UA Feats so far - winners and losers [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Psyren

2022-10-12, 08:46 PM

Jerrykhor

2022-10-12, 09:25 PM

I'm not sure why is Undetectability considered good. It says you can't be seen or heard while you are Hidden, but you cannot hide if people can see you anyway. So its no substitute for Invisible.

Hael

2022-10-13, 01:56 AM

DarknessEternal

2022-10-13, 02:04 AM

Polearm Master is hopelessly broken.

Giving a free, full powered, extra attack makes all other melee weapons obsolete.

Pildion

2022-10-13, 07:26 AM

Well, this will be a short reply.

Winners, Casters; Losers, Martials.

-5\+10 was the only thing allowing martials to pretend to keep up with casters in tier 3 let alone tier 4. I do know that most games are just tier 1 and tier 2, but that's know reason to gut martials like this.

Psyren

2022-10-13, 08:08 AM

PAM is still pretty ridiculous. Warcaster and Res:con/wis are unchanged and remain OP.

In terms of the very new stuff. Skulker and grappler are both really quite good. Charger is underrated b/c RAW it works with ranged (definitely not RAI)..

As for first lvl. Pretty much everyone agrees alert/magicinitiate from the previous Ua.. i would add lightly armored, b/c of course casters should get shield+medium armor.

Yeah, as much as I hate Lightly Armored, it probably beats out Alert in the 1st-level bracket if you're a caster.

Well, this will be a short reply.

Winners, Casters; Losers, Martials.

-5\+10 was the only thing allowing martials to pretend to keep up with casters in tier 3 let alone tier 4. I do know that most games are just tier 1 and tier 2, but that's know reason to gut martials like this.

Has someone done the math on old GWM (-5/+10) vs. new GWM (half-feat, bonus damage 1/round) yet?

I agree that archery took a hit, but it was far and away the best martial style in the game too.

Polearm Master is hopelessly broken.

Giving a free, full powered, extra attack makes all other melee weapons obsolete.

I think the bold is a bit exaggerated; PAM is great, sure, but it still needs your bonus action, whereas TWF and SaB no longer do. So if you're a class or even race that has a better use for their bonus action, PAM is going to be a detriment to you relative to one of those other styles.

ZRN

2022-10-13, 09:37 AM

Polearm Master is hopelessly broken.

Giving a free, full powered, extra attack makes all other melee weapons obsolete.

I dunno. It takes your bonus action and doesn't get +10 damage from GWM anymore. A fighter with PAM+GWM is still the highest-damage fighter build, but it takes two feats (whereas, for example, TWF or sword-and-board take zero) AND your bonus action. There are plenty of other nice things you could do with those feat slots (Sentinel, Heavy Armor Master, etc) if you care about anything but eking out a bit of extra damage.

Psyren

2022-10-13, 10:17 AM

I dunno. It takes your bonus action and doesn't get +10 damage from GWM anymore. A fighter with PAM+GWM is still the highest-damage fighter build, but it takes two feats (whereas, for example, TWF or sword-and-board take zero) AND your bonus action. There are plenty of other nice things you could do with those feat slots (Sentinel, Heavy Armor Master, etc) if you care about anything but eking out a bit of extra damage.

Indeed. With Action Surge, a level 5 fighter with TWF or PAM can get up to 5 attacks, but the latter needs to use their bonus action while the former's is available.

Stangler

2022-10-13, 10:34 AM

Now that we've all had a chance to look through both UAs, I was wondering where GitP thinks the feats stack up so far. What is everyone's top 3 and bottom 3?

To make it a bit more interesting, feel free to split your answer into three bands (or just focus on one): 1st-level feats, 4th-level feats, and Epic Boons.

Here are mine:

Top 3
Magic Initiate
Lucky
Alert

Bottom 3
Crafter
Savage Attacker
Tough

Top 3
Skulker
War Caster
Keen Mind

Bottom 3
Speedster (aka Mobile)
Dual Wielder
Weapon Training

Most Improved: Grappler / Durable
Most Gutted: Sharpshooter

Top 3
Irresistible Offense
Undetectability
Energy Resistance

Bottom 3
Dimensional Travel
Night Spirit
Recovery

Most Improved: Unfettered
Most Gutted: Speed

What are yours?

When I look at the feats I want to see if they are balanced against the other options for the various classes that may take them. Right now I think there are certain feat choices that are likely to be too good to pass up and just become standard picks. This is bad design IMO and needs fixing. There are also feats that seem too weak to ever justify picking which also need fixing.

So feats that are probably too good to pass up. Lightly Armored + War Caster for casters seems like an obvious choice. Obviously clerics don't need lightly armored but war caster is too good to pass up. In this regard War Caster is the worst designed feat in the UA.

In second place is PAM which once again turns the bonus action into a weapon attack.

I think removing "power attack" from GWM and SS is a good change because if they were included they would be must pick options. i.e. poor design. Obviously this impacts martial balance but we have no idea what that really looks like yet. IMO it makes more sense to reserve judgement and look at the feats compared to one another.

Charger seems to be great for rogues but not so good there isn't reason to pick other options. It seems less good for fighters and barbarians who are more likely to be taking other feats. I am assuming they fix the language to clarify it is a charge.

