D&D 5E Some feats/options are removing cool mechanical features of the game

[dmnqwk]

I think GWM is okay, provided you limit it to once per round (not every attack). I agree that Sharpshooter should not have had the -5/10 effect, because ignoring cover AND being capable of shooting at max range without disadv was powerful enough to justify a feat.

As for Crossbows and loading, it's not about a different combat pattern, it's only about ensuring other bows have a reason to exist. I agree the feat shouldn't exist, but that's more because I think Archery Style for Martial classes should've been "you dont suffer disadv within 5' of another foe when using a ranged weapon."

Crossbows were not designed to be "a little different" I think that's your imposing your will on the design process. It would NEVER be considered interesting to require you to attack, reload, attack each round since you'd gain nothing and lose a bunch of damage.

 

[Shendorion]

For the trick arrows, you could take the Martial Adept feat and fluff the maneuvers as a supply of special arrowheads that, due to mechanical and storage concerns, you have to assemble in limited quantities during downtime. Not all of the maneuvers will translate, but you don't get all the maneuvers with the feat, so you could pick the ones that achieve the effects you want to narrate as special arrows.

Regarding feats removing complexity, some people would see that as a good thing. There's also a simulationist argument for it - beginners have to be deliberate about things practiced veterans are able to do effortlessly. Granted, an approach to increasing success rate and removing penalties that didn't reduce complexity might've made the gameplay feel deeper when you're doing the things in which you're specialized, but there's a solid argument for letting players pay character resources to make gameplay more elegant in their fields of specialty.

I think you're right on target about playing without feats tampering with class balance, though. While +2 DEX compares well against Sharpshooter, what happens when you hit 20 DEX? Pulling feats out of the game means little to a wizard, but it takes away powerful options for fighters, reducing ~20% of their class features from interesting economic decisions and powerful points of differentiation to flat stat improvements that become less meaningful as they gain levels.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

As I suggested upthread, I think this problem could be mitigated if there were no feats that make you better at something you already do; only feats that give you additional capabilities (e.g. Magic Initiate, Dungeon Delver). Since versatility tends to be less powerful than specialization, it wouldn't lead to as much optimization. At least there would be fewer "auto-picks" that give you features you should have gotten from your class in the first place.

That goes back to removing choice, though. If you're primarily focused on not dying (as an individual and as a group), then you need to get as much power as you possibly can out of every feat, and no amount of versatility is equivalent to +2 in your main stat. Versatility is inherently less powerful than specialization, because you can only do one thing at a time.

 

[Psikerlord#]

then you should add +1 to ability for those feats to compensate.


maybe better idea would be to slow the feat down a little.

I.E. you can take attack penalty equal to your proficiency bonus and get double proficiency bonus to damage.

that way if picked up early 1st or 4th level, it gives only -2 attack and +4 damage. it equals out at lvl 13 and gets better only at lvl17+, -6 attack +12 damage.

Yes definitely - we swap +1 stat for the -5/+10, turning those feats into "half" feats.

Another good idea I saw on the forums, I forget the poster's name, was to swap the -5/+10 for an increase in damage dice. So 2d6 weapon becomes a 2d8 weapon.

 

[GX.Sigma]

That people assume something doesn't actually mean their assumption is correct. Especially not when their assumption is in direct conflict with presented evidence: in this case, the evidence is that the game has been designed so that feats are optional - not technically optional, full-on have to pay for an expansion to the game to get them in the first place optional - and the designers have been clear about the intent that any optional rule is intended to be included only if those including it like it

We can agree that the designers intended the feat system to be optional, but being optional does not exempt it from criticism.

I also don't think that Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter are actually as over-powered, must-have, and "tax" status as folks are claiming they are - of course, I've only got my own experiences with the system and my own players that have thus far found Actor, Weapon Master, Elemental Adept, Observant, and Dungeon Delver to be far more useful than the one player that has been interested in taking Great Weapon Master thinks the feat is in practical usage.

As I said in the passage you quoted directly above this paragraph: It doesn't matter whether you or I as individuals feel GWM and SS are imbalanced. The very fact that so many people do think they are imbalanced, and that the game is less fun as a result, is a real problem that can be fixed mechanically. Why would you not want to fix that?

I don't think the sort of players you are describing are anywhere near as common as they might seem on the internet, and at the very least, feeling like you are required to take some option that you don't actually like because it is mechanically better than other options, but those other options are mechanically good enough that you do just fine if you take them instead, is completely on the player. No amount of game design can change a player from thinking that their is either "the best" or "garbage".

