Should there be weapon-specific feats

[Skrum]

To tie the question to current mechanics, should GWM and PAM be
1) exactly as they are
2) exist as they are mechanically, but be made compatible with all weapons (they'd be more like a style feat)
3) removed entirely/changed so much they don't particularly resemble their current form

I'm personally torn between 1 and 2. One one hand, I *don't* like getting stuck with only using certain weapons if I want to optimize my character. But on the other, I don't particularly like the idea of melding all weapons together and essentially getting rid of any mechanical benefit of using one weapon over another.

I'd say ideally, I'd like there to be GWM and PAM-type feats for ALL weapons - something like there being several different weapon categories, and each weapon fits into at least one category, and then each category has at least 2 associated feats that offer significant, build-defining benefits.

But if that doesn't happen, I think it would be better if GWM and PAM were generalized and could be used with any weapon.

As for option 3 - hard to say what exactly this should/would look like. I think the worst version of this though is just getting rid of GWM and PAM and not replacing it with anything similar. That to me is both melding all weapons together AND taking away the mechanical benefit of the feats.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Option 4. Break them down and give equivalent features to specific classes geared for that class directly, at about 8 levels deep.

Ie.

Barbarians get GWM baked in with all weapons.
Fighters get to choose two of the combat feat features (including PAM, GWM, SS, CBE, DW, sentinel, and Shield Master).
Rangers get DW but buffed or SS.
Rogues get CBE or DW.

Everyone else gets bupkis. The relevant feats (other than sentinel and Shield Master) are removed.

If I'm feeling generous, I'd leave neutered versions of the feats. Missing the bonus action attacks from PAM and CBE and the cover ignoring part of SS.

[Kane0]

My vote is 1. Have weapon feats based on weapon traits or other groupings of similarity. Crusher/Piercer/Slasher is just a touch too broad, individual weapons (halberd vs glaive) too narrow.

[Skrum]

Option 4. Break them down and give equivalent features to specific classes geared for that class directly, at about 8 levels deep.

Ie.

Barbarians get GWM baked in with all weapons.
Fighters get to choose two of the combat feat features (including PAM, GWM, SS, CBE, DW, sentinel, and Shield Master).
Rangers get DW but buffed or SS.
Rogues get CBE or DW.

Everyone else gets bupkis. The relevant feats (other than sentinel and Shield Master) are removed.

If I'm feeling generous, I'd leave neutered versions of the feats. Missing the bonus action attacks from PAM and CBE and the cover ignoring part of SS.

Aren't you removing build optionality though? If barbs automatically get GWM, that means ALL barbs use two handed heavy weapons, and they be working against the class to not use those weapons.

I really rebel at the idea of making characters the same. I want my fighter to feel different than the other player's fighter, and not just because of subclass. I want feats. I want synergies. I want to express myself through my build choices.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Aren't you removing build optionality though? If barbs automatically get GWM, that means ALL barbs use two handed heavy weapons, and they be working against the class to not use those weapons.

I really rebel at the idea of making characters the same. I want my fighter to feel different than the other player's fighter, and not just because of subclass. I want feats. I want synergies. I want to express myself through my build choices.

I said "GWM with all weapons".

And classes are exactly attempts to reduce build optionality to reinforce archetypes. That's the only point of having them. To constrain and channel vertical progression.

Feats are fine for horizontal progression, for adding things orthogonal to the class core. In d&D, how a class fights is absolutely not orthogonal. It's core, with usually a choice between a few packages.

[Skrum]

I said "GWM with all weapons".

Ah ok, so like -5/+10 would just be a barb feature, like reckless attack is. I'm much more open to that, for sure.




And classes are exactly attempts to reduce build optionality to reinforce archetypes. That's the only point of having them. To constrain and channel vertical progression.

Feats are fine for horizontal progression, for adding things orthogonal to the class core. .

And that's why I like "bland" classes, or even classless systems - I want my build choices to be entirely about putting together the ideal mechanical benefits to bring a character concept to life.

=====

I see your point about imbedding the mechanics of these build-defining feats in the classes though. Like, if they're that good, they should be gotten automatically, and factored into balancing the game that way. Having them be both extremely powerful but also optional is a very weird choice from a game design perspective.

[stoutstien]

Yeah I think the best place to bake it into the class or at least just the weapon table in such a way that it isn't snipable by anybody and everybody.

Feats should be weapon neutral or at least a broad enough category where it's falls under a single archetype.

[Mastikator]

Option 1.

If there's a missing niche add a feat for that niche.

[Amechra]

I'm in favor of weapon-specific feats (or, at least, fighting style-specific feats), but both GWM and PAM should be tossed in the trash.

