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

[Caliban]

Gotta disagree. 5e is pretty forgiving. A small number of builds may be truly optimal, but a large number of builds are still viable and fun even if they aren't top tier.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using EN World mobile app

 

[Satyrn]

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.

But we don't rely on OP feats and build synergy. We don't feel compelled to make the same character development choices time and time again.

I mean, these forums tell me that TWF is a weak choice, that medium armor is a weak choice, that putting a high score in Intelligence is a weak choice for all but wizards. Yet my gnome battlemaster has Intelligence as his second highest stat, wears breastplate and dual wields short swords.

The forum says witchbolt is a terrible spell, and yet it is our sorcerer's go to spell of choice.

The forum says that agonizing blast is a must for a warlock, and yet our warlock doesn't have it. He took pact of the chain, and yet he fights in melee with a sword (well, he's got a couple levels of paladin so he can wear plate and be our tank).

What problem do you think dropping feats and multiclassing would fix for us?

 

[Datalore]

It may be forgiving, but even if going non optimal, the use of feats and m/c still leads to a party with homogenized abilities and stale gameplay.

This is a common issue in classless systems which people wrongly assume will lead to more unique characters. Instead, you end up with characters that play very similarly.

The strength of class based systems is in setting limits on what a character can do to promote party diversity.

5e does a great job of allowing choices in chargen with archetypes and races. Those keep party members varied while giving them choice. If you add in m/c and feats, characters start to define themselves by low level dipped abilities or cheesy feats rather than by their class.

The best evidence of this is this thread. A huge debate over a single feat. This feat defines martial characters in some ways more than the bulk of their class abilities. Those who count themselves amongst the best martial characters are those whose class abilities synergize best with this one feat. But, ultimately, all martial characters using this will play pretty similarly.

If you take the feat away, all these characters will end up relying much more on their class abilities and this results in more dynamic play.

 

[Yunru]

The best evidence of this is this thread. A huge debate over a single feat.

Try the worst. This thread exists because some think it's one of the few.
The thread goes on for so long because it's not even bad enough that everyone agrees.

So yeah, the best contender to what you say is a) one of what, three? feats, and b) of a level where there is prolonged debate as to it's effects and impact.

 

[Datalore]

What problem do you think dropping feats and multiclassing would fix for us?

I think it will only add to your experience since there is less of a chance of a player taking a character option that will screw up the balance and unique character choices your party has fostered.

So yeah, the best contender to what you say is a) one of what, three? feats, and b) of a level where there is prolonged debate as to it's effects and impact.

I believe we are talking past each other at this point. Adios.

 

[Yunru]

I believe we are talking past each other at this point. Adios.

Oh no, I'm talking directly to you. No "adios"-ing because it doesn't suit your point.

You claim all feats are bad because it leads to only a small number of "true" choices (trying incite edition warring in the process?). You cite this thread as evidence.

And yet, this thread exists because out of all the feats only a select few have the potential to cause this, going against you "all feats are bad" point.

Further, this thread comprises of twenty odd pages of discussion (and isn't the only thread) proving that for as many people who feel it reduces character choices, there are still those that disagree, even further detracting from your point.

 

[Datalore]

Man, relax. I am not going to convince you. That's fine. Enjoy your Polearm Master whatever or your Sentinel whatever.

See ya.

 

[Yunru]

Man, relax. I am not going to convince you. That's fine. Enjoy your Polearm Master whatever or your Sentinel whatever.

See ya.

You're also not going to convince anyone else if your claims collapse when lightly pressed.

Also, relax? I can't relax, I have a coursework assignment for tomorrow I was given two days ago that decides if I pass or fail this year! ALL THE STRESS.

 

[Datalore]

Collapse? Lol

 

[Yunru]

Collapse? Lol

Yeah, it's a thing that things with no support do when pressure is applied. Such as your argument. Or my ability to do presentations.

Oh. I appear to have slipped into gallows humour.