as early as level four, and having half of it working from level 1 is what causes so much of the power I think given how much weaker enemies are in tier 1 compared to 2.


This sounds like your problem is with the net, and not the feat. With any other thrown weapon the solution to this is simple, just stab them with it instead of throwing. I agree that the net is weirdly implemented. I do not think the solution should be to make it synergize with Crossbow Expert. Maybe include a new feat?

You are correct in that it is a problem with the net. It is however a problem that the original crossbow expert fixed which is why I was suggesting keeping that fix in the feat. Nets are rather niche, so a feat dedicated to them would be rather expensive, though a sort of "Gladiator" feat that offered increase usefulness to the Net and Trident in tandem would be rather interesting imo. The trident is rather weak being on par with the spear, despite being martial rather than simple, and so could easily get a power boost with no worries, especially with the spear having a feat dedicated to it as well.


I'm unsure how to feel about this suggestion. I agree that this wouldn't break anything, but I don't really see the need to support this concept? It doesn't seem particularly common in media. Maybe fold it into the Improved Pact Weapon invocation instead? That seems to be how to represent fighting styles.

Not everything has to be a reference, but it does allow for the edgy aesthetic of a brooding loner having infinite knives, or conjuring massive spikes to impale foes with. Realistically it could fit anywhere in the blade invocations, was just a fun idea for expanding character options.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

None of your changes to the fighter really help it except giving prof bonus to Indomitable, love that btw.

It still does exactly what it did before, hit things. Hard.

Fighters need things to help them explore and deal with social situations, not with killing things.

[thoroughlyS]

I have reduced the bonus from Greater Favored Enemy from advantage on saves to +2 on saves.