Keen Mind and Observant suggests to me that they want to find ways for players to use their bonus action on meaningful skill checks which I am 100% for. Step in the right direction. It seems that the Expertise class group should get stuff like this inherent in their expertise. If you have expertise in a skill maybe you just get to use a related feature as a bonus action.

I think Sharpshooter is fairly well balanced. I think the cover rules could be tweaked so that it still matters but I see it as a solid option but not necessarily a must have.

Xbow expert is poorly worded.

Skulker is great. I do feel like expertise in stealth and perception could grant some of those benefits inherently though.

Overall I think they have done a good job and mostly moved the game in the right direction with these feats. Light Armored, War Caster, Xbow expert, and PAM standout as problematic. Otherwise there are interesting choices for players here. Some feats need help for sure but I think the priority really needs to be dealing with the OP ones.

ZRN

2022-10-13, 11:01 AM

Indeed. With Action Surge, a level 5 fighter with TWF or PAM can get up to 5 attacks, but the latter needs to use their bonus action while the former's is available.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the TWF fighter get 6, because the off-hand attack is part of the attack action?

Psyren

2022-10-13, 11:04 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the TWF fighter get 6, because the off-hand attack is part of the attack action?

It is, but the offhand attack only triggers once per each of your turns, not once per Attack action.

ZRN

2022-10-13, 11:18 AM

I'm going to piggyback off Stangler's good start here:

So feats that are probably too good to pass up. Lightly Armored + War Caster for casters seems like an obvious choice. Obviously clerics don't need lightly armored but war caster is too good to pass up. In this regard War Caster is the worst designed feat in the UA.

Lightly Armored being first-level almost puts it in a different category than the level 4 feats, which I *think* makes it even more of a must-take for anyone without armor and shield proficiencies. Lucky and Musician are great, but they're not +6 AC great.

In second place is PAM which once again turns the bonus action into a weapon attack.

See above - powerful but now competitive, I think.

Xbow expert is poorly worded.

Crossbow expert is just silly. Why are they trying to have us dual-wield hand crossbows? It doesn't make physical sense (how are you reloading?) and it promotes a weird style with no real traction in fantasy over, say, longbows, or even normal crossbows.

Stangler

2022-10-13, 11:55 AM

I'm going to piggyback off Stangler's good start here:

Lightly Armored being first-level almost puts it in a different category than the level 4 feats, which I *think* makes it even more of a must-take for anyone without armor and shield proficiencies. Lucky and Musician are great, but they're not +6 AC great.

See above - powerful but now competitive, I think.

Crossbow expert is just silly. Why are they trying to have us dual-wield hand crossbows? It doesn't make physical sense (how are you reloading?) and it promotes a weird style with no real traction in fantasy over, say, longbows, or even normal crossbows.

I agree on lightly armored. Handing out medium armor and shields at such a low opportunity cost is just a bad idea. I think it is pretty easy to just nerf that feat.

War Caster on the other hand is a tough design issue for WotC IMO because it is such an obviously good feature that it is hard to balance all level 4 feats around that power level. As a caster I would have to be getting something really good in order to pass it up. I don't think they can just get rid of it either at this point.

PAM balance in the long run will depend on other changes they make down the road but IMO they should avoid using the bonus action for attacks. Pole arms have a solid niche with reach and reactions so I am not sure why they are trying to add another attack.

The rules around crossbows is so poorly written I don't even want to bother. WotC just need to fix it.

Despite these problems I do think everything is moving in the right direction. Some more nerfs may be needed before moving forward though.

Psyren

2022-10-13, 12:10 PM

I agree on lightly armored. Handing out medium armor and shields at such a low opportunity cost is just a bad idea. I think it is pretty easy to just nerf that feat.

Yeah. Light Armor at first level I can see, maybe even Light Armor + Shields, but not Light+Medium+Shields.

War Caster on the other hand is a tough design issue for WotC IMO because it is such an obviously good feature that it is hard to balance all level 4 feats around that power level. As a caster I would have to be getting something really good in order to pass it up. I don't think they can just get rid of it either at this point.

Honestly, War Caster is good but I don't see it as being mandatory. Particularly when you think of a pure caster build that isn't wielding a weapon and a shield. When I compare it to Resilient Con, Ritual Caster, Keen Mind, Spell Sniper and Elemental Adept I'm seeing plenty of reasonable competing options.

If it truly is too strong they could always bump it back down to not being a half-feat again.

The rules around crossbows is so poorly written I don't even want to bother. WotC just need to fix it.

Concur - they need to decide whether they want us dual-wielding hand crossbows without Thri Kreen or repeating, and then if they do, just enable that without it being clunky.

ZRN

2022-10-13, 12:23 PM

I agree on lightly armored. Handing out medium armor and shields at such a low opportunity cost is just a bad idea. I think it is pretty easy to just nerf that feat.

Honestly I wonder if they should just buff Mage Armor by a point instead. The main issue isn't that everyone wants to play Harry Potter in chainmail; it's that casters crumple like wet tissue without it.

War Caster on the other hand is a tough design issue for WotC IMO because it is such an obviously good feature that it is hard to balance all level 4 feats around that power level. As a caster I would have to be getting something really good in order to pass it up. I don't think they can just get rid of it either at this point.

