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
Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat
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="pming" data-source="post: 6911798" data-attributes="member: 45197"><p>Hiya, again. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think what it's going to boil down to in the end is "group style". For us, in our experience, over time players tended to create characters that got sucked into "standard Feats" for any particular trope. If you wanted to make a Fighter (Champion) who used a two handed sword...are you going to take GWM, or Skilled? If you were making a Ranger (Hunter), was the choice really that hard between Mounted Combat, or Sharpshooter?</p><p></p><p>Now, of course a player could take the 'less optimal' choice for his character concept, but the moment the PC encounters an equal leveled NPC (or PC) who <em>does</em> have the 'optimal' feat in question...well, the more diverse characters spotlight is dimmed significantly. Your "two handed brute" is suddenly quite a bit worse than "that in-shape guard guy over there" because the guard has GWM and you don't. Your elven bowmaster is good, but not nearly as good as the human thief who has Sharpshooter. Your heavily armored dwarven cleric is suddenly in need a much more healing than the heavily armored gnome who has Heavy Armor Mastery. That was the kind of thing we were seeing. If a Feat existed for some particular "concept", you were all but forced to take it.</p><p></p><p>However, without Feats, a fighter with a two handed sword and another fighter with a two handed sword were equally "as good" as the other; now the things that made them better/different/unique was their personalities and the players playing them. With feats, both players had to either have, or not have, GWM; the moment one took it, the other had the stigma of 'second-fiddle'...why send in Bill when Bob is exactly the same, except he has the option of -5/+10 on his attack?</p><p></p><p>Certain play groups would obviously not care one way or the other about this. Our group fits mostly into this category. However, after time, it did get...annoying. The inclusion of Feats wasn't granting more 'fun', it was causing more un-spoken resentment and annoyance. And, as a DM, I found that I had to start thinking more of character Feats than about logical and cool story stuff. I had to specifically place "PC-specific" challenges. This sort of adventure writing just sucked all the fun out of it for me. I don't "build encounters" to fit my players PC's. My adventures are built with virtually nothing but the most broad PC capabilities in my head (e.g. "the're mostly human and about level 4"). I don't care if there are no fighters, or three clerics, or no outdoorsy types...if the PC's go investigate "The Haunted Halls of the Zombie Lord" and they don't have a cleric or paladin...not my problem. But when Feats were being used, I found myself thinking about the players PC's as much as I was about the internal consistency of my campaign world. And that sucked. Didn't like it one bit.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, play on! Feats are fine for those that want the extra work and don't mind adding more and more (because Feats are like crack to some players; they are always looking for the next, bigger, "high" of some particular character optimization build). Thankfully, 5e wasn't designed with Feats and MC as a base. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>^_^</p><p></p><p>Paul L. Ming</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pming, post: 6911798, member: 45197"] Hiya, again. :) I think what it's going to boil down to in the end is "group style". For us, in our experience, over time players tended to create characters that got sucked into "standard Feats" for any particular trope. If you wanted to make a Fighter (Champion) who used a two handed sword...are you going to take GWM, or Skilled? If you were making a Ranger (Hunter), was the choice really that hard between Mounted Combat, or Sharpshooter? Now, of course a player could take the 'less optimal' choice for his character concept, but the moment the PC encounters an equal leveled NPC (or PC) who [I]does[/I] have the 'optimal' feat in question...well, the more diverse characters spotlight is dimmed significantly. Your "two handed brute" is suddenly quite a bit worse than "that in-shape guard guy over there" because the guard has GWM and you don't. Your elven bowmaster is good, but not nearly as good as the human thief who has Sharpshooter. Your heavily armored dwarven cleric is suddenly in need a much more healing than the heavily armored gnome who has Heavy Armor Mastery. That was the kind of thing we were seeing. If a Feat existed for some particular "concept", you were all but forced to take it. However, without Feats, a fighter with a two handed sword and another fighter with a two handed sword were equally "as good" as the other; now the things that made them better/different/unique was their personalities and the players playing them. With feats, both players had to either have, or not have, GWM; the moment one took it, the other had the stigma of 'second-fiddle'...why send in Bill when Bob is exactly the same, except he has the option of -5/+10 on his attack? Certain play groups would obviously not care one way or the other about this. Our group fits mostly into this category. However, after time, it did get...annoying. The inclusion of Feats wasn't granting more 'fun', it was causing more un-spoken resentment and annoyance. And, as a DM, I found that I had to start thinking more of character Feats than about logical and cool story stuff. I had to specifically place "PC-specific" challenges. This sort of adventure writing just sucked all the fun out of it for me. I don't "build encounters" to fit my players PC's. My adventures are built with virtually nothing but the most broad PC capabilities in my head (e.g. "the're mostly human and about level 4"). I don't care if there are no fighters, or three clerics, or no outdoorsy types...if the PC's go investigate "The Haunted Halls of the Zombie Lord" and they don't have a cleric or paladin...not my problem. But when Feats were being used, I found myself thinking about the players PC's as much as I was about the internal consistency of my campaign world. And that sucked. Didn't like it one bit. Anyway, play on! Feats are fine for those that want the extra work and don't mind adding more and more (because Feats are like crack to some players; they are always looking for the next, bigger, "high" of some particular character optimization build). Thankfully, 5e wasn't designed with Feats and MC as a base. :) ^_^ Paul L. Ming [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat
Top