Argyle King
Legend
Barbarian + Howling Strike + Gouge + crap ton of items which give bonuses while charging
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 5E Weighing in on 5e
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Barbarian + Howling Strike + Gouge + crap ton of items which give bonuses while charging
Argyle King
Legend
almost forgot one... my memory is a bit fuzzy on this one (and it could have been subject to errata without me knowing it,) but...
I believe there's a Warlord epic destiny which allows your allies to not die as a result of damage. However, they still need to make death saving throws.
The trick? If you have a Warforged ally, he can opt to take 10 on death saving throws. In theory, it is impossible for him to die while you are still standing.
40 books in 3 years, plus Insider. They will print another 20 and try to stick us for Insider fees for the next 2 or 3 years. Then, out comes 5. Not 4.5. F-I-V-E five. Enjoy. They are really sounding like they might blow up the outside world again with Cook's Legends and Lore about skills. It could invalidate oh, EVERYTHING, just like the change from 3.5 to 4. We've all been had for suckers.
The new mechanic, the only one that really matters: Totally new edition every 6 years. Watch, it'll happen. They will just keep redoing 3 DM books, 3 player's books, a book or two for every major role, 5 monster manuals and books for major settings. Almost all hardcover and 30+ bucks a pop.
Every subsequent book will add more dry run changes, like Essentials and allowing races to pick their choice of 2 stats, etc. If WOTC ever gets the license to a property like Star Wars again maybe we could play 4.5 before we are had for suckers as the books will always be at least a 3rd rate concern for Wizards. They'll never see adequate print runs and go for 100 bucks a pop on Ebay. Do you feel The Force? It is forcing your wallet open again.
Every 6 years, get out the wallets. Stepchild on Christmas Intellectual Property as Dungeons and Dragons x.5, then a whole new edition.
The new mechanic, the only one that really matters: Totally new edition every 6 years. Watch, it'll happen. They will just keep redoing 3 DM books, 3 player's books, a book or two for every major role, 5 monster manuals and books for major settings. Almost all hardcover and 30+ bucks a pop.
Every subsequent book will add more dry run changes, like Essentials and allowing races to pick their choice of 2 stats, etc. If WOTC ever gets the license to a property like Star Wars again maybe we could play 4.5 before we are had for suckers as the books will always be at least a 3rd rate concern for Wizards. They'll never see adequate print runs and go for 100 bucks a pop on Ebay. Do you feel The Force? It is forcing your wallet open again.
Every 6 years, get out the wallets. Stepchild on Christmas Intellectual Property as Dungeons and Dragons x.5, then a whole new edition.
Last edited:
Why must Wizards follow a certain time frame just because a previous edition lasted for X amount of years? I wouldn't worry so much about it as I would with the fact that the current edition is either selling great or it's not. That is what I would base my decision whether to keep going with the current edition or move on to the next.
Gouge requires a feat to wield and without feat support, that build isn't all that powerful.
At 30th-level PC's are essentially unkillable anyway, even if that hasn't been errata'd.
Dimensional Shackles is the only one out of that list that is broken. In which case, I point you to the gazillion and one feat combinations that contribute to breaking the system as a counter-argument.
No, I included multi-class feats (which do not increase defence, and rarely increase damage) in my disagreement with the line of yours that I quoted in my post, which specifically referred only to "eliminating all damage and defence increases from feats, you almost entirely eradicate the optimisation issue from the game".
Nor did I make any claims that any combo was overpowered. Merely that optimization is more than just taking the right feats.
It doesn't take any great insight to notice that there are some powers that are strictly better than their competition. Twin Strike is flat out better than Careful Attack in almost any situation. It is, on average, more likely to hit, and likely to do more average damage. It's more versatile, able to target one or two creatures. Selecting Careful Attack instead of Twin Strike is sub-optimal. Significantly so.
Compare a ranger build that uses entirely single-attack, standard action exploits to one that selects multi-attacks.
Multi-attack standard action powers are better than single-attack ones. Minor action attacks are (generally) better than standard action ones. Immediate reaction attacks are better than minor ones. Immediate interrupt, better still. Free action attacks? There's a reason they issued a rules update limiting those to once per turn.
There are Paragon Paths that are flat-out useless, mechanically. A player who selects purely on flavour can choose one that offers them no actual in-play benefits. There are others that give significant bonuses to damage, or defence, or durability. Choosing the right one impacts your character far more than any one feat ever can.
Compare magic items that offer daily powers vs items that offer properties, at will powers, and encounter powers. Compare the non-feat static damage boost of Iron Armbands of Power vs. the daily power (only triggered when you get critically hit) Shield of Defense. The gain in action economy of Acrobat Boots (allowing you to stand from prone as a minor action, at will) vs. Dwarven Greaves (once per day negate ONE instance of force movement against you).
Optimization doesn't stop at feats. Without selecting any feats at all, you can build two characters of the same class that are vastly different in terms of survival potential, damage output, and defence. Powers and items that manipulate the action economy make a larger impact than a feat that gives you +1 damage per tier.
Nor did I make any claims that any combo was overpowered. Merely that optimization is more than just taking the right feats.
It doesn't take any great insight to notice that there are some powers that are strictly better than their competition. Twin Strike is flat out better than Careful Attack in almost any situation. It is, on average, more likely to hit, and likely to do more average damage. It's more versatile, able to target one or two creatures. Selecting Careful Attack instead of Twin Strike is sub-optimal. Significantly so.
