Unfortunately that does nothing (and has since been removed via errata) because the rule it refers to doesn't exist.
But that's besides my point, you can see how some combat feats are noticably weaker than others.
D&D 5E What does balance mean to you?
Unfortunately that does nothing (and has since been removed via errata) because the rule it refers to doesn't exist.
But that's besides my point, you can see how some combat feats are noticably weaker than others.
Yeah, I couldn't find it in the PHB. I assumed it was in the DMG or MM. In any case, as a DM, I personally would not just yank (to me) the main feature of the feat and leave it hanging. What a crappy errata. I would instead add in some other cool grappling feature. Minimally, I would just add in the large creature rule so that the feat could work as written.
The interesting thing about D&D rules is that there are a lot of people, at least on the forums, who think that a lot of the rules are great as is and don't like to change them. They'll argue for pages, for example, that the Advantage and Disadvantage rules are great (or that passive ability checks are great). Personally, I think that if WotC had written either of those rules differently, these same people would argue just as passionately that the alternative rule is great. To me, if a rule sucks or you don't like it for some reason, replace or modify it.
Of course. Without knowing the errata, I just didn't consider Grappling to be one of them, at least for some builds. And as a DM, I would allow a player to take that feat and I would adjust the rules accordingly to make it useful.
Most other feats, not so much unless the player has a real compelling reason. Tavern Brawler might be an exception.
Tony Vargas
Legend
There is still a lot of that. There's a certain element of defensiveness, I suppose.
But it seems a lot less than when RAW was king.
Irrelevant - balancing should be done with a slant toward the norm. While it is appropriate to have some feats work better with certain builds, a feat is not balanced simply because you can think of one build that might be able to utilize it. Good balanced feats should be usable effectively by a decent percentage of PCs, otherwise you would need 100 feats to give good balanced options to all builds.
Unfortunately the people who argue the most that combat feats are balanced between each other (note I am not talking about balancing combat and non-combat feats against each other) are the people who care least about combat. One would think they would yield the floor there to the combat specialists who are in a better position to judge such things....
Tony Vargas
Legend
False prophet, CEO, schoolyard bully, whatever...RAW has never been king. A false prophet to some, sure. But never king.
It was RAW uber alles the whole run of 3.x, and it's not something I miss.
Last edited:
Sacrosanct
Legend
That is one huge assumption you're making there, on several things. Although, ascribing assumptions and positions to people that they haven't made is sort of par for the course in this thread for you.
Assumption? No - its based on a great deal of experience in these forums. And why must you insult me every time you post? Chill dude.
Sacrosanct
Legend
No, it's a HUGE assumption to say that people who argue that they don't have balance issues in combat care the least about it and should defer to people like your's opinion. And saying that you have a record of attributing positions to people that they never made isn't an insult. It's a point of fact. For example, saying that people that don't share your feelings are nihilists, or that people are giving the DEVs a free ride, or that people are saying that D&D is only an RPG, and now this example above. If you don't want people to say you have a record of ascribing positions they never made, then stop doing it. Pretty simple.
