D&D 5E 2016 Feats Review

[Yunru]

I agree both feats are needed, not just Crossbow Expert.

The difference with Longbows is that you can't "dual-wield" them.

If we can agree both Sharpshooter and Crossbows needs to be removed, or at least reworked, then I'm good.

If you're about to say "but why didn't you say so" please keep in mind I haven't gotten to Sharpshooter yet

Nah, I'm of the opinion that Crossbow Expert need be only tweaked (for thematics, rather than balance), and that Sharpshooter is the real offender here.

 

[hejtmane]

Nah, I'm of the opinion that Crossbow Expert need be only tweaked (for thematics, rather than balance), and that Sharpshooter is the real offender here.

Same with Polearm the biggest issues that most have is when they are combined with SS and GWM. By themselves not really overly an issues it is when combined that it cause the biggest stir. This is where we can say that they messed up is because of the stacking of feats make the biggest jumps to occur.

 

[bedir than]

Polearm Master
bonus attack, OA when moving into melee with you
Design:Two clean abilities. As a quibble, I would have preferred it if the weapons were identified by keyword (such as feats that say "when you use a heavy weapon" or finesse or two-handed etc) rather than a crude list. I won't let that quibble detract from my grade.
Fun: This feat makes your polearm feel polearmy, so, fun.
Power: A reliable way to use a bonus action for an extra attack is the cornerstone to combat power, so this feat will rate highly solely because of that. The "OA upon entry" is gravy. But not just gravy - for instance, coupled with sentinel is can stop a foe completely. Of course, that tactic is limited to once/round, only applies to melee monsters w/o reach, and doesn't prevent the monster from simply attacking someone else. So powerswise its gravy. So, is it too powerful then? I would say no. After all, you only have the one bonus action, and the attack is with a small damage die.

The Design issue I have with this is there are polearms that are not included, and a simple weapon that isn't a polearm that is.

 

[guachi]

Sentinel is absurdly fun on a melee rogue. Evasion if they attack you. Sentinel if they attack your friends.

Extra lulz if you add battle master 3 and riposte.

It feels like cheating the system to so frequently get a second opportunity to get another sneak attack.

Extra extra lulz to add shield mastery and push bad guys around so they are 5ft from an ally so you can sneak attack and give them a target for Sentinel.

I don't care how powerful this is (or isn't) it's gold level fun

 

[guachi]

Nah, I'm of the opinion that Crossbow Expert need be only tweaked (for thematics, rather than balance), and that Sharpshooter is the real offender here.

I find CE far more objectionable from a design stand point but SS more objectionable from the in game effects it has. Partly because I've seen it used far more often. It's effects are rather clear even to newbies.

It's a long way off saying I basically agree. Though I think CE is such a mess I'm not sure I can think of changes I'd like.

 

[Prism]

I'm sure you've already fully on board on this, Prism, but just to repeat:

Yeah I'm on board. A true story...

Fighter 1 walks into a tavern after spending the last 6 months on Lantan, with the help of the priests of Gond researching a form of repeating hand crossbow. Between them they have come up with a marvellous invention which allows a cartridge of three bolts to be slotted into the crossbow for instant hands free reloading. Fighter 1 is proudly packing two of these crossbows and is prepared to look very cool. He spots his friend Fighter 2 sitting at a table and moves over to join him.

As he sits down Fighter 2 grabs a couple of hand crossbows out of his backpack and drops them on the table casually. 'I had the same idea he says, so I picked this two up on the way to the tavern. Fighter 1 looks puzzled and says ' but you won't be able to load the things with one in each hand'. Fighter 2 smiles smugly and presents the side of each crossbow where there is a small badge that reads 'DM enabled'. ' I don't think that will be a problem' he says with a grin.

From the other side of the tavern there is a loud laugh. 'look at you two kids with your "cool" double hand crossbows'. Fighter 3 steps towards the table still laughing carrying a single hand crossbow while holding a pipe in the other hand. 'I can fire as many shots as you two can - and for half price too'. Fighter 2, now also looking a bit unsure of himself asks' so what's the pipe for?'. Fighter 3 replies 'For smoking. Oh, and also I'm just showing off really that I have a free hand. Sometimes I even swing on a rope with it while shooting this bad boy. How's that for cool?'

Basically as I see it the group has to work out if this works for them. Fighter 3 is the PHB version - probably how most play it. Fighter 2 is the simple version I think most people want it to be. Personally, as I said before I am happy with Fighter 1. Fighter 3 is the real problem. I do think that if you squint a bit the ammunition rules can be used to invalidate it though, using strict interpretation of when a crossbow actually gets loaded.

 

[knasser]

What I mean has nothing to do with "lying".

I just prefer it if we replace
"Character has automatic success"
with
"Character only fails once in a blue moon"

The first removes storytelling power from the DM. "What do you mean I fail? I can never fail. It says so right there." is not a situation I want any rule to place me in. Sure you can invoke Rule 0, the DM is always right. I, however, prefer it if I don't have to arbitrarily break the rules.

The second retains a safety valve for the DM. If the story is undoubtedly wrecked by succeeding at whatever ability we're talking about, the DM can always claim a hidden roll failed. I don't have to invoke rule 0, I don't have to argue with the player.

Rules should never be absolutely absolute.

Nowhere did I say that a rule should be absolute or that something like "Can never be surprised" isn't constraining on the story. What I said was that seeing the benefit of a non-absolute rule as meaning a player can't catch you out for lying to them is not how I game. It's bad in itself, not because it means I can't get away with lying about results.

 

[guachi]

Basically as I see it the group has to work out if this works for them. Fighter 3 is the PHB version - probably how most play it. Fighter 2 is the simple version I think most people want it to be. Personally, as I said before I am happy with Fighter 1. Fighter 3 is the real problem. I do think that if you squint a bit the ammunition rules can be used to invalidate it though, using strict interpretation of when a crossbow actually gets loaded.

Fighter 3 isn't the PHB version. There was an excruciatingly long thread on the defunct wizards board about this and most people, IIRC, said you'd need a free hand to reload the crossbow. And then someone tweeted Crawford who said, yes, you'd need a free hand (which should shock no one).

There is no universe where I'd ever allow a player to, by himself, (re)load a normal hand crossbow (or any bow) without a free hand.

 

[CapnZapp]

The Design issue I have with this is there are polearms that are not included, and a simple weapon that isn't a polearm that is.

Thank you.

While I'm not as bugged by that, I do (kind of) bring it up - with my "keyword quibble".

If "polearm" was a keyword, everything would resolve itself automatically

 

[Prism]

Fighter 3 isn't the PHB version. There was an excruciatingly long thread on the defunct wizards board about this and most people, IIRC, said you'd need a free hand to reload the crossbow. And then someone tweeted Crawford who said, yes, you'd need a free hand (which should shock no one).

There is no universe where I'd ever allow a player to, by himself, (re)load a normal hand crossbow (or any bow) without a free hand.

Have another look at fighter 3 - he is only using 1 hand crossbow. In every way, a single crossbow user is better than a dual crossbow user. That's the whole point my post which you seem to have missed