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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AaronOfBarbaria" data-source="post: 6778472" data-attributes="member: 6701872">I haven't seen anyone suggest that it does.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.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. 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.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.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.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.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.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.</blockquote>

Verification