War Caster could be broken in half: Combat Casting for the advantage on concentration saves and Reflexive Magic or something for the magical OAs, maybe with each half getting another small bonus added.

PAM balance in the long run will depend on other changes they make down the road but IMO they should avoid using the bonus action for attacks. Pole arms have a solid niche with reach and reactions so I am not sure why they are trying to add another attack.

The thinking might be just that straight fighters don't have anything ELSE to do with their bonus actions.

Despite these problems I do think everything is moving in the right direction. Some more nerfs may be needed before moving forward though.

Generally agreed. Some thoughts on other feats:

Mage Slayer: the mental Legendary Resistance is very cool. I will miss the OA against spellcasters, but this really fills such an important niche e.g. for big dumb barbarians who are always getting mind controlled.

Defensive Duelist: Seems nice but I'd probably only take it as a high-level fighter running out of more interesting options. I feel like it could use a second effect just for fun.

Dual Wielding: Terrible.

Heavy Armor Master: Looks actually good past tier 1!

Inspiring Leader: I get removing the Cha connection, but did this really need a nerf at high levels?

Medium Armor Master: Terrible.

Weapon Training: Terrible.

Stangler

2022-10-13, 12:50 PM

Honestly, War Caster is good but I don't see it as being mandatory. Particularly when you think of a pure caster build that isn't wielding a weapon and a shield. When I compare it to Resilient Con, Ritual Caster, Keen Mind, Spell Sniper and Elemental Adept I'm seeing plenty of reasonable competing options.

If it truly is too strong they could always bump it back down to not being a half-feat again.

If War Caster is not an option I think the choice between all of those potential feats gets way more interesting for all primary spell casters. There is no other feat in the list that really has that kind of impact on the balance of the decision making IMO.

Psyren

2022-10-13, 12:56 PM

If War Caster is not an option I think the choice between all of those potential feats gets way more interesting for all primary spell casters. There is no other feat in the list that really has that kind of impact on the balance of the decision making IMO.

I think, to the extent that War Caster feels mandatory or OP now, is largely driven by how much easier it is for every caster to get shield proficiency now. If they nerf Lightly Armored then I can envision lots more casters skipping it and WC.

It would still remain a great pick for gishes and a decent pick for clerics and druids, and I think that's fine.

Tanarii

2022-10-13, 01:09 PM

So far about the only good thing I've seen come out of D&Done is removal of the -5/+10 from Great Weapon Master.

KorvinStarmast

2022-10-13, 01:50 PM

So far about the only good thing I've seen come out of D&Done is removal of the -5/+10 from Great Weapon Master. Why is taking away the toys from Martials such a popular position? Do not concur.
Removing it from Sharpshooter was the better choice.

Jervis

2022-10-13, 01:56 PM

How much of a hit to DPS is the new GWM btw? Back of the napkin math says it’s not the worst thing in the world at level 4 but 5+ it starts to dip assuming always on advantage. That said I highly doubt reckless attack survives the edition shift so that assumption might be wrong anyway. Assuming we can’t just take a barbarian 2 dip for always on advantage it’s only a .5ish DPS hit from 5.

Why is taking away the toys from Martials such a popular position? Do not concur.
Removing it from Sharpshooter was the better choice.

For my money I still say this is a problem we solved 10 years ago

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Tome_of_Battle%2C_the_Book_of_Nine_Swords.jpg

That said it’s skubby so my pipe dream is the return of the old dndnext playtest martial dice maneuver stuff they turned into battle master

LudicSavant

2022-10-13, 02:22 PM

Ritual Caster was a strong and interesting choice for Fighters in 5e, but now it doesn't give you a ritual book. They buffed it for casters, but made it provide fewer options for martials.

Psyren

2022-10-13, 02:23 PM

How much of a hit to DPS is the new GWM btw? Back of the napkin math says it’s not the worst thing in the world at level 4 but 5+ it starts to dip assuming always on advantage.

If I had to guess, bold is the problem - GWM and SS are balanced around hitting normally (they are a small but handy DPR increase in those cases), but advantage is very easy to get, and it'll only get easier in 1DD. (e.g. every single class can get a familiar at level 1, Inspiration will get handed out like candy etc.)

Stangler

2022-10-13, 02:46 PM

Honestly I wonder if they should just buff Mage Armor by a point instead. The main issue isn't that everyone wants to play Harry Potter in chainmail; it's that casters crumple like wet tissue without it.

War Caster could be broken in half: Combat Casting for the advantage on concentration saves and Reflexive Magic or something for the magical OAs, maybe with each half getting another small bonus added.

The thinking might be just that straight fighters don't have anything ELSE to do with their bonus actions.

Generally agreed. Some thoughts on other feats:

Mage Slayer: the mental Legendary Resistance is very cool. I will miss the OA against spellcasters, but this really fills such an important niche e.g. for big dumb barbarians who are always getting mind controlled.

Defensive Duelist: Seems nice but I'd probably only take it as a high-level fighter running out of more interesting options. I feel like it could use a second effect just for fun.

Dual Wielding: Terrible.

Heavy Armor Master: Looks actually good past tier 1!

Inspiring Leader: I get removing the Cha connection, but did this really need a nerf at high levels?

