PDA

View Full Version : D&D 5e/Next Replacing the "Big 4" (+1) feats with class features



PhoenixPhyre
2022-05-25, 01:44 PM
Proposal:

The following feats no longer exist: SS, CBE, PAM, GWM. DW is replaced by DW.v2

Instead, the capabilities of those feats are modified and split up between the four classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger[1], Rogue) or converted into general rules.

Changelog: v2.0 after strikeouts, plus reworked rogue.

General Rules
1. Anyone wielding a heavy melee weapon to make an attack on their turn can subtract their proficiency bonus from the attack roll; when they do so and hit with the attack, they can add twice their proficiency bonus to the damage dealt. This option can only be used once per turn.
2. Anyone who has the Extra Attack feature can reload a loading weapon as a bonus action. This bonus action can be taken between attacks.
3. Anyone wielding a heavy ranged weapon can subtract their proficiency bonus from the attack roll; when they do so and hit with the attack, they can add twice their proficiency bonus to the damage dealt. This option can only be used once per turn and you cannot move on the turn you do this (before or after); your speed counts as being zero until the beginning of your next turn. Edit: This cannot be used in conjunction with any other ability that demands you not move (such as Steady Aim). (Based on Amechra's feedback): Anyone can use Steady Aim with a ranged weapon.
4. Anyone wielding a glaive, spear, pike, halberd, or quarterstaff in both hands that takes the Attack action can treat the butt end as a light weapon wielded in the other hand for the purposes of TWF. The weapon's damage die is a d4 for this attack and it deals bludgeoning damage. (Based on Amechra's feedback) Add the bullet point about making opportunity attacks when creatures enter your reach to the definition of the Reach weapon property.
5 (new in v2.0). The rules for TWF are updated to remove the word "melee". Any pair of weapons held in separate hands (ranged or melee) qualify for TWF if they otherwise would.

Note: all these features add to what the class would normally get at that level instead of replacing it.

[1] why ranger? Because they need love. Paladins don't. Kensei monks may need a particular feature to replace SS, but that's out of scope here a bit.


Cleaving Strikes : Starting at level 7, you've learned to flow your strikes together. On your turn, when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action. Additionally, you can [use general rule #1] with any melee weapon instead of only heavy ones.

Crushing Strikes: Starting at level 13, you can [use general rule #1] on any attack you make. If you do so and score a critical hit, instead of only rolling twice the dice, also double all constant modifiers to the damage.



Martial Specialization: Starting at level 9, you've specialized in your preferred style even more. You gain an additional benefit for your chosen fighting style[1].
* Archery: You no longer suffer disadvantage out to the long range of the weapon, including from having an enemy within 5'.
* Defense: If your armor would impose disadvantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks, it no longer does.
* Dueling: You can [use general rule #1] with a weapon as long as it qualifies for this fighting style.
* Great Weapon Fighting: When you reduce an enemy to 0 hit points with a qualifying weapon, you can make one melee weapon attack as a bonus action.
* Protection: When you impose disadvantage using this feature, the disadvantage affects all attacks the attacker makes until the end of their turn instead of just one attack.
* Two-weapon fighting: TWF no longer requires a bonus action but is limited to one extra attack per Attack action.

Martial Versatility: Starting at level 13, you've also gained facility with other weapons. You gain the following benefits:
* While wielding a glaive, spear, halberd, pike or quarterstaff in both hands you can make opportunity attacks when creatures enter your reach or moves further away from you. While wielding a reach weapon you can also make opportunity attacks when creatures move within your reach without taking the Disengage action
* While wielding a heavy ranged weapon, you can [use general rule #3] on any attack you make on your turn.
* When you engage in TWF, you can now make a number of additional attacks equal to your normal number of attacks - 1 instead of just 1.
* While wielding a heavy melee weapon you can [use general rule #1] on any attack you make on your turn.



Specialized Style Starting at level 9, you specialize in either two-weapon fighting or ranged combat, gaining the appropriate feature from below.
* TWF: TWF no longer requires a bonus action and you are no longer required to only use light weapons.
* Archery: You no longer suffer disadvantage out to the long range of the weapon, including from having an enemy within 5'. When you [use general rule #3], you can move up to half your speed on that same turn.

