D&D 5E Great Weapon Mastery - once more into the breach! (with math)

[hejtmane]

Just remove feats and multiclassing. They are optional and they are pointless. 5e characters are already strong without the need to optimize AND archetypes/races already give you plently of variety.

Problem solved. Moving on.

Multiclass by itself in 5e has a few powerfull build but the most powerful ones are straight class with feats in fact for melee Mainly Fighters and Barbarians can be a handful but Fighters are the worse

 

[Ancalagon]

Just remove feats and multiclassing. They are optional and they are pointless. 5e characters are already strong without the need to optimize AND archetypes/races already give you plently of variety.

Problem solved. Moving on.

For my first campaign, that is what I did. No regrets.

 

[Datalore]

All my best 5E campaigns have removed m/c and feats. No one frets about munchkinny builds. Players don't have to worry over feat taxes. DMs don't need to worry about buffing monster damage thanks to Bard/Life Cleric overheal. There is no need to consult a chart to determine how high to jack up monster AC or console the Monk thanks to some silly power attack or sharpshooting feat. Players need positioning and tactics rather than Sentinel. There is no need to console the Warlock because Paladins and Sorcerers make better Warlocks with just two levels of their class.

Let go of 3.5 folks. Let it go. Dump the m/c and feats. It's just better.

 

[Yunru]

All my best 5E campaigns have removed m/c and feats. No one frets about munchkinny builds. Players don't have to worry over feat taxes. DMs don't need to worry about buffing monster damage thanks to Bard/Life Cleric overheal. There is no need to consult a chart to determine how high to jack up monster AC or console the Monk thanks to some silly power attack or sharpshooting feat. Players need positioning and tactics rather than Sentinel. There is no need to console the Warlock because Paladins and Sorcerers make better Warlocks with just two levels of their class.

Let go of 3.5 folks. Let it go. Dump the m/c and feats. It's just better.

You said it once. Repeating it is just spam.

 

[Datalore]

I was responding to Ancalagon and adding some rationale to my post. But, hey, whatevs...

 

[Satyrn]

I was responding to Ancalagon and adding some rationale to my post. But, hey, whatevs...

Yeah, that was clear.

But your advice - "Let go of 3.5 folks. Let it go. Dump the m/c and feats. It's just better." - is not something I'll ever take. My table enjoys muticlassing and feats in the game. Dumping them would make our game just worse.

 

[Datalore]

Don't knock it till you try it. It actually leads to MORE diversity and varying play styles. People can't rely on OP feats or build synergy to power through as easily. They also don't feel compelled to make the same character development choices time after time.

Something I came to realize in 3.5 is that excessive character development choices actually leads to a level of sameness. People either take similar feats which makes different classes play the same or they m/c in similar ways which homogenizes the party.

Try running a few one shots without all the OPTIONAL 5E rules and see how it goes.

 

[Yunru]

Don't knock it till you try it. It actually leads to MORE diversity and varying play styles. People can't rely on OP feats or build synergy to power through as easily. They also don't feel compelled to make the same character development choices time after time.

Something I came to realize in 3.5 is that excessive character development choices actually leads to a level of sameness. People either take similar feats which makes different classes play the same or they m/c in similar ways which homogenizes the party.

Try running a few one shots without all the OPTIONAL 5E rules and see how it goes.

Boring, that's how it goes. You go from a wide plethora of concepts, to a much, much smaller range.

 

[Datalore]

It's the opposite. Two different classes with Sharpshooter play more the same than if they didn't have it.

 

[Ancalagon]

Boring, that's how it goes. You go from a wide plethora of concepts, to a much, much smaller range.

But only a very small portion of that wider plethora of concepts is actually viable, that's what he's getting at. It's like "would you like to choose from 40 concepts, or 100 concept - but only 10 of those are good?"