D&D (2024) Sharp shooter/Great Weapon Mastery

[Chaosmancer]

I did see someone responding about how these changes to the martial feats are more about keeping things in line than nerfing martials.

One thing I am curious about is how that applies to the changes to the Dual-Wielding Feat, which lost both the +1 AC but also the ability to dual-wield two non-light weapons. It isn't a big change to damage, but it is strange they chose to remove it.

 

[tetrasodium]

I did see someone responding about how these changes to the martial feats are more about keeping things in line than nerfing martials.

One thing I am curious about is how that applies to the changes to the Dual-Wielding Feat, which lost both the +1 AC but also the ability to dual-wield two non-light weapons. It isn't a big change to damage, but it is strange they chose to remove it.

It's all part of a larger trend. For example... Right now we have things like heavy armor master because heavy armor is limited to certain classes & other classes that sacrifice something (feat/armor limited abilities/an archetype that doesn't give a loophole/a level in something else/etc). Weapons can't really have that sort of "this is appropriate here but not there" in 5e.A big part of why weapons can't have that kind of thing is the fact that 5e has all of these edge cases where it's trivially simple to wield weapons from basket A in basket B scenarios. With these sort of shifts stuff like that becomes possible.

Also don't look at things in isolation like you are, characters are the combined sum of everything they bring to the table not one specific isolated footnote in an ability. At level one a dual wielding ranger or bard can do 4d6+dex damage per round with starting gear & they haven't even gotten archetype abilities yet. "dual wielder can't use dual d8 weapons now" is hardly a concern in that light because they don't need it. Instead we now have room for more impressive martial weapons other than "but muh rapier" & by extension non-light weapons can have properties or enchantments that would be ill fitting to be multiplied each round by dual wielding.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Help IS restricted some in the new glossary & it's a good change. It's explicitly an action & players need to be proficient in the same skill alongside being close enough to help.

So two people trying to break open a chest is just as effective as one person? I've often found that two people trying to move an object are better than one, and we aren't trained movers.

It makes sense for SOME skill checks to require proficiency, but those are all the same ones that should require proficiency to roll in the first place.

The fact that what things like help & guidance create such massive escalation in skills as your post illustrates is evidence of why guidance advantage & expertise is such a trainwreck in a system designed arounds bounded accuracy. You doing that while painting them as critical through this thread is good evidence for why many GMs have such dislike of them. There is not enough room in the math for the gm to add cool stuff that interacts with skills in a system so rife with overuse of Maslow's law/law of the hammer with advantage on top of a system already so stacked in favor of success by Bounded Accuracy before adding all the little one off mods that almost always lean the stacking even further... Tossing expertise into the mix just adds rocket boots to the collapse thrown in the gm's lap 5.5/6e needs to do much better than 2014 5e did so far.

That sounds like a fundamental problem with skills, not something that should be fixed by taking the only methods of interacting with the system's math and removing them. I'd rather have something that allows a style of play, than eliminate an entire style of play.

 

[Kobold Stew]

One thing I am curious about is how that applies to the changes to the Dual-Wielding Feat, which lost both the +1 AC but also the ability to dual-wield two non-light weapons. It isn't a big change to damage, but it is strange they chose to remove it.

Dual Weilder, to my eye, is one of the 4-th-level feats that suffers with the +1 ASI. If that were lost, then the +1 AC would still make sense. But since each +2 to DEX gives (effectively) +1 AC and +1 damate (which is the damage the extra non-light weapon gives), I tin kit would be too much to keep either. (I've suggested elsewhere that I think cutting the dual rapier is also aesthetically preferable, though not all agree.)

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's all part of a larger trend. For example... Right now we have things like heavy armor master because heavy armor is limited to certain classes & other classes that sacrifice something (feat/armor limited abilities/an archetype that doesn't give a loophole/a level in something else/etc). Weapons can't really have that sort of "this is appropriate here but not there" in 5e.A big part of why weapons can't have that kind of thing is the fact that 5e has all of these edge cases where it's trivially simple to wield weapons from basket A in basket B scenarios. With these sort of shifts stuff like that becomes possible.

How is this in any way a problem? If you gain access to using a weapon, you can use it. You don't have to have limits on when you can use it.

Also don't look at things in isolation like you are, characters are the combined sum of everything they bring to the table not one specific isolated footnote in an ability. At level one a dual wielding ranger or bard can do 4d6+dex damage per round with starting gear & they haven't even gotten archetype abilities yet. "dual wielder can't use dual d8 weapons now" is hardly a concern in that light because they don't need it. Instead we now have room for more impressive martial weapons other than "but muh rapier" & by extension non-light weapons can have properties or enchantments that would be ill fitting to be multiplied each round by dual wielding.

And at level 11 4d6+dex mod isn't nearly as impressive when the paladin can do 4d8+4+str mod x2.

Also, every dual-wielder except the fighter only gets three attacks, if it is wrong for them use the ability three times per round... then it would be inappropriate for the fighter to have access to them at all, because the Fighter can make 6 attacks in a round.

Finally, complaining about the rapier is kind of silly, because it isn't like it allows for any damage that can't be done by a longsword, battleaxe or a warhammer. The only reason I was able to list three weapons is because three nearly identical weapons were made for that slot. If you want more d8 Finesse weapons, make them, then everyone won't just use the rapier.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Dual Weilder, to my eye, is one of the 4-th-level feats that suffers with the +1 ASI. If that were lost, then the +1 AC would still make sense. But since each +2 to DEX gives (effectively) +1 AC and +1 damate (which is the damage the extra non-light weapon gives), I tin kit would be too much to keep either. (I've suggested elsewhere that I think cutting the dual rapier is also aesthetically preferable, though not all agree.)