Medium Armor Master: Terrible.

Weapon Training: Terrible.

I am all for a first level feat that helps casters get beefier. I think one that gives them mage armor that last 24 hours and provides some other minor benefit would be great. Maybe more AC, maybe something else. I think the issue is that getting light armor basically doesn't do anything because mage armor is just better. So worst case is they grab MI and get a free cast of it and some cantrips. I get why they combined the two feats into one but it just doesn't really work.

I agree with your take on the other feats. There is definitely some more work to do boosting some of those weak feats.

I think, to the extent that War Caster feels mandatory or OP now, is largely driven by how much easier it is for every caster to get shield proficiency now. If they nerf Lightly Armored then I can envision lots more casters skipping it and WC.

It would still remain a great pick for gishes and a decent pick for clerics and druids, and I think that's fine.

Having it basically be a must pick for two classes and a very good pick for a lot more is pretty OP relative to the other options. Once again I am not saying that PCs can't ignore the choice or anything but that it will dominate decision making and when one choice dominates decision making across multiple classes pretty much regardless of build then it doesn't really fit right IMO.

It is also an ability that is basically insurance and is about as fun as buying insurance. Sure it is useful but it is insurance. I don't really find that as interesting thematically as other abilities like keen mind which opens up using that bonus action or actor which allows the player to do something fun and new.

stoutstien

2022-10-13, 02:49 PM

Ritual Caster was a strong and interesting choice for Fighters in 5e, but now it doesn't give you a ritual book. They buffed it for casters, but made it provide fewer options for martials.

Huge hit to an entire style of play. Now if i want to be a formulation based caster I must also be a wizard.

ZRN

2022-10-13, 03:00 PM

Jervis

2022-10-13, 03:15 PM

If I had to guess, bold is the problem - GWM and SS are balanced around hitting normally (they are a small but handy DPR increase in those cases), but advantage is very easy to get, and it'll only get easier in 1DD. (e.g. every single class can get a familiar at level 1, Inspiration will get handed out like candy etc.)

I wouldn’t be surprised if familiar helping is explicitly forbidden in the new description for the spell. That said they tend to drop dead easily so a enemy is very likely to just bop it with a attack. For my money I’ve always added a clause to the spell that the familiar dying gives the caster a level of exhaustion.

Kane0

2022-10-13, 03:31 PM

Has someone done the math on old GWM (-5/+10) vs. new GWM (half-feat, bonus damage 1/round) yet?

Is this helpful to anyone?

https://i.imgur.com/dyQu00o.png

Edit: 5.1 Great Weapon column also carries a chance of bonus action attacks via crits or kills which would change the numbers

There was a thread on that.

Psyren

2022-10-13, 03:49 PM

There was a thread on that.

Thanks! Do those numbers take AC into account?

Huge hit to an entire style of play. Now if i want to be a formulation based caster I must also be a wizard.

I wouldn't mind if the feat were repeatable so you can pick up additional rituals that way.

I wouldn’t be surprised if familiar helping is explicitly forbidden in the new description for the spell. That said they tend to drop dead easily so a enemy is very likely to just bop it with a attack. For my money I’ve always added a clause to the spell that the familiar dying gives the caster a level of exhaustion.

Owl familiar is unlikely to get bopped by anything due to Flyby. So unless they can't take the Help action at all, that still exists.

Tanarii

2022-10-13, 04:45 PM

Why is taking away the toys from Martials such a popular position? Do not concur.
Removing it from Sharpshooter was the better choice.
Because it was a bad toy. It so outweighed other options that it funneled Martials into highly specific 'builds'.

I'm a huge proponent of giving "I attack" martials good toys. But don't give them massively out of balance feats, or even feat chains, that result in counter intuitive 'builds'. GWM was just 3e's Spiked Chain all over again.

Jervis

2022-10-13, 05:56 PM

stoutstien

2022-10-13, 06:05 PM

GWM is more power attack with a large fullblade. Sentinel PAM is closer to spiked chain

*Insert joke about why not both*

Overall I don't like GWM/SS but I also don't like the changes so it's a wash in my book. I want more slasher/crusher style options and some meaningful action choices for martials past "well. do i I hit hard or harderer?"

Kane0

2022-10-13, 06:58 PM

Thanks! Do those numbers take AC into account?

No it does not, save for the -5/+10 in a limited fashion but i specifically avoided it and went with PAM instead for consistency and because im not that math savvy

ZRN

2022-10-13, 09:16 PM

Thanks! Do those numbers take AC into account?

Here's a comparison of an "old" GWM/PAM fighter vs. a new GWM/PAM fighter (both at level 20 attacking with advantage on everything, like for example a samurai) vs. a range of AC:

TargAC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
New GWM 54.0 53.1 52.0 50.6 49.1 47.4 45.4 40.9 35.5 29.2 21.6 12.3
Old GWM 86.2 82.5 78.3 73.7 68.5 62.8 56.7 43.0 27.3 9.6 9.6 9.6

The break-even point is vs. AC 23ish; below that the old GWM/PAM is way better. And that's taking into account zero external buffs or magic weapons, which tilt things towards the old version even more.

