D&D 5E Why Should I Allow Feats

[Joe Liker]

and make it clear that Two-Weapon Fighting Style cannot be used with ranged weapons*.
[SIZE=-2]*As I read the rules, this is already RAW. However, it relies on a fairly technical point that's subject to debate, so you might as well just spell it out.[/SIZE]

Wait wait wait ... they were doing WHAT? I must have missed that part of the explanation.

There is absolutely no reasonable reading of the rules that would allow that. Two-Weapon Fighting is very explicitly defined as using melee weapons, period. The fighting style is limited by that definition.

If this is the sort of thing that's going on, the real problem is that the DM never learned to stand up to shifty rules lawyers. He can't blame the game for that.

 

[Ashrym]

Yeah. The guideline as written says that.

It's "don't be a slave to the rules" and not "ignore the rules completely". Rules as written tends to be the default assumption as opposed to publishing a book full of rules that aren't going to be used. House rules are easy enough but they can get carried away too.

 

[BigVanVader]

It's "don't be a slave to the rules" and not "ignore the rules completely".

Of course not. The Rules(what the DM decides for his game), absolutely shouldn't be ignored.

There aren't any 'rules' in the book, it's all just good advice for most games. Unless, of course, the DM wants to do something drastically different or even just a little different.

 

[Joe Liker]

Of course not. The Rules(what the DM decides for his game), absolutely shouldn't be ignored.

There aren't any 'rules' in the book, it's all just good advice for most games. Unless, of course, the DM wants to do something drastically different or even just a little different.

Ugh. No one's disputing the supremacy of the DM. But I think the point of the thread (and most threads, unless stated otherwise) is to find a way to deal with a given situation within the scope of the written rules. Even the original question of whether or not to ignore the optional feat rules does not stray from this idea.

Constantly evoking DM fiat is not only pointless (as it could apply to every D&D discussion), but it's also rather annoying (as someone tries to bring it up in every D&D discussion).

It's best to assume we're all just taking it as a given that the DM has final say. There's no need to mention it again. Really. No need. Ever.

Of course, I'm not telling anyone what to say. I'm just pointing out what a waste of energy it is when they say certain things.

 

[Dausuul]

Wait wait wait ... they were doing WHAT? I must have missed that part of the explanation.

There is absolutely no reasonable reading of the rules that would allow that. Two-Weapon Fighting is very explicitly defined as using melee weapons, period. The fighting style is limited by that definition.

If this is the sort of thing that's going on, the real problem is that the DM never learned to stand up to shifty rules lawyers. He can't blame the game for that.

To be clear, I don't have any reason to think they were actually doing that. It was just something that occurred to me they might be doing, or might try to do if Sharpshooter got nerfed, and it seemed like nipping that in the bud would be a good idea.

 

[Joe Liker]

To be clear, I don't have any reason to think they were actually doing that. It was just something that occurred to me they might be doing, or might try to do if Sharpshooter got nerfed, and it seemed like nipping that in the bud would be a good idea.

Ohhh, thanks for clarifying. I thought someone had lost their mind, and there's always the risk that that someone is me, so I'd rather not think about it.

 

[Ashrym]

Of course not. The Rules(what the DM decides for his game), absolutely shouldn't be ignored.

There aren't any 'rules' in the book, it's all just good advice for most games. Unless, of course, the DM wants to do something drastically different or even just a little different.

Right, but we have to base the discussion on something when discussing the rules, which would be the written rules. Like Joe said, I don't think anyone is saying the DM cannot simply change the rules, but we can't just base a discussion on the assumption of changed rules. Written rules are discussed as written to get a better idea of what might need changed and why.

For me, I wouldn't change the -5/+10 feats. They are there to increase damage on damage builds and if they increase that damage they are fulfilling the intent. Zard's concern is more in how much of an increase there is and if that's acceptable. I can see that as a legitimate concern when first examining the increase, but Zard sees an increase in conjunction with accuracy bonuses. Without those accuracy bonuses, -5/+10 feats don't provide big damage boosts and often cost damage in taking that penalty to hit. That tells me the issue isn't with the -5/+10 and it's more of an example of the potency that comes with accuracy bonuses in a system that has bounded accuracy where -5 is a big penalty. -5 is the equivalent of max ability modifier or very high level proficiency bonus and it is a big penalty.

That begs the question that if the -5/+10 isn't a good investment without the accuracy bonuses then why are we looking at -5/+10 instead of the accuracy bonuses, or possibly the applicable bonus attacks (like pole arm master) that can apply it additionally. Exclusively applying either pole arm master or great weapon master but not both simultaneously is where that leads, and you are correct in that it can be a solution if one assumes there is an issue to solve. I don't agree that there is because more damage is working as intended, but also, we're still looking at that big -5 penalty that's being offset by accuracy bonuses that creates the damage with both feats (which is a big investment and also part of why I'm not convinced of a problem).

If root cause analysis of a proposed issue leads us to accuracy bonuses when we look at sharpshooter, great weapon master, or great weapon master plus pole arm master then it makes more sense to look at accuracy as something a DM might rule adjustments. However, the intent appears to be that accuracy bonuses are meant to be big enhancers because it's the main offensive contribution to a couple of classes. Any changes to accuracy negatively impacts those classes and detracts from what appears to be meant to be a very strong ability.

The easiest thing for any DM to do would be to make a change and we all understand that, but the ability to change the rules doesn't actually change the default rules, and discussing them gives more insight into what to change (or decide not to change) and why.

It's all good.

 

[Celtavian]

The problem seems not to be the feats themselves - let's face it, the combat types need some way of boosting damage - but when they get used in combination with both high stats and supporting magic.

There's something else: allowing these feats means that Weapon + Shield is very much the poor relation even if you take the Shield Master feat.

ETA: I'm aware that a weapon & shield user can use part of the GWM feat.

Do martials need some way to spike damage? They already do the most damage. Fighters have Action Surge to boost damage. Paladins Divine Smite. Rogues have Sneak Attack for higher round to round damage. Barbarians get a damage boost with rage and they can take damage better than anyone. Rangers are a little weak, but have a few things like Hunter's Mark and Colossal Slayer.

Martials do better round to round damage than casters. Spells don't boost it a whole lot unless we're talking the single 9th level spell a caster gets. Fireball does 8d6 or 28 points average damage in a round. 14 if you save. Spells don't do a lot of damage either. Casters don't get many caster slots. Consumables are rare.

Not sure the martials do need to boost their damage with feats as well as class abilities. They're already quite far ahead of casters in damage. Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Mastery only make that gap much, much wider given casters don't have a lot of ways to boost damage, no feats and very few class abilities (save for the Sorcerer).

 

[Zardnaar]

Sharpshooter and Great Weapon also make the gap a lot wider for the other weapon styles like sword and board and dual wielding. If it was a static +2 bonus to damage I would not care that much for example.

 

[Derren]

How was this fallacy called that just because you can houserule a problem away it doesnt negate that there is a problem?

And the "guidelines" in 5E are as much rules as they were in 4 and 3E.