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="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7589462" data-attributes="member: 6880599"><p>So if your taking the role of front line defense, aka the tank. It seems like your "problem with the feat" is your trying to make it into a way to do more damage while your character is a defensive character that would better benefit from Shield Master or Defensive Dualist. The Cleric is your DPR, so why are you a defensive tank trying to compete with that damage? Why does being the lowest damage in the party matter? It should be understood based off of the role you chose as a tank. Their is not need for you to have "decent but not OP offense". My point is/was your competing in a fight against another players role, even though your not intended to be in that role. If you don't die and the Cleric gets to do there DPR because of it you did your job and the party will live because you never went down. That's what a tank does. So being unhappy with not getting more damage from a feat not intended for your role in the party seems so weird. What will happen with this is that that other melee DPR fighters will take your "new feat design" and add it to their DPR build and only make them further form you, then the GM will adapt encounters to increase the difficulty so encounters are not too easy and boring and you will still be just as far behind the rest as ever and the party weight you pull will not change because encounters adapted to the group..... net 0, now two players have wasted feats for no gain. Also... an ASI does the same thing, to this is only useful once you have hit the 20 cap to raise the cap, messing with bounded accuracy and making running the campaign harder on the GM because now everything has to be adjusted. … Its just not beneficial in any way that I can see. Fixing nothing and creating problems for no reason.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>The assertion it that a Wizard, with taking weapons master for shortsword proficiency and warcaster is worried about playing optimal... if they were they would intellect to 20 first. 16 -> 18 lvl 4, 18 -> 20 lvl 8, Warcaster lvl 12, flavor weapons proficancy for warcaster booming blade spell attack with a melee weapon... of which they could have a 16 dex for mage armor and they could have no intention of moving into melee combat but the GM sneaks monsters behind them, they are fighting in tight space dungeon, and enemies are deliberately engaging different enemies triggering opportunity attacks by the wizard. … that's all completely reasonable to happen. But it does require the feat to have weapon proficiency unless the at high levels with bounded accuracy monster AC, the wizard wants to be stripped of the +6 to hit proficiency provides making flavor choices like this unfeasible. Booming blade is great control spell and it could be used to keep a rogue or caster away from your tank a round or suffer a great deal of damage and with +3 dex and +6 proficancy it's a functional flavor option. Without this feet as it its you remove this player choice option as an in rules functional player choice my restricting them form a possible +9 to a max of +3 that is not likely to be able to hit with bounded accuracy. This kind of unique game play is exactly why feats exist and your suggestion to make it a +1 to hit, +1 damage removes it for something that can be achieved with an ASI or raises it above the intended bounded accuracy cap when used by a fighter with a +3 sword and 20 strength and now another redundant +1/+1.... If your going to cause that pain, at the least I recommend you make it a "weapon specialist" feat of its own, instead of removing options only do add something optimizers will take to break bounded accuracy. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Lets, say you don't take it for DPR optimization. Once you make that change others can get it and will. That has to be taken into account. With bounded accuracy and as much as a +6 or +30% increase in "to hit" is a HUGE DEAL as ACs meat or pass AC23 then its the difference of 5% hit on natural 20 or 30% hit which makes a profound impact on the use of those weapons. Even at lower levels its still at least a +2 or +10% chance to hit.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Story GM and its easier to follow the rules than debate house rules, so having the feat allows the action at all and role playing the gaining of the skill can be done so its interesting and not just .."look I can use swords now!" … which I am not thrilled about (I would like to use feats when I get them) but I understand.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7589462, member: 6880599"] So if your taking the role of front line defense, aka the tank. It seems like your "problem with the feat" is your trying to make it into a way to do more damage while your character is a defensive character that would better benefit from Shield Master or Defensive Dualist. The Cleric is your DPR, so why are you a defensive tank trying to compete with that damage? Why does being the lowest damage in the party matter? It should be understood based off of the role you chose as a tank. Their is not need for you to have "decent but not OP offense". My point is/was your competing in a fight against another players role, even though your not intended to be in that role. If you don't die and the Cleric gets to do there DPR because of it you did your job and the party will live because you never went down. That's what a tank does. So being unhappy with not getting more damage from a feat not intended for your role in the party seems so weird. What will happen with this is that that other melee DPR fighters will take your "new feat design" and add it to their DPR build and only make them further form you, then the GM will adapt encounters to increase the difficulty so encounters are not too easy and boring and you will still be just as far behind the rest as ever and the party weight you pull will not change because encounters adapted to the group..... net 0, now two players have wasted feats for no gain. Also... an ASI does the same thing, to this is only useful once you have hit the 20 cap to raise the cap, messing with bounded accuracy and making running the campaign harder on the GM because now everything has to be adjusted. … Its just not beneficial in any way that I can see. Fixing nothing and creating problems for no reason. The assertion it that a Wizard, with taking weapons master for shortsword proficiency and warcaster is worried about playing optimal... if they were they would intellect to 20 first. 16 -> 18 lvl 4, 18 -> 20 lvl 8, Warcaster lvl 12, flavor weapons proficancy for warcaster booming blade spell attack with a melee weapon... of which they could have a 16 dex for mage armor and they could have no intention of moving into melee combat but the GM sneaks monsters behind them, they are fighting in tight space dungeon, and enemies are deliberately engaging different enemies triggering opportunity attacks by the wizard. … that's all completely reasonable to happen. But it does require the feat to have weapon proficiency unless the at high levels with bounded accuracy monster AC, the wizard wants to be stripped of the +6 to hit proficiency provides making flavor choices like this unfeasible. Booming blade is great control spell and it could be used to keep a rogue or caster away from your tank a round or suffer a great deal of damage and with +3 dex and +6 proficancy it's a functional flavor option. Without this feet as it its you remove this player choice option as an in rules functional player choice my restricting them form a possible +9 to a max of +3 that is not likely to be able to hit with bounded accuracy. This kind of unique game play is exactly why feats exist and your suggestion to make it a +1 to hit, +1 damage removes it for something that can be achieved with an ASI or raises it above the intended bounded accuracy cap when used by a fighter with a +3 sword and 20 strength and now another redundant +1/+1.... If your going to cause that pain, at the least I recommend you make it a "weapon specialist" feat of its own, instead of removing options only do add something optimizers will take to break bounded accuracy. Lets, say you don't take it for DPR optimization. Once you make that change others can get it and will. That has to be taken into account. With bounded accuracy and as much as a +6 or +30% increase in "to hit" is a HUGE DEAL as ACs meat or pass AC23 then its the difference of 5% hit on natural 20 or 30% hit which makes a profound impact on the use of those weapons. Even at lower levels its still at least a +2 or +10% chance to hit. Story GM and its easier to follow the rules than debate house rules, so having the feat allows the action at all and role playing the gaining of the skill can be done so its interesting and not just .."look I can use swords now!" … which I am not thrilled about (I would like to use feats when I get them) but I understand. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fixing the terrible Weapon Master feat
Top