Jervis

2022-10-13, 09:29 PM

Here's a comparison of an "old" GWM/PAM fighter vs. a new GWM/PAM fighter (both at level 20 attacking with advantage on everything, like for example a samurai) vs. a range of AC:

TargAC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
New GWM 54.0 53.1 52.0 50.6 49.1 47.4 45.4 40.9 35.5 29.2 21.6 12.3
Old GWM 86.2 82.5 78.3 73.7 68.5 62.8 56.7 43.0 27.3 9.6 9.6 9.6

The break-even point is vs. AC 23ish; below that the old GWM/PAM is way better. And that's taking into account zero external buffs or magic weapons, which tilt things towards the old version even more.

Do you think the difference is small enough that at low levels the fact that they’re half feats now will make a difference?

Kane0

2022-10-13, 09:30 PM

Here's a comparison of an "old" GWM/PAM fighter vs. a new GWM/PAM fighter (both at level 20 attacking with advantage on everything, like for example a samurai) vs. a range of AC:

TargAC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
New GWM 54.0 53.1 52.0 50.6 49.1 47.4 45.4 40.9 35.5 29.2 21.6 12.3
Old GWM 86.2 82.5 78.3 73.7 68.5 62.8 56.7 43.0 27.3 9.6 9.6 9.6

The break-even point is vs. AC 23ish; below that the old GWM/PAM is way better. And that's taking into account zero external buffs or magic weapons, which tilt things towards the old version even more.

Is there much of a difference without PAM? Would it be hard to calculate for a fighter in tier 2 and/or 3?

Jervis

2022-10-13, 10:08 PM

Is there much of a difference without PAM? Would it be hard to calculate for a fighter in tier 2 and/or 3?

DPR calcination isn’t really difficult. Just take the average expected damage from all of your hits in a round and multiply it by the percent hit chance (xx% becomes .xx).

Psyren

2022-10-13, 10:24 PM

Here's a comparison of an "old" GWM/PAM fighter vs. a new GWM/PAM fighter (both at level 20 attacking with advantage on everything, like for example a samurai) vs. a range of AC:

TargAC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
New GWM 54.0 53.1 52.0 50.6 49.1 47.4 45.4 40.9 35.5 29.2 21.6 12.3
Old GWM 86.2 82.5 78.3 73.7 68.5 62.8 56.7 43.0 27.3 9.6 9.6 9.6

The break-even point is vs. AC 23ish; below that the old GWM/PAM is way better. And that's taking into account zero external buffs or magic weapons, which tilt things towards the old version even more.

1) What level?
2) How do they compare without advantage? (I'm well aware -5/+10 blows away the competition with advantage, my assumption is that that's likely why they're scaling it back.)

Jervis

2022-10-13, 10:53 PM

1) What level?
2) How do they compare without advantage? (I'm well aware -5/+10 blows away the competition with advantage, my assumption is that that's likely why they're scaling it back.)

It looks like he did those calculations at level 20. From the back of the napkin math I did the new one actually better at 4 and 5 without advantage, at least without Pam. If you don’t factor in PAM and advantage the two are pretty close for a while. Problem is that the old one is infinitely better with optimization from advantage fishing and PaM extra attack.

Psyren

2022-10-13, 10:55 PM

It looks like he did those calculations at level 20. From the back of the napkin math I did the new one actually better at 4 and 5 without advantage, at least without Pam. If you don’t factor in PAM and advantage the two are pretty close for a while. Problem is that the old one is infinitely better with optimization from advantage fishing and PaM extra attack.

Sure it is, but I believe that's the point. What they thought was relatively balanced without advantage ended up being the strictly best option bar-none with it.

Dienekes

2022-10-13, 11:11 PM

Because it was a bad toy. It so outweighed other options that it funneled Martials into highly specific 'builds'.

I'm a huge proponent of giving "I attack" martials good toys. But don't give them massively out of balance feats, or even feat chains, that result in counter intuitive 'builds'. GWM was just 3e's Spiked Chain all over again.

Eh? Honestly, "I have a big weapon, I can make a big sloppy attack with it if i want." Seems pretty reasonable. As far as making builds go... that's what options do, yes.

Honestly, my biggest complaint was always that the other options were too bad, not that GWM was too good. It provided an interesting benefit that the player could fiddle with. I'd take a dozen more feats like that and erase the Dual Wielders of the world in a heartbeat.

stoutstien

2022-10-14, 07:03 AM

Pildion

2022-10-14, 07:38 AM

Im half expecting there to be some form of power attack attached to warriors. Even if it's only once per turn/round it would be enough to close the gap for all but the whitest rooms. Seeing how they are doing the three feet as features approach they could just get one of the combat feats for free and that would open up options on the back end. Lazy but it tends to work.

At this point, I would be counting on it, they have to for martials to be competitive. That said, switching in Martials to be able to "Power Attack" would be a much better way to go, because in 5e as it stands these feats are known as "taxes" for a reason. Or I'd be "Home Brewing" power attack based on -PB\+PB*2

stoutstien

2022-10-14, 07:49 AM

At this point, I would be counting on it, they have to for martials to be competitive. That said, switching in Martials to be able to "Power Attack" would be a much better way to go, because in 5e as it stands these feats are known as "taxes" for a reason. Or I'd be "Home Brewing" power attack based on -PB\+PB*2

I've been using modifier requirements for my games with good results. So a greataxe needs a str of 16 to make it's special tag power attack available. In it's case it's grievous strike that is trading advantage for double modifier to damage.

