Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feat changes: requesting feedback
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 8053596" data-attributes="member: 6777737"><p>I'd rather the feat just gave you a climb speed of half your movement, with the caveat that you still need handholds and cannot climb sheer surfaces. Like the feat ought to be better than taking Magic Initiate (Artificer) with Guidance and Jump, and it kind of isn't.</p><p></p><p>I'd rather the feat grant Expertise/double proficiency bonus.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess I don't see the point. This is already the most optimized way to use this feat. I think virtually unrestricted bonus attacks like this are a bad design. I'd rather see the feat do something else entirely.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess? The feat already adds +1 damage and +1 AC. That's pretty good as far as feats go. I would prefer the feat granted two weapon fighting style or allowed the off-hand attack to be made as a part of the attack action instead of as a bonus attack. Truthfully, I think the latter is how the game should already work. TWF starts out too far behind.</p><p></p><p>The last benefit (draw & stow) our table ignores because everyone can already draw and stow a weapon for every attack they're making as long as it's readily available (i.e., on your belt and not in your pack).</p><p></p><p>Personally, rather than the larger weapons, I'd rather the feat say, "Once per turn when you strike the same creature with both your primary weapon and you off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d6 damage." Give TWF some teeth.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yeah, sure. I still don't think anybody is taking this over Tough, and people only take Tough at high level. I think Durable is only a useful feat if you recover all your hit dice during a long rest (which is how I think the game should work in general, but I still don't think it's worth it here). I'm still not convinced that Tough and Durable shouldn't be combined. Yes, that's really potent and most everyone will take it eventually, but so what? The same is true of Resilient.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I wouldn't do this.</p><p></p><p>First, the feat only works on Heavy weapons and there are no Heavy weapons that deal less than 1d10 damage. The only options are 1d10, 1d12, and 2d6. Most of the table is meaningless.</p><p></p><p>In any case, you've just made the option a mathematical trap. -5 to hit is going to cost more than +7 damage. I've done the math. -5/+7 is the inflection point where using the ability is <em>always</em> worse regardless of the target's AC. Like unless you're using Sharpshooter with a Shuriken I'm pretty sure that -5/+7 was mathematically <em>always</em> worse.</p><p></p><p>I hate the -5/+10 options. It makes players do extra math at the table, and after a certain point it's something you always use unless you're fighting stuff with less than 10 hit points. It's a bad design. I prefer "you can add 1d6 damage to damage rolls made against creatures of size Large or larger." No penalty to hit. Just flat bonus damage against certain enemies that your weapon is designed to face. This evokes the old school two handed sword doing 3d6 damage to large creatures. Now it has a fixed benefit, the player doesn't have to play a math game, and the feat doesn't dominate alternative options at higher level.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess? I know lots of people think the feat is powerful, but I don't really find it worthwhile to nerf healing at low level or buff it at higher level. I would probably require proficiency in medicine rather than expertise. The fewer mechanics that key off expertise, the better.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I like the addition, though there are actually very few creatures with magical weapons in the MM. Unless the entry says the creatures weapons are magic (like Balor) then they're non-magical.</p><p></p><p>I think the damage reduction change is too fiddly. IMO this is another feat that only appears to be more potent because Variant Human exists. I think Variant Human is poorly designed. I don't think regular Human is a better design (I think they both suck) but I don't like nerfing feats because one race can sometimes get access to the feats at level 1. I think that's dumb. I think the correct solution is to stop letting characters get feats at level 1.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, as a design methodology, I'd rather see this be a proficiency bonus or double proficiency bonus. Advantage is supposed to represent circumstantial bonuses. Proficiency is supposed to represent training or inherent skill. Don't apply advantage to everything because it means in regular play you won't be able to give your player another benefit.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is fine, but I still think the feat is pretty terrible. Here, I think advantage is probably fine because this check is very specific and virtually never comes up.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess? I agree that one combat die is pretty worthless.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. You're already losing if Relentless Endurance comes up, so I consider it a pretty throwaway ability.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I guess, but I don't really like that Humans are both boring and have nothing to even begin to make them interesting. Humans have a pretty terrible design in 5e overall.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I said above, I don't really like -5/+10. I think it's bad for gameplay on multiple levels. I would rather have something that gives you an Extreme Range category (double long range, attacks at disadvantage). Or that lets you deal an addition 1d6 damage to creatures that are airborne. Or once a turn allows you to deal damage equal to your Dex modifier to a creature adjacent to the target or behind the target. Or one a turn lets you hamper a creature and reduce its speed by 10.</p><p></p><p>I strongly dislike making the players do -5/+10, and strongly prefer situational bonuses that are powerful but don't come up all the time. I don't want to create feats that become builds that are more influential in combat than class abilities. I don't want feats to grant abilities like that unless they're something like Savage Attacker which always works but <em>only does that</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. This is how we already play the ability. We've also played it that the reaction Dex bonus can apply to any effect you can see... though I don't know if that was an intentional change or if it was accidental.