Horwath
Legend
And PAM also.
+1 ASI instead of extra attack.
D&D (2024) What is 5th editions Spiked chain?
+1 ASI instead of extra attack.
Zardnaar
Legend
Polearm probably fine. Slightly to good but not broken like the -5/+10 fears and 3 other PHB feats.
XBE is worse because of archery style, ranged and sharpshooter.
Horwath
Legend
PAM should be reworked into;
"hold the line" feat;
+1 ASI
when enemy moves into or through your threat area, as a reaction make a melee attack.
The spiked chain build were not just cheese. It was Unintended cheese.
Crossbow experts and Polearm masters were expected. The feat were right there and applied to the same weapons.
Coffeelocks, Hexladins, and bardlocks we're the Unintended consequences of having 4 Charisma casters and one using a different slot recharge system along with a multi class system that combined them.
Crossbow experts and Polearm masters were expected. The feat were right there and applied to the same weapons.
Coffeelocks, Hexladins, and bardlocks we're the Unintended consequences of having 4 Charisma casters and one using a different slot recharge system along with a multi class system that combined them.
Zardnaar
Legend
Idk if they spotted xbe+ss or GWM+pam.
fluffybunbunkittens
Hero
Yeah, I think those Cha caster interactions are just as obvious as crossbow extra attack + archery style giving you +2 to hit + sharpshooter removing the penalty for shooting into melee meaning that your power attack at range becomes even better than the power attack in melee...
They made a crossbow feat and a ranged weapon feat. They knew you could get both.
They were just shocked by the damage.
I don't think Cha casting as obvious to use feats.
The feats are all in the same section.
Cha caster abuse is noticing Pact Magic in the warlock section can fuel Divine Smite and Flexible Casting in the Paladin and Sorcerer sections.
beancounter
(I/Me/Mine)
The rogue and sneak attack.
Yaarel
He Mage
5e published in 2014. As early as 2015, Crawford confirms how the (coffeelock) Warlock interacts with Sorcerer or Paladin when multiclassing, noting the paucity of Warlock slots are intentional for reasons like this. By 2018, he mentions "abuse" and other ways to interpret the rules.
So this might be something like a 5e "spiked chain", originally intended but whose combos were ultimately surprising.
However, the coffeelock is something the DM has control over − and needs to intentionally allow, whether by allowing multiclassing in the first place, or interpreting the Warlock rules to apply to a non-Warlock class, or making 1-hour rests possible in a monster-ridden location. So, if the coffeelock becomes disruptive, the DM can by the rules end it or mitigate it.
So this might be something like a 5e "spiked chain", originally intended but whose combos were ultimately surprising.
However, the coffeelock is something the DM has control over − and needs to intentionally allow, whether by allowing multiclassing in the first place, or interpreting the Warlock rules to apply to a non-Warlock class, or making 1-hour rests possible in a monster-ridden location. So, if the coffeelock becomes disruptive, the DM can by the rules end it or mitigate it.
Willie the Duck
Hero
I've never seen anything specific as to whether this surprised them or not. It really depends on whether they wanted anything like this in the game or not. We know they talked about walking back the system mastery game in this edition, but at the same time, they didn't want to push away (too hard) people who like that kind of thing. As maddening as it is for many (such as myself--who wants players to be choosing weapon-shield-feat combinations based on which flavor speaks to them most) for there to be some fairly straightforward simply-best choices, the difference between dual-wielding or longsword-and-shield fighter (who maxes their Str faster) compared to CBE+SS fighter is within the overall variation in power that the game has/had in 2014/seems to deem acceptable. It is entirely possible that the devs were saying, "well, maybe a little system mastery is acceptable" when designing the bonus-action-attack feats alongside the -5/+10 feats.
Similar Threads
