D&D 3E/3.5 5E Feats Compared to 3E Feats

[Celtavian]

I agree that 2-hander is the most damaging, but having the bonus action attack lets you spread the damage out to different opponents and when you can move between attacks that is pretty helpful. The shield master feat increases your and some of your allies damage output by letting you shove an enemy prone and getting advantage on attacks against it, it also helps against spells and effects. We also don't know how they are going to handle magic shields yet, if they give a bonus to AC just like armor at higher levels having a shield will be the only option to have ridiculously high AC.

I am not a math guy so not sure how all of this breaks down but, I think a well balanced group should have a mix of types a shield users to be on the front lines, a 2-hander for single target damage, and a dual wielder to take care of minions and stragglers.

Can you point out the part of Great Weapon Mastery that says you can't move during attacks? We couldn't find it. The feat says if you crit or bring opponent below zero, you get attack as a bonus action attack. Doesn't say you can't move before you take it.

I accounted for Shields providing a +1 bonus to AC. If shields and armor provide more than a +1 bonus the game will be slanted so far in the favor of the players as to make even the highest level encounters trivial. A Challenge 23 Solar only has +15 to hit. If they allow more than +1 on Armor, your AC potential becomes in excess of 24. AC 18 plate, +2 shield, +1 defensive fighting, +1 ring, +1 armor, +1 shield. AC 24. Solar needs a 9 or better to hit. This is one of the toughest creatures in the game. That would mean almost everything else would have a far more difficult time hitting. Given hit points and healing, you would make encounters trivial on the part of the PCs. I thought they were trying to avoid these problems. You would also negate the effectiveness of lower level creatures still providing a challenge. That's why I figure magic bonuses to AC wont' go above +1.

I imagine magic weapon enhancements won't go above +1. Otherwise you make boundless accuracy sort of pointless. Though hard to be sure given magic weapon spell maxes at +3. I figure that is for a maximum of an hour and requires a limited spell slot.

 

[the Jester]

Can you point out the part of Great Weapon Mastery that says you can't move during attacks? We couldn't find it. The feat says if you crit or bring opponent below zero, you get attack as a bonus action attack. Doesn't say you can't move before you take it.

You totally can; I think Paraxis' point on this was more that being able to get more attacks via two-weapon fighting is more useful with more mobility.

I imagine magic weapon enhancements won't go above +1. Otherwise you make boundless accuracy sort of pointless. Though hard to be sure given magic weapon spell maxes at +3. I figure that is for a maximum of an hour and requires a limited spell slot.

The artifact preview describes a good blow from a +3 weapon as sufficient to destroy an orb of dragonkind.

 

[Celtavian]

You totally can; I think Paraxis' point on this was more that being able to get more attacks via two-weapon fighting is more useful with more mobility.



The artifact preview describes a good blow from a +3 weapon as sufficient to destroy an orb of dragonkind.

If weapons go up to +3, but armor does not that will further trivialize defense. If armor goes up to +3, that will trivialize monsters. I hope they are managing the math. It is a lack of understanding the math behind the game the ruins rule systems making a DMs life hell as players go for everything they can get while monsters stay static becoming easily beaten enemies.

Then again an Orb of Dragonkind is an artifact. I'm assuming a weapon capable of destroying one won't be easy to come by.

 

[Hereticus]

There will always be people that make choices according to style. But power gamers will decide based on effectiveness. Two-hander fighting spikes damage substantially.

There are many factors that effect damage, it is impossible to take them all into consideration. Let's say a typical fighter has a strength of 18 and is deciding on two weapon fighting or two handed fighting.

The two weapon fighter does 4+1d6 (x2).

The great weapon fighter does 4+2d6(re-roll 1,2).

A little bit of math difference, but a lot of style difference.

 

[Stalker0]

I did the math on this a while ago in terms of fighting styles, search isn't pulling it up though so I can't provide the link.

The quick summary: Before 5th level (aka 2nd attacks), TWF with the fighting style does more damage the GWF with its fighting style. Once extra attacks come in, GWF starts to do more.

 

[Hereticus]

I did the math on this a while ago in terms of fighting styles, search isn't pulling it up though so I can't provide the link.

The quick summary: Before 5th level (aka 2nd attacks), TWF with the fighting style does more damage the GWF with its fighting style. Once extra attacks come in, GWF starts to do more.

That means that a two weapon fighter would get three attacks at fifth level, not four. Yeah, the great weapon fighter would do better.

I'm thinking of switching to a halberd (reach weapon) as my primary weapon at L7 (more maneuvers), and as a battle master use the lunge attack to get 15 foot reach. That would be pretty cool.

 

[Eejit]

If weapons go up to +3, but armor does not that will further trivialize defense. If armor goes up to +3, that will trivialize monsters. I hope they are managing the math. It is a lack of understanding the math behind the game the ruins rule systems making a DMs life hell as players go for everything they can get while monsters stay static becoming easily beaten enemies.

Then again an Orb of Dragonkind is an artifact. I'm assuming a weapon capable of destroying one won't be easy to come by.

It's all up to the DM isn't it? As long as the DM is aware that by giving PCs +3 armor and +3 swords they may have to give similar bonuses (through equipment or straight stat-adjustment) to enemies such as Solars then it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[ccooke]

If weapons go up to +3, but armor does not that will further trivialize defense. If armor goes up to +3, that will trivialize monsters. I hope they are managing the math. It is a lack of understanding the math behind the game the ruins rule systems making a DMs life hell as players go for everything they can get while monsters stay static becoming easily beaten enemies.

Then again an Orb of Dragonkind is an artifact. I'm assuming a weapon capable of destroying one won't be easy to come by.

If the DM gives out +3 weapons and does not compensate for it, then any lack of balance is their own fault... so long as th DMG contains the promised advice for dealing with different expectations for magic items. That was in a L&L article a little while back, and is definitely one of the things I'm going to be judging thia edition on.
if you have +3 weapons but many creatures have +3 to their armour and some bonus hit points, all you've done is given 5e a more 3e/4e style monster progression - it'll still have bounded accuracy, but creatures you don't buff to compensate will become effectively weaker. On balance, you can probably compensate with some very simple rules.

 

[Chocolategravy]

I think it's more appropriate to say that one 5E feat equals one 3E feat chain.

One subclass = one feat chain. The 5E feats themselves are all over the place in power so it is very hard to compare. Don't forget too the feats are both a feat and an ability increase, so a better comparison would be to compare it to a 3E feat and a +1 stat, and again, some compare well or a bit under like Tough to improved toughness and a +1 CON, and some compare very poorly like Durable to anything.

 

[Celtavian]

If the DM gives out +3 weapons and does not compensate for it, then any lack of balance is their own fault... so long as th DMG contains the promised advice for dealing with different expectations for magic items. That was in a L&L article a little while back, and is definitely one of the things I'm going to be judging thia edition on.
if you have +3 weapons but many creatures have +3 to their armour and some bonus hit points, all you've done is given 5e a more 3e/4e style monster progression - it'll still have bounded accuracy, but creatures you don't buff to compensate will become effectively weaker. On balance, you can probably compensate with some very simple rules.

It creates additional work for the DM having to balance for rules skewed far in favor of the players. What would be the point of switching from 3E where this was exceedingly prevalent to yet another game system that creates major balance problems? I hope I doesn't get included myself. I hope they keep things very toned down. Monster Manual was not built to handle PC groups with +3 armor.