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. I mean, still nobody is taking this. You could combine it with light armor proficiency and it's still super unappealing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, I don't think the problem is with Dual Wielder. Polearm Mastery's bonus attack is just silly. The game shouldn't give out bonus attacks like this. I would prefer to replace that line of Polearm Master entirely. It generates far too much bang for it's buck.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 8053596, member: 6777737"] I'd rather the feat just gave you a climb speed of half your movement, with the caveat that you still need handholds and cannot climb sheer surfaces. Like the feat ought to be better than taking Magic Initiate (Artificer) with Guidance and Jump, and it kind of isn't. I'd rather the feat grant Expertise/double proficiency bonus. I guess I don't see the point. This is already the most optimized way to use this feat. I think virtually unrestricted bonus attacks like this are a bad design. I'd rather see the feat do something else entirely. I guess? The feat already adds +1 damage and +1 AC. That's pretty good as far as feats go. I would prefer the feat granted two weapon fighting style or allowed the off-hand attack to be made as a part of the attack action instead of as a bonus attack. Truthfully, I think the latter is how the game should already work. TWF starts out too far behind. The last benefit (draw & stow) our table ignores because everyone can already draw and stow a weapon for every attack they're making as long as it's readily available (i.e., on your belt and not in your pack). Personally, rather than the larger weapons, I'd rather the feat say, "Once per turn when you strike the same creature with both your primary weapon and you off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d6 damage." Give TWF some teeth. Yeah, sure. I still don't think anybody is taking this over Tough, and people only take Tough at high level. I think Durable is only a useful feat if you recover all your hit dice during a long rest (which is how I think the game should work in general, but I still don't think it's worth it here). I'm still not convinced that Tough and Durable shouldn't be combined. Yes, that's really potent and most everyone will take it eventually, but so what? The same is true of Resilient. No, I wouldn't do this. First, the feat only works on Heavy weapons and there are no Heavy weapons that deal less than 1d10 damage. The only options are 1d10, 1d12, and 2d6. Most of the table is meaningless. In any case, you've just made the option a mathematical trap. -5 to hit is going to cost more than +7 damage. I've done the math. -5/+7 is the inflection point where using the ability is [I]always[/I] worse regardless of the target's AC. Like unless you're using Sharpshooter with a Shuriken I'm pretty sure that -5/+7 was mathematically [I]always[/I] worse. I hate the -5/+10 options. It makes players do extra math at the table, and after a certain point it's something you always use unless you're fighting stuff with less than 10 hit points. It's a bad design. I prefer "you can add 1d6 damage to damage rolls made against creatures of size Large or larger." No penalty to hit. Just flat bonus damage against certain enemies that your weapon is designed to face. This evokes the old school two handed sword doing 3d6 damage to large creatures. Now it has a fixed benefit, the player doesn't have to play a math game, and the feat doesn't dominate alternative options at higher level. I guess? I know lots of people think the feat is powerful, but I don't really find it worthwhile to nerf healing at low level or buff it at higher level. I would probably require proficiency in medicine rather than expertise. The fewer mechanics that key off expertise, the better. I like the addition, though there are actually very few creatures with magical weapons in the MM. Unless the entry says the creatures weapons are magic (like Balor) then they're non-magical. I think the damage reduction change is too fiddly. IMO this is another feat that only appears to be more potent because Variant Human exists. I think Variant Human is poorly designed. I don't think regular Human is a better design (I think they both suck) but I don't like nerfing feats because one race can sometimes get access to the feats at level 1. I think that's dumb. I think the correct solution is to stop letting characters get feats at level 1. Again, as a design methodology, I'd rather see this be a proficiency bonus or double proficiency bonus. Advantage is supposed to represent circumstantial bonuses. Proficiency is supposed to represent training or inherent skill. Don't apply advantage to everything because it means in regular play you won't be able to give your player another benefit. This is fine, but I still think the feat is pretty terrible. Here, I think advantage is probably fine because this check is very specific and virtually never comes up. I guess? I agree that one combat die is pretty worthless. Sure. You're already losing if Relentless Endurance comes up, so I consider it a pretty throwaway ability. I guess, but I don't really like that Humans are both boring and have nothing to even begin to make them interesting. Humans have a pretty terrible design in 5e overall. As I said above, I don't really like -5/+10. I think it's bad for gameplay on multiple levels. I would rather have something that gives you an Extreme Range category (double long range, attacks at disadvantage). Or that lets you deal an addition 1d6 damage to creatures that are airborne. Or once a turn allows you to deal damage equal to your Dex modifier to a creature adjacent to the target or behind the target. Or one a turn lets you hamper a creature and reduce its speed by 10. I strongly dislike making the players do -5/+10, and strongly prefer situational bonuses that are powerful but don't come up all the time. I don't want to create feats that become builds that are more influential in combat than class abilities. I don't want feats to grant abilities like that unless they're something like Savage Attacker which always works but [I]only does that[/I]. Agreed. This is how we already play the ability. We've also played it that the reaction Dex bonus can apply to any effect you can see... though I don't know if that was an intentional change or if it was accidental. Sure. I mean, still nobody is taking this. You could combine it with light armor proficiency and it's still super unappealing. I mean, I don't think the problem is with Dual Wielder. Polearm Mastery's bonus attack is just silly. The game shouldn't give out bonus attacks like this. I would prefer to replace that line of Polearm Master entirely. It generates far too much bang for it's buck. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Feat changes: requesting feedback
Top