If a player plays the game and finds it un-fun because they believe it is imbalanced, that is not the player's fault. It is the game's fault.

This illustrates that your expectation of the game differs from the expectation the designers have for it, because you just described a feat that only applies in certain situations as being "always-powerful." The -5 to hit for +10 damage from Great Weapon Master is of as much use outside of combat as the advantage on checks to pass yourself off as a different person from Actor is in combat, which is to say basically no use because both feats (all feats, actually) are situational.

Yes, a lot of groups have a lot more frequent combat situations than other types of situations - but that's their choice, so it's there use of the tools at hand, not the tools' design, that creates the problems they experience.

First of all, my diction there was not great. "Always powerful" vs "situational" is not the right terms for what I was trying to say.

See, I was thinking from the perspective of a Fighter player. I don't have the empirical data in front of me, but it stands to reason that if you're playing a Fighter with a greatsword, you probably want to be good at fighting with a greatsword. Don't you agree? The Fighter class is composed of roughly 100% combat features. There is mechanically no reason to play a Fighter unless your primary goal is to be good in combat.

So when you see a feat that makes you even better in combat, it is very appealing. By taking that feat, you gain "vertical" power in your specialist area. And that can mess up the game's balance, because now your Fighter with that feat is a better fighter than other Fighters without that feat. And that's bad. Are you with me so far?

Now, imagine your Fighter takes the Actor feat. You're not any better at your primary function (fighting), but you gain a "horizontal" ability that lets you do things you couldn't do before. Your Fighter is just as good a fighter as my Fighter who took Ritual Caster, but we can each do things the other can't. Which is also imbalanced, but in a good way, because now our characters are distinct and interesting without overshadowing each other.

My idea to fix the optimization problem is to have feats be more "horizontal" and less "vertical." Martial Adept, for example, is a mostly-horizontal feat that could appeal to combat-focused characters without causing imbalance.

That goes back to removing choice, though. If you're primarily focused on not dying (as an individual and as a group), then you need to get as much power as you possibly can out of every feat, and no amount of versatility is equivalent to +2 in your main stat. Versatility is inherently less powerful than specialization, because you can only do one thing at a time.

I believe that's the tension the system needs to offset the optimization problem. +2 to your main stat should be "vertically" better than a random feat. It makes feats 'more optional' if the base option is so generally appealing. If the ability bump is the best way to improve your baseline capabilities, then there are no "must-have" feats. There would still be some feats that would appeal to certain characters, but they wouldn't break the math.

[edited a bunch of times]

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

We can agree that the designers intended the feat system to be optional, but being optional does not exempt it from criticism.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that it does.

As I said in the passage you quoted directly above this paragraph: It doesn't matter whether you or I as individuals feel GWM and SS are imbalanced. The very fact that so many people do think they are imbalanced, and that the game is less fun as a result, is a real problem that can be fixed mechanically. Why would you not want to fix that?

If someone thinks something isn't doing what it is supposed to, they could be right, or they could be wrong. If they are right, there is something to fix, and if it can be fixed there isn't (normally) any reason not to fix it.

If they are wrong, however, there is nothing to fix. If I make screwdriver more hammer-like because someone complains that their screwdriver doesn't drive nails the way they think it should, I'm not fixing a broken screwdriver, I'm breaking it - and I might even manage to turn it into something that no longer drives screws in the process.

People thinking GWM and SS are imbalanced are, in my opinion, confusing a working screwdriver for a broken hammer.

If a player plays the game and finds it un-fun because they believe it is imbalanced, that is not the player's fault. It is the game's fault.

Not nearly as often as you might think. It all depends on why the player believes it is imbalanced. In the case of the -5 to-hit/+10 damage trade, the folks I've seen believing that it is imbalanced cite reasons for that belief that indicate other things they are (or aren't) doing which if not done (or done, as appropriate) would remove all the reasons behind their belief.

Often, it is as simple as choosing to use more creatures with a particular range of AC, since there is a relatively easy to reach point where -5/+10 is equal or inferior damage to an unmodified attack.

First of all, my diction there was not great. "Always powerful" vs "situational" is not the right terms for what I was trying to say.

See, I was thinking from the perspective of a Fighter player. I don't have the empirical data in front of me, but it stands to reason that if you're playing a Fighter with a greatsword, you probably want to be good at fighting with a greatsword. Don't you agree?