Further Specialization Starting at level 13, you have specialized even further.
* TWF: When you hit the same target with an attack from both hands, they take additional damage equal to your proficiency bonus from the second hit.
* Archery: You can now move freely when using [general rule #3].



Note: Heavily reworked.

Slice n' Dice v2.0 Starting at level 7, TWF no longer requires a bonus action but is limited to one additional attack per turn and you can attack with both weapons on an opportunity attack if you otherwise qualify for TWF. Additionally, you no longer suffer disadvantage from having an enemy within 5' of you when you make a ranged attack with a hand crossbow.

Jervis
2022-05-25, 02:38 PM
Worth noting that the double bladed scimitar can make a BA d4 attack without having to deal with the TWF not adding ability mod thing. For what that’s worth. Might be worth keeping in mind when balancing something that would heavily impact the “meta”.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-05-25, 02:44 PM
Worth noting that the double bladed scimitar can make a BA d4 attack without having to deal with the TWF not adding ability mod thing. For what that’s worth. Might be worth keeping in mind when balancing something that would heavily impact the “meta”.

That's setting specific and not content I own or allow. So yeah. That's off the table here.

Jervis
2022-05-25, 03:16 PM
That's setting specific and not content I own or allow. So yeah. That's off the table here.

I don’t know if I’d consider it that setting specific. It’s a weapon in the basic rules, and it’s lore boils down to “elves made it.” But fair enough

Damon_Tor
2022-05-25, 03:24 PM
I like making power strikes and headshots general rules.

Staffs should have been "double weapons" from day 1 without a feat. Polearms as double weapons is dumb and shouldn't even be a feat, all the weight of a polearm is on one end, the physics make no sense.

In general the class features seems pretty over the top. IMO, leave Sharpshooter as a feat minus the headshot ability but also give it +1 dex.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-05-25, 05:56 PM
I don’t know if I’d consider it that setting specific. It’s a weapon in the basic rules, and it’s lore boils down to “elves made it.” But fair enough

It's absolutely not in the basic rules. It's Eberron specific both in execution and in details. And it's stupidly balanced at that. Plus just being a stupid weapon to begin with


I like making power strikes and headshots general rules.

1. Staffs should have been "double weapons" from day 1 without a feat. Polearms as double weapons is dumb and shouldn't even be a feat, all the weight of a polearm is on one end, the physics make no sense.

2. In general the class features seems pretty over the top. 3. IMO, leave Sharpshooter as a feat minus the headshot ability but also give it +1 dex.

1. I'm less concerned about physics than about removing the distortions implied by the rules. Specifically, since bonus action attacks that preserve your ability modifier are so valuable, everyone who cares about DPR optimization feels obligated to take those feats. So instead, make some of them generic, but using the TWF rules instead (which reduces their power tremendously). And a 1d4, no modifier (unless you take TWF FS) attack is just not that much to worry about, especially since you can't do the (cheesy, IMO) 1h quarterstaff + shield thing (having to wield it in both hands).

2. The point of the class features is to give back the sane, thematic parts of the feats, but generally buff those four classes at higher levels. Because currently their higher levels are pretty sparse.

3. Sharpshooter's big issue is not the -5/+10. That's annoying, but meh. No, it's the combination of extended range (note that mine doesn't actually increase your range, merely letting you use the full range without disadvantage), ignoring cover (especially when combined with Archery FS to turn 3/4 cover into no penalty at all), AND the -5/+10. And that middle point, the ignoring cover point, is the absolute most distortionary bullet point in the game. It entirely removes cover-based counterplay and makes ranged have a much easier time than they should, making STR-based martials feel bad. That bullet point, in particular is an absolute "must go away and not get replaced in any form".

Dimers
2022-05-25, 07:44 PM
Would the fighter's Fighting Style improvements apply to extra sources of fighting styles? E.g. champion subclass, ranger, paladin?

PhoenixPhyre
2022-05-25, 08:18 PM
Would the fighter's Fighting Style improvements apply to extra sources of fighting styles? E.g. champion subclass, ranger, paladin?