ZRN

2022-10-14, 12:06 PM

1) What level?
2) How do they compare without advantage? (I'm well aware -5/+10 blows away the competition with advantage, my assumption is that that's likely why they're scaling it back.)

Level 20 Without advantage:

AC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
New 50.3 47.8 45.4 42.9 40.4 37.9 35.5 30.4 25.2 19.8 13.9 7.4
Old 63.8 58.9 54.0 49.1 44.2 39.3 34.4 24.6 14.7 4.9 4.9 4.9

Psyren

2022-10-14, 12:15 PM

Tanarii

2022-10-14, 12:20 PM

Level 20 Without advantage:

AC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 24 26 28 30
New 50.3 47.8 45.4 42.9 40.4 37.9 35.5 30.4 25.2 19.8 13.9 7.4
Old 63.8 58.9 54.0 49.1 44.2 39.3 34.4 24.6 14.7 4.9 4.9 4.9

Which is why the old one was such terrible design. It was usually a gain in damage even without advantage (since ACs are typically 18 or lower), and it was a massive gain with advantage. It channeled builds into 2H, and in particular polearm builds because of the interaction with PAM.

stoutstien

2022-10-14, 12:21 PM

So new pulls ahead at AC 20, and they're pretty close to one another at 18+. Seems reasonable.

Last question, how does the match change if you have fewer attacks? Say a Barbarian 20 instead of a Fighter 20. I imagine old GWM is better the more attacks you have, since new GWM is only 1/round.

Based on my napkin math the new version actually pulls ahead with anything less than three attacks (unless you're factor in attack bonuses after the roll). I think the new version is grotesquely boring but I can't fault it impact wise.

Psyren

2022-10-14, 12:29 PM

Which is why the old one was such terrible design. It was usually a gain in damage even without advantage (since ACs are typically 18 or lower), and it was a massive gain with advantage. It channeled builds into 2H, and in particular polearm builds because of the interaction with PAM.

Concur. Also while I'm immensely grateful for the calculations, comparing them at level 20 is flawed too since the new one is a half-feat, it's going to have its biggest impact at 4th level when it's not only adding the PB damage boost, but it's boosting your to-hit and damage too by getting you to 18 Str (and before you get Extra Attack.)

Based on my napkin math the new version actually pulls ahead with anything less than three attacks (unless you're factor in attack bonuses after the roll). I think the new version is grotesquely boring but I can't fault it impact wise.

Nice, good to know.

LudicSavant

2022-10-14, 07:55 PM

Sure it is, but I believe that's the point. What they thought was relatively balanced without advantage ended up being the strictly best option bar-none with it.

Eh. GWM is not the 'strictly best option bar none' even if you have Advantage. Optimizers take other feats instead all the time -- just look at any of the build threads on this forum for examples.

GWM is a feat tax for greatsword builds, yes, but that's a rather different issue. Greatsword builds aren't blowing away all the competition in optimized games.

Psyren

2022-10-14, 10:09 PM

Eh. GWM is not the 'strictly best option bar none' even if you have Advantage. Optimizers take other feats instead all the time -- just look at any of the build threads on this forum for examples.

GWM is a feat tax for greatsword builds, yes, but that's a rather different issue. Greatsword builds aren't blowing away all the competition in optimized games.

And polearm builds (after PAM).

I never said every single melee (and non-melee) wanted it - but I do understand them wanting to tone it down too.

(Also: while I appreciate the depth and diversity of builds on this forum, often builds here are optimizing within/realizing a concept, not just going for biggest number regardless of originality or lack thereof. In other words, the builds here are much more interesting, but that doesn't mean they will be WotC's primary concern for nerfs or tweaks.)

Pex

2022-10-14, 10:49 PM

With bias because I've taken them often, I do not like the nerfs to Healer and Inspiring Leader. The current versions have not and do not break the game. They help party endurance as their purpose but do not bring uberpower.

Since they're married to ASI or Feat I can at least appreciate making feats "half-feats". Choosing between a full ASI or a feat is still a tough choice, but now the tough choice is one of interesting decision instead of frustration.

LudicSavant

2022-10-14, 11:42 PM

I never said every single melee (and non-melee) wanted it

Indeed you didn't. You said it was the "strictly best option bar none," which isn't true.

(Also: while I appreciate the depth and diversity of builds on this forum, often builds here are optimizing within/realizing a concept, not just going for biggest number regardless of originality or lack thereof.

Even when just going for the biggest number regardless of originality or lack thereof, GWM is still not strictly the best option, even with Advantage.

Like, it's not just a 'this forum' thing. If you go onto an optimization site like, I dunno, Tabletop Builds, and go look up the list of their builds they consider the most powerful ones (their 'flagship builds'), they've got zero GWM builds on there.

Psyren

2022-10-15, 09:33 AM

Indeed you didn't. You said it was the "strictly best option bar none," which isn't true.

Even when just going for the biggest number regardless of originality or lack thereof, GWM is still not strictly the best option, even with Advantage.

