Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6846015" data-attributes="member: 996">Honestly not a bad idea, IMHO.Different styles are supposed to have different things going for them Archery does DPR at range, and GWF does it up close and personal.  TWFing has the potential synergy of yet another attack with any static multiplier.  One-handed weapons get the added AC of a shield, which is nothing to sneeze at in 5e.  Those other styles already have feats than enhance them.  So, no, you probably don't need to add similar feats for different sorts of weapons or styles.5e lets you divide up your movement and attack at any point within it, which is pretty neat - though also maybe not that relevant when running TotM - and gives you some potential for a visually dynamic action.  But that's about as cool as it gets.   There's things I really miss from prior editions.  There's the battlefield control you could exert with Combat Reflexes, Reach, and WWA in 3.5, for instance (no the Polearm feat doesn't really go there).  Same for Cleave & Great Cleave.  There were 'canny' builds that emphasized INT and fighting more defensively (in a dynamic way, not just a flat +1 for wearing armor).  There's charge builds, versatile builds, mounted builds, exotic weapon masters, 'best tool for the job' approaches (which, really, 5e with it's magic-item-independence should be ideal for).    There's the sheer number of tricks 4e gave melee types, which feats, being 'bigger' in 5e couldn't begin to touch, so not really relevant, though 'defender,' 'leader,' and 'controller' functions are all things that could be opened up for weapon-users, though, again, probably not just with some feats.  5e really is more oriented on magic-using character concepts atm, there's only 5 builds in the PH that /don't/ use magic at all.</blockquote>

Verification