Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6917331" data-attributes="member: 6701872">Since I know the answer to that question is "Depends on the DM, the players, and the campaign they are playing", I don't see why you expect me to be asking it.Alternatively, the designer of the feat simply had a different idea of what the typical campaign played by a typical group of players with a typical DM is like than you do. Or possibly even just thought "This will work as I intend for the folks not heavily focused on the numbers and optimization of things, and those folks that are heavily focused on the numbers and optimization will be able to see that this option is out of line for their games and make their choice about using it as-is accordingly." You know, like has happened - except the part where you also insist the feat doesn't work for any of the rest of us because we haven't leveled up yet.And I think that in such a game the duel wielder feat could easily be competing for damage, since I can do as you have done and assume other factors beside the feat such as that the character is wielding two potent magical weapons. Which I say not to argue that you are wrong about the scenario, but that the scenario shouldn't be considered in the way you are considering it - by which I mean a reasonable conclusion from the evidence would be "I shouldn't pile all these options into the same campaign because of what happens when they are used in combination", while "That feat is broken" is not a reasonable conclusion from the same evidence.It is rude to continue to suggest that to disagree with you or play the game differently is to be less learned.It undercuts your point to phrase things this way, as the feat's penalty is never reduced. It remains -5 regardless of what other factors apply to improve accuracy, since those accuracy improvements apply even when not taking the -5 penalty.No, the real problem is the combination. The combination is not an inherent and unavoidable trait of the feat, so the feat (or any other singular piece of the combo) should not be blamed for the combination.And I am really confused why you pick the feat to blame when you have said that it isn't unbalanced by itself, and even said this:Telling me that the reason I say the feat isn't broken does not apply to the feat, but does apply to a magical belt.There is no "must" there. The designer could be thinking the same why I do, that combos are allowed to be crazy powerful because it requires actually setting them up and knowing when to use them to really make them shine.Again, you say those other elements are excused from being considered broken because they are involved in a combo that produces results you think are unintended - but give no reason why the feat is not being treated the same. I have seen no such steering among my players. Might you have meant a particular sort of player rather than literally all players?Just as it being an issue in your campaign does not mean it is a general problem.I find that not to be the case. My campaign with two fighters in it (one eldritch knight and one battle master) has one that took Great Weapon Master and one that hasn't, and nothing is anywhere near "out of whack."Implying that people of different opinion than you aren't really interested in the game or are oblivous to their character's effectiveness is rude. It's also incorrect.Pointing out that not all groups end up with more than one character that might want one of these feats is far from missing the point - it's a point of its own; not all player groups out in the world playing D&D are concerned with things like a team-mate doing better damage than they are (because they spent a limited resource on a thing that only does more damage, instead of on something else that may apply to a wider variety of purposes).</blockquote>

Verification