Like, it's not just a 'this forum' thing. If you go onto an optimization site like, I dunno, Tabletop Builds, and go look up the list of their builds they consider the most powerful ones (their 'flagship builds'), they've got zero GWM builds on there.

You mean the site that says things like "For melee martial characters, the first two feats you want to take are going to be Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master in some order (the order depends on when you can access your first feat)" (https://tabletopbuilds.com/more-min-than-max-asis-versus-feats/)? That one?

LudicSavant

2022-10-15, 09:41 AM

You mean the site that says things like "For melee martial characters, the first two feats you want to take are going to be Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master in some order (the order depends on when you can access your first feat)" (https://tabletopbuilds.com/more-min-than-max-asis-versus-feats/)? That one?

Yes, that one. The quote you put there (despite saying 'for melee martial characters') is specifically in context of making a certain type of Barbarian build. We can see from elsewhere on the site that they don't always take GWM/PAM on melee martials.

Said site has zero GWM/PAM builds rated as Flagship builds. It also specifically notes that they don't consider GWM overpowered.

Here's a quote from one of their 'carpenters', with their opinion on One D&D:
Soma: My gut reaction is that it feels like my worst fear—that martial classes are being hampered and casters classes are getting buffed or going unchecked as a result of Wizard’s misdiagnosis of the balance problems of 5th Edition—is coming to fruition. That’s admittedly a little dramatic, but it seems like Wizards mistook the overcentralization of certain martial feat pairings (CBE/SS and PAM/GWM) as those feats being overpowered

and from another of their 'carpenters':
Esker: “Rogues, Power Attack Feats, and Jumping were apparently the big overpowered things in the game before. What we really need though is easier AC boosts for spellcasters.”

Tanarii

2022-10-15, 10:00 AM

Based on my napkin math the new version actually pulls ahead with anything less than three attacks (unless you're factor in attack bonuses after the roll). I think the new version is grotesquely boring but I can't fault it impact wise.Most napkin math I've seen grossly over-assumes the typical ACs that will be faced. Assumptions like CR = level tend to get thrown around. I'd want to see a comparison for CR = level-3, or even level/2, before accepting claims new feat might outperform out feat.

Given it was one of two to four top feats and warped the entire optimization mindset, even for those not particularly in to TO, it definitely needed toning down.

With bias because I've taken them often, I do not like the nerfs to Healer and Inspiring Leader. The current versions have not and do not break the game. They help party endurance as their purpose but do not bring uberpower.
They kinda do break the game, but only a small-ish crack that's easy to ignore. Because it's effects are only abnormally powerful in Tier 1. OTOH they definitely feel necessary when there isn't a support class (Bard/Cleric/Druid) or it's a very small group.

Psyren

2022-10-15, 10:00 AM

For the record Ludic, I don't consider -5/+10 feats "overpowered" either. But I can get behind wanting to shake up the meta too. We don't have enough information to know whether this will be the be-all and end-all of martial damage yet or not.

Also, their "Flagship builds" you keep mentioning are literally things like Chronurgy Wizard, Twilight Cleric and Shepherd Druid :smallconfused: of course no non-strength-martial build is going to care about GWM, and we have no way yet of knowing whether these won't see any nerfs of their own.

LudicSavant

2022-10-15, 10:02 AM

Psyren

2022-10-15, 10:08 AM

For a strength-based melee martial specifically I stand by that statement, or at the very least I'm not budging too far (PAM could overtake it as per the earlier quote depending on level.) Certainly none of the "flagship builds" have any bearing on that - no strength-based martial appears to have even made the cut for that label AFAICS. (There's a single paladin on the list, but - surprise surprise - they go Hexblade.)

stoutstien

2022-10-15, 10:35 AM

Most napkin math I've seen grossly over-assumes the typical ACs that will be faced. Assumptions like CR = level tend to get thrown around. I'd want to see a comparison for CR = level-3, or even level/2, before accepting claims new feat might outperform out feat.

Given it was one of two to four top feats and warped the entire optimization mindset, even for those not particularly in to TO, it definitely needed toning down.

They kinda do break the game, but only a small-ish crack that's easy to ignore. Because it's effects are only abnormally powerful in Tier 1. OTOH they definitely feel necessary when there isn't a support class (Bard/Cleric/Druid) or it's a very small group.

I used 55/60/65/70% hit rate for mine just to get a decent range. The biggest factor is the ASI budget you save with the new version combined with any on hit damage bonus.(a lot of players quote reckless and GWM as a sizable jump but the relavtive return shrinks the higher your base dmg gets.)

Of course we need to see warriors to really tell.

LudicSavant

2022-10-15, 10:37 AM

Kane0

2022-10-15, 03:22 PM

Martials dealing a little more single target weapon damage than expected is hardly a concern, whether that be 2x or 5x IMO.

Tanarii

2022-10-15, 05:08 PM

Martials dealing a little more single target weapon damage than expected is hardly a concern, whether that be 2x or 5x IMO.
It's a "concern" because it requires a highly specific build. That's bad design. (Edit: it's also buried in an optional rule.)

If martial single target damage is too low, do something to increase it across the board.

Kane0

2022-10-15, 06:42 PM

It's a "concern" because it requires a highly specific build. That's bad design. (Edit: it's also buried in an optional rule.)

