D&D 5E Observations

[CapnZapp]

Moving on to one more annoyance:

The way feats lock in fighters into certain weapon combos.

It has become a real issue for me when the Barbarian isn't even giving a magical longsword a second glance.

Not only because a greataxe (or whatever) looks cool, because I respect the rule of cool.

But because as soon as you have taken Great Weapon Fighter no other kind of weapon makes any statistical sense.

The role of a martial character is to deal out damage, and it's a shame D&D so easily and eagerly locks you in into a certain weapon fighting style.

 

[CapnZapp]

I have realized I would much rather use a system where feats provide their bonuses (such as enabling you to make a butt end attack as a bonus action, as per PM feat) in a much more general way, not locking you in into a certain usage (polearms in this case).

I do realize the balance in regards to hand usage still needs to be present (if you enjoy shield AC you get a smaller weapon die)

 

[Azurewraith]

Moving on to one more annoyance:

The way feats lock in fighters into certain weapon combos.

It has become a real issue for me when the Barbarian isn't even giving a magical longsword a second glance.

Not only because a greataxe (or whatever) looks cool, because I respect the rule of cool.

But because as soon as you have taken Great Weapon Fighter no other kind of weapon makes any statistical sense.

The role of a martial character is to deal out damage, and it's a shame D&D so easily and eagerly locks you in into a certain weapon fighting style.

But for thematic and story reasons it does kind of work as if you have spent all your adventuring career with one style of weapon you will undoubtedly be able to wield it better than the longsword that you sparred with a few times

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You could have phrased this "in my experience control casters work well"

There's no need to enumerate the actual spells. I do know the game; thanks. And, as I said upthread, this kind of caster is one type we've identified as potentially viable.

Not just control. Control, summoners, and buffers are all included in that list of spells. Defensive and mobility spellcassters also do pretty well. Even AoE casters aren't too bad. Basically anything except single target direct damage spellcasters is competitive, and even for direct damage, warlocks and sorlocks are quite good.

Apologies if I'm saying things you already have said upthread. I don't have the whole thread memorized but it seems better to be thorough.

 

[kalil]

The lack of challenge is often cited as a justification for the lack of balance. It really does not matter if the GWM barbarian finishes the fight two rounds faster if the PC's were not in any risk of losing the fight regardless. Playing the game and published adventures as written works fine, but if your player's wants a tactical challenge they will be sorely dissapointed.

Regarding balance itself: It is not possible to truthfully claim that the classes are balance without feats and that they are balanced with feats. Given the existence of GWM and SS it is one or the other. I am inclined to go with neither. And tbh I dont think class balance was ever much of a priority for the design team.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Moving on to one more annoyance:

The way feats lock in fighters into certain weapon combos.

It has become a real issue for me when the Barbarian isn't even giving a magical longsword a second glance.

Not only because a greataxe (or whatever) looks cool, because I respect the rule of cool.

But because as soon as you have taken Great Weapon Fighter no other kind of weapon makes any statistical sense.

The role of a martial character is to deal out damage, and it's a shame D&D so easily and eagerly locks you in into a certain weapon fighting style.

Only, it kind of doesn't. Assuming you mean GWM and not GWF (since single-classed barbarians don't get GWF), the barbarian will be better off with the magical longsword against:

1.) Foes with high AC (such that GWM's -5/+10 is no longer a good deal),
2.) Foes with resistance or immunity to non-magical weapons.

 

[CapnZapp]

Only, it kind of doesn't. Assuming you mean GWM and not GWF (since single-classed barbarians don't get GWF), the barbarian will be better off with the magical longsword against:

1.) Foes with high AC (such that GWM's -5/+10 is no longer a good deal),
2.) Foes with resistance or immunity to non-magical weapons.

I meant GWM.

You're forgetting about the extra attack (from critting or killing a foe), but never mind, it was only meant as an example. The character might already have a magic weapon (only one not as good), etc.

I don't think we disagree on the basic point: the feats can steer the game into situations where your enjoyment at finding magical loot is lessened!

My main question remains, have you seen an alternate take on the 5e feats, that tries harder to avoid "weapon lock in".

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I meant GWM.

You're forgetting about the extra attack (from critting or killing a foe), but never mind, it was only meant as an example. The character might already have a magic weapon (only one not as good), etc.

I don't think we disagree on the basic point: the feats can steer the game into situations where your enjoyment at finding magical loot is lessened!

My main question remains, have you seen an alternate take on the 5e feats, that tries harder to avoid "weapon lock in".

But the extra attack from critting/killing explicitly applies to a longsword just as well as a heavy weapon. GWM was deliberately designed to offer some generic benefits that work with all weapons, just as Crossbow Expert was deliberately designed to offer a generic benefit that works with all ranged attacks in addition to its crossbow-specific bonuses[1]. So the extra attack is a non-factor when analyzing weapon lock-in.

I do agree with your basic point there, although I don't think I view that as a bad thing, because personally I like intrinsic capabilities better than magic loot. To me it's a good thing if the barbarian prefers his trusty old greataxe to the shiny new Longsword of Lifestealing except in very specific situations where the Longsword of Lifestealing is particularly apropos.

I think if you wanted to completely avoid weapon lock-in you'd need to get rid of fighting styles as well as feats. I guess one way to do that would be to blend GWF/Dueling/Archery/TWF together into one great big "offensive style" which grants bonuses appropriate to whatever weapon you're using. Then abolish feats and you're good to go.


[1] Quoting from https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/sageadvice_feats

When designing a feat with a narrow use, we consider adding at least one element that can benefit a character more broadly—a bit of mastery that your character brings from one situation to another. The second benefit of Crossbow Expert is such an element, as is the first benefit of Great Weapon Master. That element in Crossbow Expert shows that some of the character’s expertise with one type of thing—crossbows, in this case—transfers to other things.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, it didn't work / wasn't enough for my player, who didn't even look twice at any non great weapon they found, only commenting "oh well, hope the next one is a greataxe"...

 

[CapnZapp]

I think the issue is one of minmaxing: yes, you CAN take the feat as a sword and board fighter... But why not then shuck the shield and grab that sword in both hands*…?


(*yes I know, a longsword is versatile but not heavy)

...To gain ALL of the feat's benefits, I mean. D&D is a game rewarding specialization, but this does run counter to the desired state of "I'm a fighter, I can use every weapon equally well, I can kill you with a tooth pick if I want to" (slightly exaggerated

I guess that design philosophy is a bit too... casual? for our group of seasoned 3e optimizers!