I can agree not with what you have said, but with something near to it: If you want to play a character that is good at fighting with a greatsword, playing a Fighter and having a greatsword fulfill that desire.

The Fighter class is composed of roughly 100% combat features. There is mechanically no reason to play a Fighter unless your primary goal is to be good in combat.

You're "roughly 100%" is extremely roughly, considering that every sub-class of fighter has features that aren't combat features (remarkable athlete, student of war, know your enemy, some spell options, etc.) , and other things which all fighters share in common are not inherently limited to being combat features (ability score increases).

However, yes, the Fighter is designed so that every fighter is good in combat.

So when you see a feat that makes you even better in combat, it is very appealing.

Not necessarily. Being better at what I'm already really good at is less appealing than being better at something I'm not as good at yet.

By taking that feat, you gain "vertical" power in your specialist area. And that can mess up the game's balance, because now your Fighter with that feat is a better fighter than other Fighters without that feat. And that's bad. Are you with me so far?

Better at one-dimension of the character =/= better character overall, at least, not in a game like D&D where there is more than one-dimension of challlenges the character will go up against. And someone wanting to be the best at one thing really should be able to do it, which is how 5th edition works so far, and there is nothing bad about that.

Now, imagine your Fighter takes the Actor feat. You're not any better at your primary function (fighting), but you gain a "horizontal" ability that lets you do things you couldn't do before. Your Fighter is just as good a fighter as my Fighter who took Ritual Caster, but we can each do things the other can't. Which is also imbalanced, but in a good way, because now our characters are distinct and interesting without overshadowing each other.

I don't see the difference between a fighter with Actor and a fighter with ritual caster as being a different kind of difference than that between a fighter with one of those two feats and a fighter with great weapon master - one gets to be better at combat by way of doing things the other can't, but that other still gets the things they can do that the first can't, and they have the advantage that said things which the first character can't do have likely opened an entire different style of challenge to be better handled by the character.

My idea to fix the optimization problem is to have feats be more "horizontal" and less "vertical." Martial Adept, for example, is a mostly-horizontal feat that could appeal to combat-focused characters without causing imbalance.

That you consider Martial Adept to be even partly "horizontal" as a feat for an already combat-oriented character does not make any sense at all.

As it stands, I am of the opinion that it isn't the feats that are problems. It is assumptions about other parts of the game, such as ability scores and their increases and how good a character that is "good enough" at something actually has to be, not matching to what the design of the game assumes the player will be assuming - and people point to the feats because they are more visible as being different from what prior versions of D&D established, where things like that a 14-16 in your "most important" ability score is plenty good and you will actually get more out of dedicating ability increases to getting more 14-16 scores than you will out of making this one score an 18-20 are not as apparent even though having that 18-20 is a large part of why a blamed feat performs as well as it does.

 

[Uchawi]

All I can state is the game would probably work better when adding layers of depth or choices if the developers decided to create maneuvers as the tool box for martial characters like spells work for casters. Then you would have a lot of choices in class to mix and match features and then background, feats, etc. would help fine tune; without favoring a specific sets of classes. But that ship has sailed.

 

[GX.Sigma]

If someone thinks something isn't doing what it is supposed to, they could be right, or they could be wrong. If they are right, there is something to fix, and if it can be fixed there isn't (normally) any reason not to fix it. If they are wrong, however, there is nothing to fix.

Who cares what it's "supposed" to do? Who decides whether the person is "right" or "wrong"? If it doesn't do what THEY want it to do, it doesn't work FOR THEM. Regardless of whether YOU think they're "right," for THEM, it is a real problem that needs to be fixed. If they are trying to fix the problem, telling them "there's nothing to fix" isn't helpful.

Not nearly as often as you might think. It all depends on why the player believes it is imbalanced. In the case of the -5 to-hit/+10 damage trade, the folks I've seen believing that it is imbalanced cite reasons for that belief that indicate other things they are (or aren't) doing which if not done (or done, as appropriate) would remove all the reasons behind their belief.

Often, it is as simple as choosing to use more creatures with a particular range of AC, since there is a relatively easy to reach point where -5/+10 is equal or inferior damage to an unmodified attack.

Right here you explain that the encounters have to be distorted around the -5/+10 to bring it in line. Don't you think the game would be better if you didn't have to do that? By what definition is that not imbalanced?

Better at one-dimension of the character =/= better character overall, at least, not in a game like D&D where there is more than one-dimension of challlenges the character will go up against. And someone wanting to be the best at one thing really should be able to do it, which is how 5th edition works so far, and there is nothing bad about that.

D&D is played in a group. If every member of the group has a different specialty, and they're all "the best" at it, the group as a whole is more effective. If every member of the group has a diverse set of abilities and they're not as great at any of them, the group as a whole is less effective. This is how groups work.

I don't see the difference between a fighter with Actor and a fighter with ritual caster as being a different kind of difference than that between a fighter with one of those two feats and a fighter with great weapon master
...
That you consider Martial Adept to be even partly "horizontal" as a feat for an already combat-oriented character does not make any sense at all.

Let me try to explain. Martial Adept gives the character a new, exceptional ability, such as Evasive Footwork or Parry, that they can use once per rest (giving them an option they can use when the situation calls for it). GWM gives the character +10 damage on every attack, plus an extra attack every few rounds (powering-up a capability the character already has). The latter is more vertical, the former is more horizontal. (It does give a little extra damage, which is why I said "mostly." Actor and Ritual Caster are purer examples.) Does that make sense?

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've played with feats, and without them, sometimes in the game campaign. I've never seen one break the game yet. Largely because most of aforementioned feats are pretty situational.


Look at it like this. OK, I can ignore the cover bonuses and range penalties, for those times in combat when I'm going against someone who is far away and/or behind cover. Maybe that scenario comes up fairly often, but certainly not all the time. Or, I can get a +1 bonus to attack with my ranged weapon all the time, +1 damage, +1 to my initiative, and +1 to all my DEX saves and skill checks. (choosing ASI over feat).

So no, in this one guy's humble opinion, even choosing to be an archer, automatically selecting that feat isn't automatic at all.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Often, it is as simple as choosing to use more creatures with a particular range of AC, since there is a relatively easy to reach point where -5/+10 is equal or inferior damage to an unmodified attack.

Especially if you compare the -5/+10 to the unmodified attack of someone who spent their ASI on +2 to Str instead of GWM. 5th level fighter with 18 Str and GWM attacking an AC 15 Gargoyle (+2 for 2d6+14): will average 17.5 DPR. 5th level fighter with 20 Str attacking an AC 15 Gargoyle (+8 for 2d6+5): will average 17.5 DPR. No difference.

What GWM does do is make the game more tactically interesting, because the ability to convert accuracy into power opens up options such as assigning one PC to catch enemies in a net (with Help from the wizard's familiar to offset disadvantage) in order to grant advantage to the GWMer. The GWMer's damage goes up to 28.25 against a restrained foe, whereas the 20 Str guy's damage only goes up to 23.21. Either way you're trading off one or more rounds of attacks from your buddy to get a chance of boosting the fighter's damage; GWM makes it more likely that that tradeoff will pay off.

Sharpshooter also makes the game more tactically interesting, but in a different way. You plan lines of sight and set ambushes before combat to try to draw the enemy onto a prepared position with Sharpshooter overwatch. You try to ensure that that prepared position has a clear field of fire (no partial cover for the enemy) and ideally a nice slope to make it difficult terrain for them while approaching. They can still partially counter Sharpshooter by dropping prone, but that makes them take twice as long to approach, which makes them take more damage from all the other non-Sharpshooter soldiers/PCs you have, so it's a tradeoff--and a tradeoff which they probably aren't even aware they have to make. Probably the enemy isn't going to drop prone at all at long range, they're just going to charge.

I'm going to quote General Buford from Gettysburg here because it's an awesome monologue which also seems appropriate:

You know whats going to happen here in the morning? The whole ---- reb army is going to be here. They'll move through this town, occupy these hills on the other side and when our people get here Lee will have the high ground. There will be the ---- to pay! The high ground! Meade will come in slowly, cautiously. New to command. They'll be on his back in Washington. Wire hot with messages 'Attack! Attack!'. So he will set up a ring around these hills. And when Lee's army is nicely entrenched behind fat rocks on the high ground, Meade will finally attack, if he can coordinate the army. Straight up the hillside, out in the open, in that gorgeous field of fire. We will charge valiantly... and be butchered valiantly! And afterwards men in tall hats and gold watch fobs will thump their chest and say what a brave charge it was. Devin, I've led a soldier's life, and I've never seen anything as brutally clear as this.

When I play 5E, I try to set things up so that the PCs can either be Lee or Buford, depending on how quickly they react and how well they plan. Sharpshooter is just one element of the complexity but it's a welcome addition.