Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7248569" data-attributes="member: 71699">First I must apologise for not making it clear at the outset I was discussing a modified version. I have corrected that. You are exactly right, unmodified the feat is hopeless: it's a trap feat.The reason for 30 rounds is that the average 5 round combat, twice between short rests, with two short rests before a long rest, gives us a day of 30 rounds. That is the refresh cycle for short and long rest abilities, so it allows us to properly expend those over our estimate. Also, I'm finding that in giving chunkier numbers it matches better my requirements for good estimating (as a project manager, I do a lot of estimating). What I need is information that clearly separates scenarios, without pretending to unachievable (or over effortful) levels of precision.Additionally, a broader estimate will capture more situations and more tables, instead of putting the spotlight on occasional situations at some tables.In balancing the game, I'm fine if minmaxers can find ways to hog the spotlight. In fact, we want characters to find ways to shine! What I am pursuing is a better game overall. Right now, we have a hole where feat support for 1H melee should be (sorry TWF I'm ignoring you for now, be patient).I don't agree with your assumptions about how the game is widely played. And would reiterate that my goal isn't to stop some feats being better than others, but to bring different strategies into viability for a broad range of D&D groups. Optimisers are just one possible "client" of this design work. They have plenty to play with already.I mean that in my estimates a character only gets consistent advantage worth counting, if they can make that advantage happen by using the rules. Shield Masters for instance, can generate advantage at least 2/3rds of the time so in my estimates I give them that. Beast Master as another example can use their Hawk to Help nearly all the time, so I give them that. If someones says - "Oh, but my character has advantage" - then they need to explain how it does that consistently enough to include in estimates. If their answer is - "I'm a special snowflake and my DM lets me" - then I'm going to ignore them because I'm thinking about all the other times and tables where that doesn't happen.And in the end, I have to address the design work to the published rules. When people aren't using those rules, I don't know much about what can happen in their games so I can't address their scenarios.You may well be right! As you know, I'm trying to take a conservative approach - minimising word changes and limiting additions. (So far, I have included no outright additions in my list of revised feats, and I think only one or two major wording alterations. Lots of single word changes, and slight tweaks of course.)For example, I noticed we can double what the feat does for many characters by just making it reroll all the damage dice rather than just the weapon. A small change for a decent effect.</blockquote>

Verification