Champion, definitely. No questions asked about that one. Champion fighters should get all the benefits.

Ideally[1] there'd be some verbiage that it only affects the ones you got via being a Fighter, but I'm not sure that at 9 levels deep it really matters all that much. Especially since most of the styles are incompatible (being bound to a type of weapon). Sure you could pick up Defense + one of the others or be a bit better as a switch-hitter, but I'm mostly ok with that.

[1] I dislike level-by-level multiclassing on principle and think it was the worst innovation 3e brought to the field. But I recognize I'm in a strong minority there and don't really have any plans to remove it.

Jervis
2022-05-25, 09:14 PM
[1] I dislike level-by-level multiclassing on principle and think it was the worst innovation 3e brought to the field. But I recognize I'm in a strong minority there and don't really have any plans to remove it.

I actually agree with this. As a side note and a shameless plug I wrote a set of multiclass rules based roughly on 2e dual classing. Very untested but interesting at least I think. https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?646145-I-was-bored-so-I-rewrote-the-entire-multiclassing-system-PEACH

I’m also tinkering on a full multisubclassing set that creates around about 130ish subclasses designed to give mechanics you would want from a multiclass. Example this would give 11 fighter subclasses, one based on each other class that gives it some mechanics you would want out of dipping or a more lengthy multiclass. It would do the same for the others. As you can imagine, it’s no where near done

Amechra
2022-05-26, 10:45 AM
Any particular reason why you're restricting [General Rule #3] to heavy ranged weapons, other than "hand crossbows shouldn't get to trade accuracy for damage"?

PhoenixPhyre
2022-05-26, 11:00 AM
Any particular reason why you're restricting [General Rule #3] to heavy ranged weapons, other than "hand crossbows shouldn't get to trade accuracy for damage"?

Symmetry with melee weapons as well as thematics. Big weapons should have benefits that hand crossbows don't have. Hand crossbows get other benefits (for rogues, specifically).

If I were being really picky, I'd say that you could only do [#3] with bows. Because the concept is of drawing the bow harder to get more force, which isn't something that makes sense with a crossbow. Or restrict it to slings and darts :smallbiggrin:

Amechra
2022-05-26, 11:29 AM
Symmetry with melee weapons as well as thematics. Big weapons should have benefits that hand crossbows don't have. Hand crossbows get other benefits (for rogues, specifically).

If I were being really picky, I'd say that you could only do [#3] with bows. Because the concept is of drawing the bow harder to get more force, which isn't something that makes sense with a crossbow. Or restrict it to slings and darts :smallbiggrin:

I mean, the idea between the ranged version is that you're performing trick shots, which aren't really something you need a big weapon for... but that's neither here nor there.

...

Personally, I'd make the following tweaks to your general rules (reasoning in green):


General Rule #1 is fine — I personally don't like basing it off of your proficiency bonus, but eh.
I don't really have any strong feelings about General Rule #2.
I'd personally dump the "aim with your bow for better damage" rule and just make (ranged only) Steady Aim something that anyone can do (with Rogues getting to tack on one of the "ignore disadvantage" bullet points from Sharpshooter on top of that). I have a disagreement with the fact that ranged characters both get a bounded-accuracy-breaking accuracy boost and the ability to trade accuracy for damage. Why not have them just focus on accuracy?
Instead of adding the "TWF with polearms" malarkey to the base rules, make the "you get to make opportunity attacks against people entering your reach" thing part of the rules for Reach weapons. This gives reach weapon users an actual niche, rather than them just beating up dual wielders and taking their lunch money.
Instead of making bonus actions with Hand Crossbows a special Rogue-only thing that you need to be 9th level to achieve... why not just delete the word "melee" from the rules for two-weapon fighting? The Hand Crossbow's Light property makes me strongly suspect that you were originally supposed to be able to TWF with it, and then someone noticed that it didn't work by RAW and "fixed" it in Crossbow Expert.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-05-26, 01:19 PM
I mean, the idea between the ranged version is that you're performing trick shots, which aren't really something you need a big weapon for... but that's neither here nor there.

...

