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

[fluffybunbunkittens]

It's still a downgrade from the original if you're dealing with a single attack (possibly also if you're dealing with two or three, I haven't done the math, but presumably it depends on the original hit probability).

How could it be worse at dealing with multiple attacks? Original Protection only applied to one attack, and if that was missing anyway, too bad, you gave it disadvantage already. With the new Protection, it only applies to the one attack out of three that was going to hit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

These two feats are normally seen as the two best in the game (I guess only if you use weapons and they are ranged or two handed but still)

they took away the part that most people talk about though... -5 to hit for +10 to damage.

Sharp shooter no longer has a damage bonus
Great weapon mastery is once per round on a hit add your prof to damage.

I like this nerf. I don't know if everyone will agree. It is a hit to weapon users (but I hope one that shows the want them to be more then just best damage in game)

It's a good nerf, but I don't think it shows anything other than WotC has finally listened to people's complaints about them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The nerfs are great. But they were the only thing making martial characters notable. So now WotC would have to actually buff martials, and... yeah...

WotC doesn't think martials need buffing. This is obvious to me. They're just addressing a very loud complaint. The proud nail gets hammered down.

 

[TwoSix]

WotC doesn't think martials need buffing. This is obvious to me. They're just addressing a very loud complaint. The proud nail gets hammered down.

Yea. Each individual change is fine in theory, but lowering the ceiling on martial damage while simultaneously giving casters even more versatility isn't a great look.

 

[Horwath]

Yea. Each individual change is fine in theory, but lowering the ceiling on martial damage while simultaneously giving casters even more versatility isn't a great look.

yeah, we need higher damage on melee weapons, especially non-finesse ones.

 

[Mort]

It's still a downgrade from the original if you're dealing with a single attack (possibly also if you're dealing with two or three, I haven't done the math, but presumably it depends on the original hit probability).

Yes, since disadvantage is a bigger debuff than -2. Plus Disadvantage is great Crit protection, while this is useless against a crit (unless they change the crit rules further than they have indicated).

Still, at least it's now a reliable ability - though still weak compared to an always on +2 damage or to-hit or a +1 AC.

There's also an ease of play issue. To know whether it will be useful, you need to know both your ally's AC and the DM's exact to-hit roll. Which certainly can be handled efficiently, but it'll definitely create some back and forth if anyone isn't on top of things, or if a groups's previous habits don't mesh with these new demands.

Maybe it's not universal, but all the groups I've seen go something like "does an 18 hit...?" And if the person says yes, work from there. Same way they handle the shield spell. So should be pretty easy to insert.

 

[Amrûnril]

How could it be worse at dealing with multiple attacks? Original Protection only applied to one attack, and if that was missing anyway, too bad, you gave it disadvantage already. With the new Protection, it only applies to the one attack out of three that was going to hit.

Because there's no guarantee that the successful attack(s) will be within two points of missing. The old version is wasted if disadvantage doesn't change the outcome of a single attack. The new version is wasted if -2 doesn't change the outcome of any attack. Which of the two is more likely will be very situation-dependent.

 

[Amrûnril]

Maybe it's not universal, but all the groups I've seen go something like "does an 18 hit...?" And if the person says yes, work from there. Same way they handle the shield spell. So should be pretty easy to insert.

Shield's a bit easier, in that the person using it is always adding to their own armor class. To use protection with the same efficiency, a player needs to have every party member's AC on hand. This is definitely doable, but there are also a lot more ways to get mixed up.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

WotC doesn't think martials need buffing. This is obvious to me.

I really hope you are wrong... that might just knock me and my friends out of D20 fantasy for a while if true.

 

[Remathilis]

what is the point then of making feats that no one will take?
padding page count?
we did that in 2014.

Apparently no one takes this?


Fighting Initiate
Prerequisite: Proficiency with a martial weapon
Your martial training has helped you develop a particular style of fighting. As a result, you learn one Fighting Style option of your choice from the fighter class. If you already have a style, the one you choose must be different.

Whenever you reach a level that grants the Ability Score Improvement feature, you can replace this feat's fighting style with another one from the fighter class that you don't have.