Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 7620576" data-attributes="member: 205">Well, yea.&nbsp; It's one of those cases where their multiple criteria that are valid considerations, but might be mutually exclusive.&nbsp; I'm mostly just trying to lay out all the relevant criteria and see how many of them can be addressed by any one set of fixes.I agree that GWM is the superior feat, both in terms of efficacy and in design (the proc-based BA is quite fun.)&nbsp; I think my issue is that where you see the BA from those feats as &quot;locking out&quot;, I see it as &quot;enabling&quot;.&nbsp; If there were bonus actions available via class or subclass that were better than PAM/XBE, wouldn't people be taking those?&nbsp;&nbsp; The BAs that are just as good, if not better, are already for classes that don't value PAM or XBE.&nbsp; (Spiritual weapon, Cunning Action.)&nbsp; I can see the argument for classes with powerful BA buffs that you want set up in the first round, like barbarians and rangers.&nbsp; But that's why my (current) argument is to make the feat scale the Attack action only and leave the BA action alone.&nbsp; I can also see an argument that PAM/XBE/DW BA are all problematic because they're better than almost all class and subclass gained bonus actions, but that's way beyond the bounds of &quot;let's just fix one feat.&quot;I think my core point of disagreement is that I believe you can redesign the DW feat to scale like GWM without requiring the BA but keeping the option to use it intact.&nbsp; It would probably need one feat that scales like GWM/SS, and a second feat that buffs the BA and gives other benefits like PAM/XBE.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TwoSix, post: 7620576, member: 205"] Well, yea. It's one of those cases where their multiple criteria that are valid considerations, but might be mutually exclusive. I'm mostly just trying to lay out all the relevant criteria and see how many of them can be addressed by any one set of fixes. I agree that GWM is the superior feat, both in terms of efficacy and in design (the proc-based BA is quite fun.) I think my issue is that where you see the BA from those feats as "locking out", I see it as "enabling". If there were bonus actions available via class or subclass that were better than PAM/XBE, wouldn't people be taking those? The BAs that are just as good, if not better, are already for classes that don't value PAM or XBE. (Spiritual weapon, Cunning Action.) I can see the argument for classes with powerful BA buffs that you want set up in the first round, like barbarians and rangers. But that's why my (current) argument is to make the feat scale the Attack action only and leave the BA action alone. I can also see an argument that PAM/XBE/DW BA are all problematic because they're better than almost all class and subclass gained bonus actions, but that's way beyond the bounds of "let's just fix one feat." I think my core point of disagreement is that I believe you can redesign the DW feat to scale like GWM without requiring the BA but keeping the option to use it intact. It would probably need one feat that scales like GWM/SS, and a second feat that buffs the BA and gives other benefits like PAM/XBE. [/QUOTE]

Verification