First off, the -5/+10 "choice" is roughly equivalent to "You deal +2 damage with , which increases to +5 damage if you have Advantage" within the accuracy ranges that most martial characters are going to be working with, but it packages it as if it was a meaningful decision that you're making (which just sticks in my craw). And, ultimately, "this weapon gets bonus damage when there's an opening" feels more like a Finesse "thing" to me than a Heavy Weapon "thing" (that'd be, what... stunning your target? Smashing through armor?). The cleave thing is pretty cool, though.

As for PAM... improving OAs by catching people coming and going, but bonus action attacks tied to the Attack action are [I]boring as hell and contribute to the "martial characters spam the Attack action" problem. I'm of the opinion that bonus action attacks should be like Charger, where they're focused on letting you keep up some offensive pressure when you take other actions. Like, it'd be cool if Polearm Expert was "you can make an attack with your polearm as a bonus action when you take the Dodge action" or whatever.

If your goal is to have weapons deal more damage, just... have them deal more damage? Don't faff around with making it a feat tax — weapon-specific feats should expand your options, not make your damage what it's "supposed to be".

[Skrum]

I'm in favor of weapon-specific feats (or, at least, fighting style-specific feats), but both GWM and PAM should be tossed in the trash.

First off, the -5/+10 "choice" is roughly equivalent to "You deal +2 damage with , which increases to +5 damage if you have Advantage" within the accuracy ranges that most martial characters are going to be working with, but it packages it as if it was a meaningful decision that you're making (which just sticks in my craw). And, ultimately, "this weapon gets bonus damage when there's an opening" feels more like a Finesse "thing" to me than a Heavy Weapon "thing" (that'd be, what... stunning your target? Smashing through armor?). The cleave thing is pretty cool, though.

As for PAM... improving OAs by catching people coming and going, but bonus action attacks tied to the Attack action are [I]boring as hell and contribute to the "martial characters spam the Attack action" problem. I'm of the opinion that bonus action attacks should be like Charger, where they're focused on letting you keep up some offensive pressure when you take other actions. Like, it'd be cool if Polearm Expert was "you can make an attack with your polearm as a bonus action when you take the Dodge action" or whatever.

If your goal is to have weapons deal more damage, just... have them deal more damage? Don't faff around with making it a feat tax — weapon-specific feats should expand your options, not make your damage what it's "supposed to be".

Really good points that I agree with all the way though - but the design team seems to have long disagreed with us both. I know a lot less about 4e, but certainly in 3e and 5e, the actual damage martials can do with just their class features doesn't seem to be balanced or considered in any particular way. And then feat options, limited and contextual, are added on with again no apparent plan or overall vision.

[Amechra]

Really good points that I agree with all the way though - but the design team seems to have long disagreed with us both.

I mean, 3e's team is on record as saying that they designed feats wrong as a joke, so...

(It's blue because I couldn't be bothered to find the quote, and it was more along the lines of "we made some feats legitimately terrible in order to reward system mastery", but the vibe is right).

[Pex]

I said "GWM with all weapons".

And classes are exactly attempts to reduce build optionality to reinforce archetypes. That's the only point of having them. To constrain and channel vertical progression.

Feats are fine for horizontal progression, for adding things orthogonal to the class core. In d&D, how a class fights is absolutely not orthogonal. It's core, with usually a choice between a few packages.

But you're still enforcing using a weapon two-handed. When I played my barbarian I went sword & shield with Shield Master and had a blast. It was nice to give myself advantage without Reckless Attacks, and just because I take half-damage on everything doesn't I shouldn't care about AC and want to be missed by the bad guys from time to time. Classes have packages, but that doesn't mean all members of the class have to be the same way. If you are to get rid of the feats to put them in classes don't pigeon hole a class into one fighting style.

[Skrum]

But you're still enforcing using a weapon two-handed. When I played my barbarian I went sword & shield with Shield Master and had a blast. It was nice to give myself advantage without Reckless Attacks, and just because I take half-damage on everything doesn't I shouldn't care about AC and want to be missed by the bad guys from time to time. Classes have packages, but that doesn't mean all members of the class have to be the same way. If you are to get rid of the feats to put them in classes don't pigeon hole a class into one fighting style.

GWM with all weapons, presumably, means a barb can, with any attack using any weapon, take a -5 penalty on the attack roll to gain a +10 bonus to the damage roll.

It wouldn't pigeonhole them at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

GWM with all weapons, presumably, means a barb can, with any attack using any weapon, take a -5 penalty on the attack roll to gain a +10 bonus to the damage roll.

It wouldn't pigeonhole them at all.