Compare a ranger build that uses entirely single-attack, standard action exploits to one that selects multi-attacks.
Multi-attack standard action powers are better than single-attack ones. Minor action attacks are (generally) better than standard action ones. Immediate reaction attacks are better than minor ones. Immediate interrupt, better still. Free action attacks? There's a reason they issued a rules update limiting those to once per turn.
There are Paragon Paths that are flat-out useless, mechanically. A player who selects purely on flavour can choose one that offers them no actual in-play benefits. There are others that give significant bonuses to damage, or defence, or durability. Choosing the right one impacts your character far more than any one feat ever can.
Compare magic items that offer daily powers vs items that offer properties, at will powers, and encounter powers. Compare the non-feat static damage boost of Iron Armbands of Power vs. the daily power (only triggered when you get critically hit) Shield of Defense. The gain in action economy of Acrobat Boots (allowing you to stand from prone as a minor action, at will) vs. Dwarven Greaves (once per day negate ONE instance of force movement against you).
Optimization doesn't stop at feats. Without selecting any feats at all, you can build two characters of the same class that are vastly different in terms of survival potential, damage output, and defence. Powers and items that manipulate the action economy make a larger impact than a feat that gives you +1 damage per tier.
Argyle King
Legend
I had forgotten about needing a feat for the gouge. However, if we're talking about a hypothetical 4E in which no feats exist, we're then comparing a charging build without feats to everything else in the game without feats.
I'm not suggesting feats aren't part of the problem. Over in the other thread that was one of the areas in which I point to show that (in my view) 4th Edition moved away from initially stated goals.
I somewhat agree with your concept behind feats. However, I personally would not want to go quite as extreme; I'm ok with a handful of situational bonuses. So, for me, I think the best idea I've seen which would satisfy myself as well as others who have different views on feats is to have one set of [whatever you'd call it instead of feats] for combat options and one set of [wyciiof] for noncombat & flavor options.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
There's two axis of character advancement: "breadth" and "depth."
"Breadth" is how many different things you can do. Swinging a sword and swinging an axe and swinging a spear and swinging a club would be advancing in breadth. Whatever you swing, it's about the same.
"Depth" is how good your character is at doing all the things they can do. Swinging the weapons you wield better (+1 to attack rolls!) would be advancing in depth.
Personally, I think "levels" should provide depth, and "feats" should provide breadth. Levels give you +1's to things. Feats let you do more things.
"Breadth" is how many different things you can do. Swinging a sword and swinging an axe and swinging a spear and swinging a club would be advancing in breadth. Whatever you swing, it's about the same.
"Depth" is how good your character is at doing all the things they can do. Swinging the weapons you wield better (+1 to attack rolls!) would be advancing in depth.
Personally, I think "levels" should provide depth, and "feats" should provide breadth. Levels give you +1's to things. Feats let you do more things.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Sure, but these are all incredibly narrow. The premise still stands. Eliminate feats that grant general bonuses (and especially where they can stack) and you get rid of about 95% of the issues. Make 3-4 items non-stacking and errata a couple of ALREADY problematic class features and you're pretty much done. The noob is no longer doing half as much damage with his striker as the optimizer is doing with his fighter.
OTOH I don't think you have to get so extreme. I think you could do away with all static stackable bonuses and similar stuff, and still leave some decent situational bonuses that don't stack. If they're fairly easy to arrange, then slap a 'once per encounter' on them. Other things like Dragging Flail kind of stuff can just stay. It will give some minor scope for optimization still, but nothing like what exists now.
This kind of process would also pretty well tame issues with the skill bonus spread growth too. At that point you could also split feats up into 'feats' and 'talents' and just let them alternate, since PCs won't really need 17 combat feats to stay up to snuff anymore.
EDIT: I see you went on to say much the same thing I did, lol.
@mudlock I think I disagree. I don't want to go back to everything being class features like that, it makes every class virtually a canned build. It also tends to mean that you don't have iconic aspects of your class until much later in the game. I think feats are fine as a way to express choices that let you customize your characters. Yes, there will always be the temptation to make better ones, but that kind of issue exists with any RPG.
Last edited:
Aenghus
Explorer
I liked the fact that the dagger was a great weapon for many rogues. Rapiers are long and hard to hide, so not IMO an automatic weapon for a rogue, the cost of a feat to get one seems reasonable to me. Alternatively, it could be a class option between a sneaky cloak & dagger rogue, and a dashing rapier rogue.
I don't see feat disappearing in 5e. Wizards want to sell books, and feats are attractive to players and sell books.
That said the ever multiplying number of them is out of control, and most of them are seldom if ever used.
I could see a few ways of changing feats. Separating the combat and non-combat feats and buying them from separate pools is one idea.
Having only non-combat feats, and folding combat feats into class options is another, though this could make classes rigid and cookie cutter.
I don't see feat disappearing in 5e. Wizards want to sell books, and feats are attractive to players and sell books.
That said the ever multiplying number of them is out of control, and most of them are seldom if ever used.
I could see a few ways of changing feats. Separating the combat and non-combat feats and buying them from separate pools is one idea.
Having only non-combat feats, and folding combat feats into class options is another, though this could make classes rigid and cookie cutter.