If martial single target damage is too low, do something to increase it across the board.

Yes a few specific feats are outliers, and that reduces breadth of choice when it comes to optimisation. Coincidentally, i do the same thing with my homebrew that the UA does with GWM, but as a DM i dont stress when someone opts for the PHB version.

Psyren

2022-10-15, 07:43 PM

All I'm expecting is budging far enough to get away from 'bar none,' which it seems like you've already done with the mention of PAM, non-Str martials, etc. Shrug.

I was never saying "non-Str martials should take GWM." Nor Shepherd Druids and Chronurgy Wizards for that matter :smalltongue:

I get that I tripped over the pedantry landmine by not explicitly excluding every obviously bad fit, but that's fine; I'll pick up my legs and be on my way.

It's a "concern" because it requires a highly specific build. That's bad design. (Edit: it's also buried in an optional rule.)

If martial single target damage is too low, do something to increase it across the board.

Yeah, I don't consider it overpowered in effect. I don't mind -5/+10 as a combat option at all. I'd have just have preferred if it didn't cost a feat, and was available to more types of weapons.

LudicSavant

2022-10-15, 08:13 PM

I was never saying "non-Str martials should take GWM." Nor Shepherd Druids and Chronurgy Wizards for that matter :smalltongue:

:smallsigh: Nor did I say that you were saying that.

Indeed you didn't. You said it was the "strictly best option bar none," which isn't true.

Here's where you said that:

What they thought was relatively balanced without advantage ended up being the strictly best option bar-none with it.

Psyren

2022-10-15, 08:23 PM

:smallsigh: Man you already tried this.

Here's where you said that:

Yeah and the post I was responding to (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25608517&postcount=33) was literally comparing Str-based melee martials before and after the change. Man.

LudicSavant

2022-10-15, 08:26 PM

Yeah and the post I was responding to (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25608517&postcount=33) was literally comparing Str-based melee martials before and after the change. Man.

Yes, and?

For Strength-based martials, it is not 'strictly the best option bar-none.' "Man."

You admitted you recognized at least one of the exceptions yourself in a later post. And yet are still arguing for some reason.

Psyren

2022-10-15, 08:29 PM

And, for Strength-based martials, it is not 'strictly the best option bar-none.' "Man."

You admitted you recognized at least one exception yourself in a later post. And yet are still arguing for some reason.

You're the one who replied (again) after I said I was fine. Two-way street.

ZRN

2022-10-17, 05:58 AM

Here's a quote from one of their 'carpenters', with their opinion on One D&D:

Soma: My gut reaction is that it feels like my worst fear—that martial classes are being hampered and casters classes are getting buffed or going unchecked as a result of Wizard’s misdiagnosis of the balance problems of 5th Edition—is coming to fruition. That’s admittedly a little dramatic, but it seems like Wizards mistook the overcentralization of certain martial feat pairings (CBE/SS and PAM/GWM) as those feats being overpowered:

I don't know anything about this guy or his site, but I'd say that "the over centralization of certain martial feat pairings" is itself plenty of reason for a rebalancing; certainly their main/only goal isn't fixing some disparity between optimized builds.

If you're the kind of person who thinks there are huge, system balance issues in 5e and you're expecting OneDND to resolve them, you're almost certainly in for a disappointment. It's clearly a sand-off-the-rough-edges edition.

Jervis

2022-10-17, 06:16 AM

OvisCaedo

2022-10-17, 10:00 AM

While two-weapon fighting itself has been made much smoother, it is really impressive that they managed to make the dual-wielder feat worse. I guess it's a half-feat now? Though so is everything else

Psyren

2022-10-17, 10:31 AM

BTW weird question but how does this sound for a hypothetical warrior group feat? Assume it also gives +str/dex

Power Attack

Whenever you take the attack action you can choose to give yourself disadvantage on all attack rolls you make this round, if you do your weapon attacks and unarmed strikes deal additional damage equal to an additional roll of their weapon damage dice

Isn't that essentially turning every hit that round into a crit? (minus SA/smite etc.)

I don't know anything about this guy or his site, but I'd say that "the over centralization of certain martial feat pairings" is itself plenty of reason for a rebalancing; certainly their main/only goal isn't fixing some disparity between optimized builds.

Indeed.

While two-weapon fighting itself has been made much smoother, it is really impressive that they managed to make the dual-wielder feat worse. I guess it's a half-feat now? Though so is everything else

Yeah, Dual Wielder should let you wield two 1H weapons if they're going to keep it at all. And even then I would probably stick with two light weapons on every TWF character and save the feat.

Jervis

2022-10-17, 12:44 PM

Isn't that essentially turning every hit that round into a crit? (minus SA/smite etc.)

To some degree yes and I admit it’s not the best solution. I’m trying to speculate what changes might go into martials and thinking about what a proper GWM and SS replacement might look like. Disadvantage usually gets handwaved as -5 when you don’t have the numbered for a specific calculation and double damage dice is less on average than a flat +10, disadvantage as apposed to a fixed penalty also means fishing for advantage just makes it a flat roll.

To be clear i’m not sure this would be the most healthy for the game but i’m thinking about possible risk b reward mechanics that might become a thing