There's no reason they couldn't give TWF an ability like

Rend: if you hit a target with both your main hand weapon and your offhand in the same activation they take proficiency modifier bonus damage. This damage may only be dealt once per target per turn.​

I suspect after playtesting it would just end up as two attacks while armed with two weapons as that's simpler. Or possibly "for every two attacks" to enable shenanigans with haste or fighter level numbers of attacks (or monk flurries). I'd say it was balanced against nu!GWF with that. But right now it needs a little more of a kick than it has.

Hmm... I'm now considering a rogue dual wielding throwing daggers/darts with the Skulker and Dual Wielder feats.

 

[tetrasodium]

So two people trying to break open a chest is just as effective as one person? I've often found that two people trying to move an object are better than one, and we aren't trained movers.

It makes sense for SOME skill checks to require proficiency, but those are all the same ones that should require proficiency to roll in the first place.

What are you talking about? The new mechanic for the help action is: "Assist Ability Check. Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies and one ally who can see or hear you. You give Advantage to the next Ability Check that ally makes with the chosen Skill. This benefit expires if the ally doesn’t use it before the start of your next turn. To give this assistance, you must be near enough to the ally to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible."
Two people are still more effective when they work together but now they need to work together instead of the second providing the moral support of their character effectively waving a cocktail while channeling ralph wiggum to say "I'm helping".

That sounds like a fundamental problem with skills, not something that should be fixed by taking the only methods of interacting with the system's math and removing them. I'd rather have something that allows a style of play, than eliminate an entire style of play.

It is a fundamental problem with skills. They can't start fixing it until they clean up the spinning knives like "I'm helping" as a reaction & "I cast guidance" spam. New tools like the revised help/guidance before we have changes elsewhere but the other way around would be harder to test given the number of missing pieces we have

How is this in any way a problem? If you gain access to using a weapon, you can use it. You don't have to have limits on when you can use it.



And at level 11 4d6+dex mod isn't nearly as impressive when the paladin can do 4d8+4+str mod x2.

Also, every dual-wielder except the fighter only gets three attacks, if it is wrong for them use the ability three times per round... then it would be inappropriate for the fighter to have access to them at all, because the Fighter can make 6 attacks in a round.

Finally, complaining about the rapier is kind of silly, because it isn't like it allows for any damage that can't be done by a longsword, battleaxe or a warhammer. The only reason I was able to list three weapons is because three nearly identical weapons were made for that slot. If you want more d8 Finesse weapons, make them, then everyone won't just use the rapier.

It is quite impressive when it can be done every round for an hour at level 1 & that quickly scales up to 8-24 hours. I don't point that out as some kind of outrage so much as to show how much the "muh rapiers" outrage is unreasonable As to the paladin it doesn't do anything right now because we don't have the packet with a new paladin yet.

 

[Stalker0]

At level one a dual wielding ranger or bard can do 4d6+dex damage per round with starting gear & they haven't even gotten archetype abilities yet.

6d6+dex if you go magic initiate (hex), though only in the 2nd round of combat onward.

 

[tetrasodium]

6d6+dex if you go magic initiate (hex), though only in the 2nd round of combat onward.

I noticed & made note of it in my ranger dive yea. I decided that it wasn't justified including as an example of the base class itself being extremely solid & left it out of #202 though. I'm kind of excited to see what other changes we see in the next packet

 

[Chaosmancer]

What are you talking about? The new mechanic for the help action is: "Assist Ability Check. Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies and one ally who can see or hear you. You give Advantage to the next Ability Check that ally makes with the chosen Skill. This benefit expires if the ally doesn’t use it before the start of your next turn. To give this assistance, you must be near enough to the ally to assist verbally or physically when the ally makes the check. The DM has final say on whether your assistance is possible."
Two people are still more effective when they work together but now they need to work together instead of the second providing the moral support of their character effectively waving a cocktail while channeling ralph wiggum to say "I'm helping".

"Choose one of your Skill Proficiencies"

Meaning you have to choose something you are proficient in, if you are not proficient in Athletics, you can't assist. That doesn't mean you aren't able to physically assist, you can, but Athletics is not one of your Skill Proficiencies, so you cannot grant advantage.

It is a fundamental problem with skills. They can't start fixing it until they clean up the spinning knives like "I'm helping" as a reaction & "I cast guidance" spam. New tools like the revised help/guidance before we have changes elsewhere but the other way around would be harder to test given the number of missing pieces we have

Help action was never a formal reaction, but it was used that way and still will be even with these new rules. Because that had nothing to do with the rules of the game, and everything to do with how people play at the table.

And... yeah, they totally CAN fix the fundamental level of the skill system without first removing every ability to interact with it. Game design isn't like spinning knives or juggling, you can take out any part, and it makes FAR more sense to start at the fundamental level and change outward, because otherwise you are just doubling your work.

It is quite impressive when it can be done every round for an hour at level 1 & that quickly scales up to 8-24 hours. I don't point that out as some kind of outrage so much as to show how much the "muh rapiers" outrage is unreasonable As to the paladin it doesn't do anything right now because we don't have the packet with a new paladin yet.

Except we know that we are supposed to be using the older versions of the classes, and looking at how little the rogue and bard changed, there is little reason to think the paladin changed that fundamentally.

Additionally, I don't care if you do get to do it for 24 hours, it still isn't that impressive. Here, let me show you again. High level ranger, without a subclass, and the new feat, three attacks for a total of 2d8+4d6+dex x 3... compared to a high level fighter, no subclass, the GWM feat, 8d6+strx4+prof bonus + re-rolling 1's and 2's. Also, btw, able to be done for 24-hours, without spending a spell slot.

Also, why the heck are we trying to argue level 1 balance for a LEVEL 4 feat? This feat's design doesn't affect level 1 in any way shape or form, it is entirely unrelated.