Personally, I'd make the following tweaks to your general rules (reasoning in green):


General Rule #1 is fine — I personally don't like basing it off of your proficiency bonus, but eh.
I don't really have any strong feelings about General Rule #2.
I'd personally dump the "aim with your bow for better damage" rule and just make (ranged only) Steady Aim something that anyone can do (with Rogues getting to tack on one of the "ignore disadvantage" bullet points from Sharpshooter on top of that). I have a disagreement with the fact that ranged characters both get a bounded-accuracy-breaking accuracy boost and the ability to trade accuracy for damage. Why not have them just focus on accuracy?
Instead of adding the "TWF with polearms" malarkey to the base rules, make the "you get to make opportunity attacks against people entering your reach" thing part of the rules for Reach weapons. This gives reach weapon users an actual niche, rather than them just beating up dual wielders and taking their lunch money.
Instead of making bonus actions with Hand Crossbows a special Rogue-only thing that you need to be 9th level to achieve... why not just delete the word "melee" from the rules for two-weapon fighting? The Hand Crossbow's Light property makes me strongly suspect that you were originally supposed to be able to TWF with it, and then someone noticed that it didn't work by RAW and "fixed" it in Crossbow Expert.


1. The proficiency bonus change was more my utter dislike of "flat" bonuses =)
3-5: I think I'd be ok with that. I think I was going for a more "small changes" approach, but maybe a slightly bigger change in some places saves jank elsewhere.

Edit: made some changes to the OP. Including removing Crossbows Akimbo entirely and dropping Slice n' Dice down to 7, with a change to allow TWF on opportunity attacks.

Amechra
2022-05-26, 02:52 PM
I'm mostly not a fan of basing it off of your proficiency bonus because I don't like "take a penalty to your attack roll for a bonus to your damage roll" as a thing in 5e. Not for any real balance reason, mind you — I just don't like it aesthetically.

Now that I've taken a closer look at the class-based changes... I personally disagree with the features that allow people to ignore disadvantage on ranged attacks due to having a hostile dude within 5ft. "They're bad at hurting people who are within stabbing range" is kinda the weakness of ranged attacks and one of the very few reasons for tactical movement in 5e, after all. This is more of a matter of taste than anything else, though, so it's no skin off my back if you disagree.

I'm also not exactly sure about how I feel about two-weapon fighting eventually turning into conditional Extra Attack — I wonder if that's a benefit that should just be rolled into Extra Attack in general, much like how Bladesingers get to replace an attack with a cantrip as of Tasha's.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-05-26, 03:18 PM
1. I'm mostly not a fan of basing it off of your proficiency bonus because I don't like "take a penalty to your attack roll for a bonus to your damage roll" as a thing in 5e. Not for any real balance reason, mind you — I just don't like it aesthetically.

2. Now that I've taken a closer look at the class-based changes... I personally disagree with the features that allow people to ignore disadvantage on ranged attacks due to having a hostile dude within 5ft. "They're bad at hurting people who are within stabbing range" is kinda the weakness of ranged attacks and one of the very few reasons for tactical movement in 5e, after all. This is more of a matter of taste than anything else, though, so it's no skin off my back if you disagree.

3. I'm also not exactly sure about how I feel about two-weapon fighting eventually turning into conditional Extra Attack — I wonder if that's a benefit that should just be rolled into Extra Attack in general, much like how Bladesingers get to replace an attack with a cantrip as of Tasha's.

1. Sure. Aesthetics are aesthetics. I'm much less bothered by that than shooting through cover. More damage on a single attack rarely breaks things. And there's a role (I think) to "I swing wildly but with increased power".

2. I'd definitely leave it for the rogue, because I think the "sword and pistol (crossbow)" look is quite emblematic and that's useless if you can't shoot effectively in close quarters. But for the other types, I could see "you can use your ranged weapon as a melee one (dealing XYZ damage)"--effectively letting them pistol whip someone with a crossbow. Less effective than a real melee weapon, but still thematic.

3. I don't want it available to everyone. Because I absolutely don't want to buff paladins. I want it to be emblematic of "I'm just that good at fighting this way". Even distinguishing the (say) ranged ranger from the melee one. The melee one should just be better at melee than the ranged one is (and vice versa at range).