Yeah. Plus the cleave option. At most I'd restrict to to melee and thrown weapons.

And yeah, the reason to do this is exactly because the existing ones are boring number fixes that feel (rightly or not) required to keep up. I prefer if the class gives you all the numbers you need to put you into the expected zone (with wiggle room on either side) and optional systems give optional broadening.

Imagine there was a feat that gave warlocks extra pact slots. It'd be a must have feat, basically a tax. But not particularly interesting of a choice. To some degree and for lots of people, PAM and GWM (or SS and/or CBE) feel exactly like that. Boring must haves.

[Witty Username]

And classes are exactly attempts to reduce build optionality to reinforce archetypes. That's the only point of having them. To constrain and channel vertical progression.

Feats are fine for horizontal progression, for adding things orthogonal to the class core. In d&D, how a class fights is absolutely not orthogonal. It's core, with usually a choice between a few packages.

At that point, why bother with ASIs at all, it seems like they run counter to your purpose?

[Aimeryan]

First off, the -5/+10 "choice" is roughly equivalent to...

The -5/+10 is one of the few choices martials get to make in combat; it can be negative against high AC creatures (relative to CR) and can range from an expected average DPR increase but greater unreliability per hit to a much more likely probability to take out a creature - based on the ACs involved.

I would like to be able to choose how much I wager, however, other than that I do think this is one of the more interesting Feats in the game (which yeah, says a lot). Would I be opposed to getting it automatically when you pick up a Fighting Style? No, but I'm not really opposed to it as a Feat either. GWM and SS cover a lot of weapon choices, and it seems more appropriate for it to be with 2H weapons. I would like a good option for 1H weapons, but not the same option.

[Silly Name]

IMHO, the main reason PAM, GWM, SS and XBE get "hate" is mostly because there's no equivalent to those feats for other figthing styles - Dual Wielder and Shield Master aren't bad, but they're nowhere near as impactful and powerful as the other feats.

If we had a GWM-level feat for Sword and Board, Two Weapon Fighting and One-Handed Weapons, it would be more than fine by me.

[Amnestic]

I don't mind weapon-specific feats if they specifically belong to a special featgroup that can be retrained on a long rest.

[Mastikator]

I'm in favor of weapon-specific feats (or, at least, fighting style-specific feats), but both GWM and PAM should be tossed in the trash.

First off, the -5/+10 "choice" is roughly equivalent to "You deal +2 damage with , which increases to +5 damage if you have Advantage" within the accuracy ranges that most martial characters are going to be working with, but it packages it as if it was a meaningful decision that you're making (which just sticks in my craw). And, ultimately, "this weapon gets bonus damage when there's an opening" feels more like a Finesse "thing" to me than a Heavy Weapon "thing" (that'd be, what... stunning your target? Smashing through armor?). The cleave thing is pretty cool, though.

As for PAM... improving OAs by catching people coming and going, but bonus action attacks tied to the Attack action are [I]boring as hell and contribute to the "martial characters spam the Attack action" problem. I'm of the opinion that bonus action attacks should be like Charger, where they're focused on letting you keep up some offensive pressure when you take other actions. Like, it'd be cool if Polearm Expert was "you can make an attack with your polearm as a bonus action when you take the Dodge action" or whatever.

If your goal is to have weapons deal more damage, just... have them deal more damage? Don't faff around with making it a feat tax — weapon-specific feats should expand your options, not make your damage what it's "supposed to be".

On the other hand, having feats that improve damage on weapons allow players to scale their damage when their main ability score is raised to 20 for higher levels. In that regard I wouldn't mind if there were more feats that specifically added damage. But I would like to touch up some of the feats, CBM for instance shouldn't steer players to hand crossbows, a light or heavy crossbow should be just as viable.

I do agree that the -5/+10 is not a good thing to put into feats, I'd rather have -to hit/+damage as a general option for the Attack Action™. I prefer the UA version of SS and GWM for this reason.

[JackPhoenix]

I mean, 3e's team is on record as saying that they designed feats wrong as a joke, so...

(It's blue because I couldn't be bothered to find the quote, and it was more along the lines of "we made some feats legitimately terrible in order to reward system mastery", but the vibe is right).

Ivory tower game design (https://web.archive.org/web/20080221174425/http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142)

[P. G. Macer]

There actually was an Unearthed Arcana article by Mike Mearls way back in 2016 that created a series of weapon-related feats: Warhammer Mastery (as a deliberate example of bad feat design), Fell Handed, Blade Mastery, Flail Mastery, and Spear Mastery. None of the feats in the article saw official publication, though if I recall correctly they were what eventually inspired Crusher, Piercer, and Slasher years later.