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: 7205674" data-attributes="member: 996">Not all it does, no, just the controversial bit.  But, it is significant in that it is an additional option for a class that's decidedly short on options, so there's that... Narratively the one with the feat mows through lesser foes faster, and can 'bring it' vs big-but-not-invulnerable (high-hp/low-AC) monsters. Nothing is ever purely mechanical in 5e, natural language sees to that.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  And, mechanics do support narrative.  So a bad-ass greatsword fighter with access to the feat who /doesn't/ take it is less bad-ass than if the feat were unavailable to anyone, but also less bad-ass than the non-fighter who's got some other class feature that synergizes with the style, but can't afford to pick up feats as fast as the fighter.  In a sense, removing that particular feat lowers the bar (pressure) on a greatswording fighter to be as good as other (even hypothetical) greatswording fighters, but also reduces his ability to be as good as other greatswording non-fighters.  It's a dusty little rabbit-hole to go down.   They do not, no.  One has a distinct advantage vs two quite different sets of enemies, and that will inform/expand his choices in play.   By the standards of the Fighter class, yes, a significant increase in versatility/choice/variety.   By the standards of most other classes, trivial. A real danger.  Adding options is nice, adding imbalanced options can net reduce the total number of viable options.  5e design does not seem to generally prioritize balance, and optional rules seem to receive even less scrutiny in that regard.  Certainly wouldn't hurt.  That's getting very much into the 3e 'mistake' of making feats 'small'/fiddly/late-blooming/whatever, and the 4e 'mistake' of making up shortfalls in class design with 'feat taxes.'  A 'reckless attack' would be a fine option - since the feats work with weapons as different as big honking greatswords and teeny pinpoint-accurate hand crossbows, why not just open it up to weapons in general?A flat damage boost, like a +2 from weapon specialization or whatever, arguably doesn't change the way a character plays (beyond it contributing a bit more quantitatively, maybe dropping a given enemy a round early some minority of the time), but a trade-off option like -5/+10 does, nor is that the only thing either feat does.Full Disclosure:  All that said, I'm still not inclined to switch on feats in my home games.  I'm not particularly miffed about putting up with them when running AL, but, like MCing, they call out 3e more than 1e to me, and my nostalgia sweet spot is closer to AD&D.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification