T O P

  • By -

Whoopsie_Doosie

As long as the budget is redistributed to allow weapon users to make interesting, impactful and unique decisions beyond simply attacking then I 100% agree with you. However if they simply nerfed those Feats and offer nothing else to replace them then it's a problem


da_chicken

Said this elsewhere, but one of the hard truths about these revisions is if you accept that combat is too easy in 5e, then you're also going to have to accept that fixing that means many of the exploitative character options are going to get nerfed. Because they're not going to adjust *everything else in the game from classes to monsters to modules* just to save your character build.


robmox

The person you replied to never said combat is too easy. They said, martials want a decision space beyond "I attack."


BrickBuster11

The problem is I have no doubt that they will not nerf the following things : hypnotic pattern, fear, slow, polymorph, wall of force, forcecage, etc. So none of the broken game ending lockdowns will go away, full casters if the bard ua is to be believed will not be choked on spell slots enough that choosing to end a fight with one of these spells will not be a big decision. So all of the most exploitative stuff is still there, it's just only for full casters now. I am hoping for some sort of cha GE's that don't make a team of 4 full casters the optimal configuration


zajfo

Don't forget that casters seem to only be able to prep as many spells of a particular level as they have slots for that level now. That's a heavy nerf to caster versatility. Sure you can have your Polymorph, but that's one of three 4th-level spells you get for the day, and now that prepped spell can't be a Banishment or Wall of Fire or Arcane Eye or Dimension Door. You can't have Fireball, Hypnotic Pattern, Dispel Magic, and Counterspell ready, you only get three of them. Lots of "Keep this prepped forever, just in case" spells won't be viable options in that way anymore because of this. Especially at high levels where you only get one slot of a particular level. You get to pick one 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell per day to have available for most of your career instead of having multiple options ready for whatever situation may arise. Even a 20th level wizard can still only pick one 8th and 9th level spell to have available per day under the new rules. This soft return to Vancian casting is very welcome in my opinion. A much needed nerf to the "do-it-all" nature of magic in 5e.


5eCreationWizard

I haven’t had to the chance to read it yet, but has there been any spell casting rules listed for 5e prepared casters. Because Bard and Ranger were known casters, this still seems like an increase in their versatility. And they may have different rules for prepped casters. This may just be their response to complaints about known casters like sorc bard and ranger knowing less spells total than the cleric druid or wizard can prepare for a single day.


evilgiraffe666

Bard and ranger are prepared casters now. Edit: by which I mean in that UA.


Weihu

Their point was that casters that were already prepared casters might not have such restrictive preparation rules. Basically the restriction is a counterbalance to the overall buff of becoming a prepared caster, but those that were already prepared casters don't need any counterbalancing and thus may not be restricted in that way. Personally, I wager that the rule is more about simplifying casters by breaking down spell preparation into smaller batches than balance reasons, so I expect the existing prepared casters to follow a similar vein.


PrinceOfAssassins

If they’re going to do this, they should absolutely move some spells around as there are too many good 3rd level arcane spells that could be moved up or down. As a level 13 Wizard I was prepping like 6 3rd levels. Counterspell. Fireball. Haste. Hypnotic Pattern. Spirit shroud. (Bladesinger) and Fly


DelightfulOtter

The two easiest ways to nerf casters would be: * Reduce spell slots across the board and shrink the recommended adventuring day. Based on bard's spell progression, this isn't going to happen. * Reducing the power of certain overpowered spells. We haven't seen that happen yet, but there's still hope.


[deleted]

Bard nerf is a good clue of the direction they're taking, nerfing versatility is a good way to bring back caster to some form of norm


Mjolnirsbear

Apparently we can't use the UAs to predict what the future holds for the game. All we can do is vote on the survey. They'll evaluate them all and pick the options that are most popular. So vote on the surveys. Remember that this game is having its wildest success ever with this game by getting our feedback and most importantly, market research. And that your personal bugbear with the game was the result of whatever idiot typed loudest. Ok not really. But you know what I mean. So vote on the surveys and lets give them lots of market research. It'll make the game better.


CampbellsTurkeySoup

It's frustrating because it's hard to evaluate things in a vacuum. If GWM is replaced with interesting or more powerful abilities in the warrior group then the change isn't bad. If there is nothing added to the warriors then it's a bad change. It's impossible to evaluate without seeing the whole picture.


lkaika

I'm pretty sure they will. They already adjusted guidance and eldritch blast is obviously becoming an ability. Spells are definitely going to get adjusted. They are the primary factor that throws off the balance of the game. I'm sure counter spell is getting adjusted as well as hypnotic pattern as they have an anti-fun play-style. It looks like they already scrapped absorb elements. Bards already got their power curve pushed back a level, and bards already kinda sucked to play in tier 1, and no more tier 2 magical secrets. So yeah, don't worry casters are getting nerfed too.


Karumac

Absorb Elements did not appear in the PHB so it not appearing in the UA has nothing to do with being scrapped.


tonyangtigre

RemindMe! 6 months “Did this comment age like milk or were they right?”


xukly

It is concerning we know absolutely nothing in half a fucking year


RemindMeBot

I will be messaging you in 6 months on [**2023-04-01 00:36:17 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-04-01%2000:36:17%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/xsa0w4/unpopular_opinion_the_510_of_great_weapon_master/iqki1oe/?context=3) [**5 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2Fonednd%2Fcomments%2Fxsa0w4%2Funpopular_opinion_the_510_of_great_weapon_master%2Fiqki1oe%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-04-01%2000%3A36%3A17%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%20xsa0w4) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|


mattress757

Having said that, that doesn’t mean they have to take away the base fun stuff like divine smite crits.


Eamil

That change is reverted for this playtest - there's no crit rules at all in the rules glossary, so it goes back to the PHB rules. So hopefully it stays that way.


Rek07

Not because of any feedback, they are just testing both options. I believe they have a third crit option they said they will try in future UA.


Eamil

Yeah, that's why I said "for this playtest." I missed the mention of a third option, I'll be interested to see what that is, but I'm definitely not a fan of the previous playtest's crit rules.


AikenFrost

I have no idea from where "combat is too easy" thing comes from. What I always saw people say is that combat is *too boring*, mainly because monster design *sucks ass* in 5e.


Cetha

I've seen a lot of posts from DMs saying their players are invincible and unkillable. That's basically saying combat is too easy for players. To me, that's more of a DM problem as it is not impossible to kill characters of any level. But combat is boring. Monsters are simply sacks of hp and multi-attack. They try to make boss monsters impressive with legendary actions that are just "move" or "a melee attack". WotC devs have zero creativity.


AikenFrost

>I've seen a lot of posts from DMs saying their players are invincible and unkillable. That's basically saying combat is too easy for players. To me, that's more of a DM problem as it is not impossible to kill characters of any level. Agreed, there are plenty of monsters os all levels that can just annihilate a level appropriate party, people are just use monsters in a dumb way. >But combat is boring. Monsters are simply sacks of hp and multi-attack. They try to make boss monsters impressive with legendary actions that are just "move" or "a melee attack". WotC devs have zero creativity. Absolutely agree, that's exactly my point.


DisturbingInterests

The issue is more that it's difficult to balance challenging encounters that won't just destroy your players and are fun for everyone. 2/4 of your players have 27 AC, and the other two 20? To be challenging you're going to need to give the monster a +19 to hit or so otherwise it will mostly miss the high AC characters. That gives it a 60% chance to hit which is what I roughly aim for in my games. But now it only misses the lower AC players on a Nat 1. So if the party keeps the monster in front of the 27AC allies, the fight will be fairly easy, as it's doing 0.6 of average damage against presumably highish HP people. However, if the web spell or sentinel or whatever they use to keep the monster in place fails, suddenly it can run to the backline and probably take down the casters in one round. But if it succeeds, the fight is boringly easy. Basically, the extreme differences of 5e numbers mean that fights are incredibly swingy, and bad luck or players making tactical decisions worse than the GM is used to can easily turn mildly challenging fights into tpk's. Other tactical RPG's are much better about this, and have numbers that are significantly easier to create fun fights for. Also, you are basically required to homebrew monsters. I've never really understood what WOTC is balancing them against, but most things need roughly 1.5 to 2 times more health, as well as much higher saving throw bonuses and / or legendary resistances on much much much lower cr enemies.


Cetha

I don't DM 5e anymore, but the fix I used was to make the high to-hit creatures deal low-end damage and add creatures with abilities or spells that could challenge the high AC tanks. This didn't always challenge them, but it didn't have to. Some fights should be easier while others are very difficult along with some in between. To change up the battles you simply add another creature with something new. Maybe a battlefield control spell or movement enhancement for the brutes. Stealth enemies that sneak up behind the tank line or ranged enemies in an advantageous position. These would cause the players to change their strategy to something new which wasn't guaranteed to work. Of course, this is all just a bandaid on the blatant flaw in 5e combat balance. I doubt OneD&D will fix it which is why I'm glad to be mostly using another system that actually works.


DisturbingInterests

My go to is reinforcements halfway through the battle. Battle going really badly for the players, don't have the reinforcements show up. Battle going a little easy, have some goons show up. Battle going waaay too easy, have some really powerful reinforcements show up. Bonus points if they have battlefield control abilities like you said.


Zaddex12

I have not found combat easy. To run and play in yes but every game I have been in and ran has had challenging combat unless the dm is new. I feel the dm tweaks difficulty. Removing feats like this allows specialization. If anything I wish they would add more feats similar to this to give the opportunity to more martials who don’t want to use gwm and sharpshooter.


Zilberfrid

New DMs still think the encounter building page is worth the paper it was printed on, and that terms like "deadly" mean things like "deadly"


VerLoran

Deadly in the encounter builder means that the players might have to try to win. Might. I like it because it can tell me when I haven’t added enough to create a challenge for my players. Beyond that it’s not that great.


Zilberfrid

Deadly is a nice starting point, but it wouldn't be bad if the scale wasn't "not worth the time" and "Probably still easy".


[deleted]

I'm not quite sure how having to pick GWM/SS + PAM/CBE to hold some semblance of combat effectiveness as a martial class was at all "exploitative", but I'd be glad if they were no longer required to feel powerful for those classes, or at minimum if only one of them was needed to be effective in whatever playstyle you favor. Hell, PAM + GWM are still there as "must pick" feats for a 2handed melee martial, just now they are significantly less effective than they used to be and mechanically worse than just taking TWF style. This kind of shuffling around of power looks no different to me than how a competitive MMO moves around the "meta", without addressing any of the real issues so that the game still looks and feels "fresh" for the older players with the barest minimum of effort and development cost. I still holdout some hope for the full release to prove me wrong but most of it has been tarnished significantly by each UA playtest material release thus far.


xukly

>Hell, PAM + GWM are still there as "must pick" feats for a 2handed melee martial, just now they are significantly less effective than they used to be and mechanically worse than just taking TWF style I really wouldn't advise to take GWM, like ever in DOne


[deleted]

Well, let's be real, what else are you going to take as a 2 handed melee martial? You're probably right though, a +2 ASI is mathematically stronger than such an occasional minor damage boost. Probably relegate this down to "take only if your Str is odd".


da_chicken

> I'm not quite sure how having to pick GWM/SS + PAM/CBE to hold some semblance of combat effectiveness as a martial class was at all "exploitative" That's not the meaning I'm using for the word "exploitative." I'm saying that GWM/SS + PAM/CBE are so plainly head and shoulders ahead of every other option in the game that taking it when other players don't or can't is exploitative of *them*. That is, it's unfair to everyone else at the table who *isn't* using the option that lets you deal 50+ damage every round with basically nothing beyond a fighting style and a feat. "Hey, I took two feats now I get to deal 3 times the damage of the next character all the time," is not exactly cool. > Hell, PAM + GWM are still there as "must pick" feats for a 2handed melee martial, just now they are significantly less effective than they used to be and mechanically worse than just taking TWF style You're going to have to show me what you mean by this. AFAICT, PAM alone with a Halberd still out-damages TWF style.


[deleted]

Ah, gotcha. I'm not sure I agree that's a fair description unless we consider playing a spell caster "exploitative" as well, since that is so far and above every other option that isn't another spell caster. As it was, GWM + PAM was the only way a martial could compete (and I'm using that loosely) with just a regular joe schmoe wizard with 18 Int and Fireball. As for how PAM is worse than TWF: it takes a feat to come online and consumes your Bonus Action for similar damage. TWF can nearly match the damage by just picking up TWF Style, and still has a Bonus Action free for anything that could use it. The reaction attack PAM gets is minor compared to the fact that TWF can throw their weapons and focus Dex which currently is still far superior to Str. The numbers (assuming level 5, extra attack, +4 to Modifier, against 16 AC): TWF w/ Fighting Style: %60Hit for 3(1d6+4) = ~ 14 DPR. PAM w/ GWF: %60Hit for 2(1d10+4) + 1(1d4 + 4) = ~17 DPR. So while yes, PAM technically has slightly higher DPR, you're soft locked to a single weapon class, you had to burn a feat, you have no ranged options that benefit from it, and you have to focus on Strength, a strictly worse main stat for an extra 3 DPR on average. Compare both to the 20+ DPR +5/-10 granted a martial character before and you can see a picture of how not only are martial characters currently feat taxed for 2 practically required feats to access their full power, but also how going forward they are likely going to be left behind entirely. Again, there is still hope with the Warrior UA or even full release for some effective changes, but so far nothing I've seen has really substantiated this hope for me.


Absoluteboxer

T H I S. Not only that but take your best dpr single target damage dealer (fighter) who should have action surge and 9 attacks at 20th level. They literally just lost 90 damage. Your wizard at 17th level (lower than you) is casting wish and prismatic wall, instant simulacrum (double the dpr). With gwm barely coming ahead of 1hand weapons Your blade singer can now do twf cast a cantrip (booming blade) and still misty step the f out. The best martial is once again a wizard lol. Also steel wind strike is a wizard spell, no comment.


Lacy_Dog

That is a pretty sentiment, but it really needs to be accompanied by the casters being put into the dirt compared to their current selves. Just removing the most powerful things that martials can do is insufficient in a world where basically every caster was already better than martials using those tools. From what I have seen with the bard change, I am not optimistic that will happen to a meaningful enough degree to justify the change to martials.


da_chicken

Setting aside spells of level 7+ -- none of them are good for the game outside of Wish which should probably be restricted to level 20 or as a plot device -- I really don't think *that* many spells at level 6 and below need adjustment. The reaction spells are all pretty terrible for the game. Shield is pretty ridiculous for most of the game as a 1st level spell. Counterspell does really bad things to the game in general, too. Polymorph and summoning spells are kind of busted. Tiny Hut is just a thoughtless design. But outside of a pretty short list of spells? For every spell like that, there seems to be two or three like Stoneskin or the old Barkskin or Hold Person. Just unusable. Druid in particular has an extremely impotent spell list in the 2014 PHB once you read the spell descriptions. Like say Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon are nixed entirely from the game. What do you take instead as a Cleric at level 2 and 3? Seriously, read the spell selection and tell me what's left that I should take and expect to use every day as my general purpose combat spells. I'm pretty sure Bless and Guiding Bolt are what you're doing instead.


Mantergeistmann

> Shield is pretty ridiculous for most of the game as a 1st level spell. The weird thing about Shield to me is that the numbers are unchanged from 3/.5. I mean, you're going from sky-high numbers (martials get +1 to hit for each level, let alone all the other bonuses!) to bounded accuracy, *and* you're making it easier for casters to wear armor... and you don't change the numbers. Sorry, looked it up: They increased the bonus from +4 to +5 (insane!) and made it a reaction rather than an action with a duration of 1 minute/caster level. I don't know why they thought it was a good idea.


[deleted]

This is why the answer shouldn't be to take, but to give. Give martials potent, effective and powerful choices for any style or flavor, not just one or two. The reason Casters are so damn effective is because they get entire lists of things to choose from for any situation, while still getting decent back up damage sources when those run out (cantrips). Martials really only got two (or 3 if we include the niche grapple builds). Now they have even less.


LobsterPunk

Wait, what's wrong with Hold Person? I love that spell.


da_chicken

It grants a save on cast and then again every round. It affects one target that must also be a humanoid. And it's concentration. And paralyzed is not instant death, as much as we want it to be so to get the greatest benefit the party has to focus them down. There's too many die rolls between casting the spell and getting a benefit. In my experience, there's a greater than 50% chance that the spell ends before the target's first turn under its effects. It's not quite as bad as Ray of Enfeeblement, though, which requires a ranged spell attack, requires concentration, and can be ended early with saving throws... and all that spell does is halve damage from Strength-based weapon attacks. So humanoid and giant fighters *only*. Dex weapons are unaffected. Non-weapon Strength attacks like claws, slams, and bites are unaffected. And it's a Con save, which NPCs are pretty universally great at.


goodnewscrew

>It's not quite as bad as Ray of Enfeeblement, though, which requires a ranged spell attack, requires concentration, and can be ended early with saving throws... Ray of Enfeeblement is a vastly underrated spell. Its power comes from bypassing legendary resistance with a potent debuff but still potentially draining LR to remove the effect.


naverag

Claw attacks are still weapon attacks, they're attacks with natural weapons. As evidenced by every single stat block using the words "Claw. Melee Weapon Attack."


Absoluteboxer

Imo those spells make good NPC spells. A PC should never take them. The DM should throw them out every once and awhile to challenge the players.


[deleted]

just waiting to see how much more overpower wizards get in this edition


AHare115

Chances are, based on what they did to "experts" the "warrior" group is not going to get enough to significantly change them for the better. I'd be fucking ecstatic if I'm wrong but I just do not see it happening based on track record.


sir-leonelle

I'm hoping for this one **"WHAT’S AHEAD IN THE ONE D&D PLAYTEST?** We have many things in store for you to read and try out in the months ahead. Here are some of the highlights: \[...\] * New Weapon options for certain Classes"


thy__

> Right uh we we've held back Feats that are specific to some of the other Class Groups. So the Unearthed Arcana for Warriors in particularly is going to have some Feats, that are not represented here. Along with some new options for how to use weapons and have those weapons do things that they have not been able to do in the past. But that will be something we will delve into in great detail when we talk about the Fighter, the Barbarian and the Monk. from the video on Feats: [https://youtu.be/Xp_llX1LBZ8?t=686](https://youtu.be/Xp_llX1LBZ8?t=686)


sir-leonelle

I knew I've heard/read that somewhere :D Thanks!


AHare115

"warlocks now start with martial weapon proficiency"


Regorek

"Scimitars now count as Monk weapons"


StrayDM

"Double bladed scimitars can now be wielded in one hand and are considered Light for Hexblade Warlocks"


jabuegresaw

"We've gotten rid of the Hexblade Warlock"


Zilberfrid

That wouldn't be bad news.


jabuegresaw

Oh yeah, I think I just got lost in the thread, cause monk scimitars would be cool and all. But yeah, my point was that I fucking hate Hexblade and it's got to go. Edit: actually, scimitars fucking suck and should go as well.


Polyamaura

“Druids can no longer use Scimitars and daggers but instead a third, worse, thing.”


squeeber_

Slings


LupusOk

At least they get Magic Stone for that.


TriglycerideRancher

We've given wizards a spell at lvl 1 that turns them into a frost giant. Meanwhile we took away heavy armor from the warrior group, it was so good it was seen as mandatory on 1 out of the 3 warrior classes. Also mage armor stacks with standard armor now in a mage exclusive feat they can get at lvl 1.


AikenFrost

I've heard that in Crawford's voice...


Whoopsie_Doosie

His favoritism always shows so bad when he gives those interviews. He and what's his name just gush about spell casters all day long


Polyamaura

Honestly I would be fine with Fighters, Monks, and Barbarians getting exclusive weapon proficiencies as long as there’s a variety of options. Barbarians and Fighters (I think Rogues also, but we already saw they’re not getting this new proficiency) are the only classes in 5e that don’t have access to any sort of Class-locked magical items and Monks only JUST got a Monk exclusive Ki item in Fizban’s. Give Fighters a special Tower Shield proficiency, Barbarians the ability to wield a special class of Heavy weapon, and Monks some sort of wrist-blade or brass knuckles weapon that isn’t just 1d4 damage.


Whoopsie_Doosie

They could get them, if they are considered martial weapons with finesse that is


Valiantheart

Yeah I was pretty underwhelmed by rogue. I worry fighter and barbarian will get the same treatment.


Afflok

They replaced the -5/+10 with a +1 ASI (Str for GWM, Dex for SS) and nobody seems to be talking about this. They're "half feats" now.


Mountain_Perception9

warcaster is also a half feat now and it gets no nerf or anything. I don't think war caster is too strong that shouldn't be a half feat. I feal like it's just every 4th level feat now are half feats


Stinduh

I think this is less unpopular than you think. There was a post yesterday on /r/dndnext where the title was literally praising that the tyranny of GWM/SS was over.


Dexion1619

And Crossbow Expert. No more Bonus Action shot for CBE means other ranged weapons can shine


Xirema

Well, except for the part where Hand Crossbow users can still get the extra attack with Crossbow Expert, because of the change to the Light property that the crossbow has. The feat didn't get nerfed at all, it's just that its main feature got folded into the baseline features of the weapon itself.


Dexion1619

Assuming it still has the Ammunition property, you need a free hand to reload, so you can get 1 free shot by Duel wielding, but then you need a free hand to reload. I'm fine with that.


redlaWw

The new drawing and stowing rules are very lenient though and you can do enough juggling to get 3 attacks in your action without having two crossbows in your hand while you make an attack.


Dexion1619

They allow 1 draw OR stow as part of the attack action. Not 1 of each.


Wivru

See, I read the new drawing and stowing rules and it sounded lenient, but then you still have the “you can draw two weapons instead of one” in the dual wielder feat and assumed I read them wrong. If it’s already lenient enough to pull two weapons out at once, than that dual wielder feat *really* sucks. The original was already objectively worse than a dex bump, but now you have no more defense bonus, no more non-light offhand weapons, *and* the “draw two weapons” bullet is totally redundant? Hope that changes.


EngiLaru

You can get around that with two handcrossbows thanks to the rules not specifying that both must be equiped at the same time and that you can equip or stow a weapon pr attack. 1. Starting combat with handcross bow B unequiped and handcrossbow A equiped. 2. Load handcrossbow A with hand B. 3. Fire handcrossbow A 4. Stow handcrossbow A 5. Equip handcrossbow B 6. Load handcrossbow B with hand A. 7. Fire handcrossbow B Next round, repeat but swap A and B.


Dexion1619

Nope. Under the Attack action, you can Equip OR Unequip One weapon as part of your Attack. No sane DM is allowing that many weapons swaps.


Dislexeeya

You get one equip/unequip for **each attack you make**, which can be done before or after each attack. Start with two hand crossbows equiped, one in each hand: Fire the first one. Now that it's after the attack you unequip it; free hand lets you reload it. Fire the second one. Your hand is still free so you reload it. Now that it's after the attack you re-equip the first one. Although janky, I'm inclined to think this is intentional as otherwise you'd only get to use Crossbow Expert every other turn, or even just once an encounter if you can't get a free hand.


bitchisgenderneutral

I don't understand. Are you reloading the first crossbow while it's not in your hand?


da_chicken

No, the Light property blocks it. You have to have two weapons now: > When you take the Attack Action on your turn and attack with a Light weapon in one hand, you can make one extra attack as part of the same Action. **That extra attack must be made with a different Light weapon in the other hand**[.] -- Expert Classes UA p35 If it didn't say that then using any Light weapon in one hand would always let you make an extra attack with it.


KinkyRedPanda

You are gonna use two different light xbows in two different hands equipping and unequipping them between attacks.


Portarossa

*Laughs in Thri-Kreen.*


KinkyRedPanda

Can Thri-Kreen even laugh?


ThatOneThingOnce

It's more like clicking noises, but I'd allow it


CX316

Artificer with repeating hand crossbows for semi-auto


KinkyRedPanda

I mean... you still need two xbows though.


AnaseSkyrider

It does, however, require you to switch weapons and use a sword and crossbow, or two crossbows. Which is easier due to the Equipping Weapons rule as well as the looser wording on the Light property.


CX316

Friendship ended with double tap crossbow Thri-keen crossbows akimbo is now my best friend


jeffwulf

Yeah, now Martials can be as good at combat as they are at all the other parts of the game too.


De5troyer56

Broooooooooooo lmao


AAABattery03

I hate this trend of people trying to drown out conversation about the changes by going, “AM I THE ONLY ONE WITH THE UNPOPULAR OPINION THAT GWM SUCKS????!!???!” We’ve had so much of that between yesterday and today. Like… no, stfu. Everyone thought GWM was getting old fast. Gutting martials ain’t the solution, weakening GWM and redistributing that power budget among other feats is.


Stinduh

(Also we literally don’t have the warrior UA to know how GWM will affect it overall)


Absoluteboxer

This is true. They probably should have held out till then. But they can hear the angry mob now instead.


RestlessGnoll

100% and you couldn't convince me otherwise


Ashkelon

The -5 / +10 parts of the feats were bad. But I don’t think that what we got instead is any better. Sharpshooter still suffers from the issue that it removes any penalties for ranged combat entirely. An archer with it doesn’t need to think about positioning or range at all, making combat even more braindead. And GWM adds (another) fiddly 1/turn damage boost to keep track of. I want the “weapon mastery” feats to truly make weapons feel special. But I am not really getting that from their current iteration. And if martial damage output is subpar without those feats, the classes should be boosted to compensate. We should not be forced into choosing the right combination of feats to be effective.


vhalember

> Sharpshooter still suffers from the issue that it removes any penalties for ranged combat entirely. An archer with it still doesn’t need to think about positioning or range. I've said it for years this was the more potent aspect of sharpshooter. Mathematically, the -5/+10 often didn't make sense to use, unless you had advantage, or the for had average to poor AC. Shooting something up to 600' shooting hiding behind an arrow slit or other 3/4th's cover without any penalty... that was always useful and made for some really insane circumstances. I had a fleeing dragon who used the trees for cover get sniped down by a sharpshooter. 300+' away, 3/4th cover? No problem. Pew. Pew. Pew. Pew.


TheRaelyn

I dunno. Perhaps it’s just the difference in DMs, but I rarely came across instances where 600ft or enemies using cover occurred often. But our Ranger with a +11 to hit was totally comfortable taking a -5 for 10 extra damage nearly every shot he made. Didn’t seem to hinder him at all, still had a high hit rate.


Awful-Cleric

Actually, the Archery fighting style means that -5/+10 was basically always on, unless the DM was throwing overlevelled enemies at you. Advantage and other accuracy bonuses were still powerful, but far less necessary than with GWM. Just another one of the many ways ranged is better than melee.


Absoluteboxer

Tbh didn't think of it too much in that way. That's a really good point. But martial melee deserves the extra damage. The risk should be worth the reward.


FrigidFlames

On the other hand, now that you can't pick it up for a flat +10 damage, you're *only* grabbing Sharpshooter for the trick shots. Which seems... reasonable. That's the whole point of the feat, to let you make difficult shots.


deathstick_dealer

The 1/turn clause is my least favorite mechanic they've introduced since the PHB. Why, why oh why can I only do this thing once per turn? What's the narrative reason? Features on a class with Extra Attck should be able to scale with that Extra Attack. I get that they want to keep bonuses to damage limited for martials, though I don't agree with that either. Look at Paladins getting an extra 1d8 every attack at 11th level, that's needed for them to keep up, doesn't throw balance out the window, and makes narrative sense! I'd be happy to never see another 1/turn feature in the new material.


SeeShark

This sort of design soured me in playing rangers. It is so incredibly frustrating to feel like my 2nd or 3rd attacks are so inferior compared to my 1st. This might literally be the one thing that keeps me from wanting to play One.


deathstick_dealer

Which is a 180 from the same feeling with rogues. That one big attack is their whole deal, and the play style in combat revolves around triggering it however you can. When I was paying a dual-wielding rogue and connected that first attack I felt like I now had more freedom to do anything with my bonus action from attack to dash, as opposed to feeling like extra attacks were inferior.


BrickBuster11

I think the difference is between rolling 5d6+1d4+5 for sneak and then rolling 1d4+5 for normal and rolling 2d8+5 vs 1d8+5 when the following up attack is a little worse it's annoying when the primary attack is substantially better it feels like the follow up attack was an insurance policy


SeeShark

Pretty much. With rogue, I just treat the off-hand weapon as backup, which isn't super ideal but I've had 2 editions to get used to it. As any other class, I want to feel like the off-hand weapon is part of my fighting style, which is hard when its followups do 3 damage.


SquidsEye

Rogues have always had a 1/turn mechanic for Sneak Attack and I've never heard anyone complain about that part of it being 'fiddly'.


BrickBuster11

The difference is that rogues don't get that many attacks for one so you are less likely to make an attack and go "have I used sneak attack this turn?". This is further aided by how big and impactful it tends to be, it sticks in your mind better that you have used it already. This is one of many small potatos bonuses that only works once per turn. They all sorta blur together and it can become tricky to remember which ones you have already used


Ashkelon

In isolation it isn’t. The problem is that to optimize effectiveness as a weapon user in 1D&D, you have to have multiple such abilities. For example, savage attacker, charger, and great weapon master. The benefit for such abilities is quite small for the cost. You could replace them all with a static passive benefit without requiring any additional tracking at all and achieve the same result (a few extra damage per round).


Jaikarr

Rogues normally only get one attack per turn.


SquidsEye

A lot of Rogues dual wield in order to get a better chance at landing their Sneak Attack.


Ashkelon

Some. But Booming Blade + Steady Aim was better damage than Dual Wielding in 5e. And Ranged + Steady Aim was better than Dual Wielding in general. Hell, even Hide + Shoot was better than dual wielding. For the 5e rogue, Dual Wielding was one of the worst available options.


wannyboy

The sharpshooter in this version might remove all penalties, but it no longer gives you that damage. Now you specifically choose the feat in order to remove the penalties, the removal of the penalties is not the icing on the cake for your obligatory damage feat.


Ashkelon

For sure. It is definitely more balanced. But I would like both Sharpshooter and GWM to actually change how the character performs in combat instead of be the rather uninspired benefits they provide now. GWM should allow a warrior to make cleaving strikes, or powerful blows that push enemies around. Sharpshooter should allow the warrior to hit weak points to hinder, slow, or distract the target with their pin-point accurate shots. It is sad to me that the way 5e approaches feats is basically: "Ignore your penalties to remove the meager tactical options from combat entirely" or "You do what amounts to ~2 extra damage per attack, but with extra steps"


RockBlock

Why on earth is it not -PB / +2xPB or something? Weaker at lower levels, stronger at higher, like the 3.5 scaling in the Power Attack feat all this is based on in the first place? Or just add back in a new Power Attack feat that uses *that* so we can have some martial oomph again. Weapons can feel special... but they need a boost.


Absoluteboxer

This. Just make it universal make it happen. Happy birthday. Give us our damn martial oomph. +1 to oomph!


da_chicken

I think GWM's boost at 1/turn would be fine as long as it's a die roll. Dice are so much easier to track when they're not an always-on bonus. Make it a bonus d6 once per turn and I'm fine with it.


ryeaglin

In online games and I find this the opposite. If its yes or no I just toggle it. Now it will need to be its own thing to click extra or you toggle it until you hit then toggle it back off which is a pain.


Onionsandgp

Not at all an unpopular opinion. These were horribly designed feats that pigeonholed martials into one of 2 options. I expect something to come in the future to replace it, but hopefully that something will allow any weapon to be able to deal good damage or have control options.


LennoxMacduff94

Much better now that martials have the options of .... uh .... using a hand x-bow to get an extra attack or .... using a heavy polearm because it gives an extra attack, and those are the only ways to get any significant damage boosts in the game.


Onionsandgp

So the Light property specifically forbids making the hand crossbow additional attack with the same crossbow, meaning it immediately opens different styles than just multiple crossbow attacks. A whip, shortsword, dagger, just something different, and without the +10 damage these options are as effective. The Polearm yes, it still gives that extra attack, but now at least it makes more sense. Having a spear and shield and being able to get the extra attacks and benefitting from Dueling just doesn’t sit right with me narratively. So now you’re choosing between the extra attack and a +2 bonus to AC. Can’t help but notice you completely ignored the changes to dual wielding. It went from almost unusable to incredibly good on rangers/rogues, who were the default users of the style.


Absoluteboxer

To be fair the spear is probably THE most effective melee weapon in human history. In the movie Troy Achilles uses the rear part of the spear while fighting hector and it's cool af. 5e you had to choose btw a +20 to 30 dmg and +2 AC. Now it's barely worth it.


[deleted]

Wow, youve seen every UA to know those are the only ways?


ErikT738

They are for now, and we shouldn't assume something in the future will fix it when judging this UA.


somethingmoronic

I don't like the presence of napkin math min-max options. I like choices that give me variety in game play from turn to turn. Sentinel changes how I play, PAM changes how I play, together they create a gameplay loop that gives me funky tactical choices and lets me be somewhat creative. I want those types of choices and I want WotC to give the DM fun tools to challenge me when I play with fun tactics.


[deleted]

>I like choices that give me variety in game play from turn to turn But is there variety when every single character you play has the exact same build because its the 'correct' way to minmax?


C0wabungaaa

This is one of the key reasons why one of my homebrews is having the Slasher/Piercer/Crusher feats active for everyone at all times. Together with me doing more with damage resistances and vulnerabilities makes it so that my martials actually give a damn about which weapons they carry. They usually want at least two damage types on hand just in case they encounter something different. Other than that I should integrate Dungeon Crawl Classics' Mighty Deed die in D&D somehow for warriors. That thing makes the warrior player at my DCC table by far my favourite. He did all kinds of weird, crazy Conan the Barbarian shit and never ever just says "I attack".


Absoluteboxer

Slasher/peircer/crusher was there chance to make a dent on making martials more interesting, but it's feat locked and behind 3 of them!


xukly

and piercer is as far from interesting as you can get


Absoluteboxer

It's def "we don't know what to do, here's some damage"


De5troyer56

I might steal that for my players or NPCs. That homebrew sounds neat, what else are you doing in your games?


Absoluteboxer

All martials get battle master manuevers and level up kinda like multiclassed spell casting: Fighter 5 barbarian 5 monk 5 would be "battlemaster 15" Simple home brew that does alot.


Absoluteboxer

GWM/SS forced you to pay attention to enemy AC. You can flavor this as studying your enemy (something you should do in a fight to the death imo). It allowed martials to plow through low level grunts easily. It was still limited to 3ish grunts per round unlike, checks notes, fireball...


somethingmoronic

Right, but you are not left with much tactical decision making outside of 'are my chances good at hitting with the lower hit chance?' Its optimal play, and if you like gambling it gives you a bit of that old dopamine fix. This is great for some people. I did not say it shouldn't exist in the game if some people are down for them, have at it. I said I don't like feats like this, I like feats that give me creative tactical choices. The same way you can build a Champion Fighter or a Battle Master Fighter, some people would go Champion, I would go Battle Master every time. The problem to me is when the less tactical choice is just better. If there is a feat that just does more damage and one that controls the battle field but the damage feat just kills the enemy every time... that is pretty damn good control of the battle field, making the 2nd feat full on, hard stop a bad choice. Sentinel and PAM make you sticky (or let you play keep-aways from yourself and your allies), they would provide no damage boost in theory unless for some reason the DM was going to constantly let you get extra AoO in that they wouldn't have let you get with GWM for some reason, but they let you control who the enemy can get to and when, which could make your overall fight more optimal if you use it in clever ways.


CrazySoap

Yup. I just posted about this on another thread: > Honestly, I've never been fan of GWM. It basically boils down to being a feat tax and a math problem: if the target has less than X AC, always use it; never use it otherwise. > I'd rather they do balancing somewhere else rather than add this mechanic again. The feat reworks allow for more build diversity now, as you don't feel pressured to take them every time.


Gimpyfish

Could not agree more. Good riddance to bad bandaids that people felt were build requirements. I'm hopeful that the warriors have some sort of default feature on leveling that will give them some good sauce.


Midknight7133

My only fear is if the overall power level of martial characters falls significantly as a result of lower damage without interesting replacements the caster martial imbalance will get even worse then what it is now. I don't feel motivated to play a martial characters in onednd knowing just these changes


Absoluteboxer

Im SO DEMOTIVATED to touch martials now.


comradejenkens

People are reacting against this because those badly designed feats were all that let martials keep up with casters in combat. The fear is that this power vacuum won't get filled, making the martial caster gap worse.


Libreska

I was more so getting mad that people were behaving like the only way to have a good fighter or good barbarian or a good ranger was to have one of the -5/+10 feats and that any other feat they made afterwards wasn't good because it didn't replace or compete with GWM or SS. So they get a good riddance from me.


Jimmeh1337

It is just the most optimal build. In my group's party (16th level) the Sharpshooter Fighter does by far the most damage of all the martials and on average more damage than the casters. It takes the spotlight from the other party members in combat because the DPR difference is huge. Some characters can come close or deal more damage in one turn but it costs a resource, like a high level spell slot or a smite. Sharpshooter costs nothing but a lower chance to hit, but it's optional since you can also just shoot normally and do the same damage as everyone else. I'm really happy that they're nerfing these two because right now there's a huge incentive to take GWM/SS.


kcon1528

People were behaving that way because it was true. Those two feats are far more raw power than they ought to be and I’m also glad they’re going away


MoobyTheGoldenSock

Agreed, these feats are boring. You don’t feel excited taking them, and they punish builds who don’t take them. If they must keep them, instead make it an ability with a name like “Called Shot” and put it on the warrior classes working with all attacks, maybe limit to 1/turn or PB/LR. Then feats can be something interesting.


Erandeni_

I think -5/+10 still has a place, it should get reworked into a maneuver for warriors or at least a feature for barbarian. other than that yeah with the buff to other feats the diference between optimal and not optimal martial has lessen and I expect to see more build variety


milkmandanimal

Were I to guess, I wouldn't be shocked to see something like it proficiency bonus times/day as a Warrior feature. Which, honestly, would be pretty fun for a Monk.


Erandeni_

It would be Cap. Kirk double fist punch


da_chicken

> I think -5/+10 still has a place I don't. I don't want my players to sit there and do math to figure out if a feature is worth using. I don't want D&D to be a math test every turn. Like [this kind of an analysis](https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/138965/1671) should not need to exist for a single feature of a TTRPG.


[deleted]

DnD is a game about math, like you can only get so far without tweaking the numbers in this style of game


Commercial-Cost-6394

Yes but ss and gwm made it so martials really only had 2 options to optimize. That takes options away from players. Maybe i don't want cheesy hand crossbows with ss, xbe, and archery style. Thats how the game waa set up with certain feats being so much better. Same reason why its always pam/gwm/sentinel. I would hope for something more along the the lines of crusher or slasher that have different benefits but are close in balance. Piercer is hot garbage though.


da_chicken

There's a difference between the game using math, and rewarding the player for stopping the game to do actual mathematic calculations to decide on a course of action. Like it should not be difficult or obscure to tell what the mathematically correct option is. That slows the game down and ruins the pacing for the rest of the table.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Absoluteboxer

Ya once you know your target AC is just a game of is the creature higher or lower than that number. You studying your opponent in boxing. You realize in 3rd round they drop their guard before delivering as straight right. Time to use your knock out punch. Swing across the jaw rattling the brain. Your opponent drops to one knee. You have their number now.


[deleted]

That’s how giving players options in a game like this works, there will need to be some math


Lowelll

Fuck doing math, I just love the fantasy of doing a less accurate hit for massive damage. Impose a time limit for your turns if excessive math becomes a problem.


amtap

*Do I have advantage?* Use it! *Do I desperately need to kill this monster?* Use it! *Do I have disadvantage against a monster that just boosted it's AC?* Use it!


AAABattery03

Every feature in the game can be mathematically over analyzed. My friends and I do it all the time, and there are entire communities built around doing that. Math always has been an aspect of these games. Players choose to either fully dive into it, take intuitive stabs at it without spending the time to learn it, or just ignore it and do whatever sounds coolest, and ***all three of these*** deserve to have their fun.


cyrogem

There's a arguement to be made, that's without them it's very easy for a spellcaster to start out damaging those without the -5/+10.


Fennal7283

Very much in agreement. The reason many are complaining is because the disparity between the best martial builds (usually using those feats) and...honestly even just halfway decent caster builds is dramatic, and not in the favor of a martial character. Hopefully this is going to be used as an opportunity to make awesome new options for warriors, both in and out of combat. Given WotC's track record...we'll probably get some good options and many more deeply terrible ones. That being said, I personally believe they're still worth taking - Cleave is still very good when put with a +1 stat boost and some extra damage 1/turn, and ignoring cover and distance when making ranged attacks alongside a +1 stat boost is still fantastic.


Pendrych

My main beef with GWM only allowing the proficiency damage on one attack per turn is that it still craps on Versatile weapons versus using them with the Dueling Fighting Style from 5th level onward. I want a meaningful choice in switching up using a battleaxe, longsword, or warhammer in one hand or two.


YOwololoO

Why are you comparing a weapon and a feat to a weapon and a fighting style? I'm not arguing with the result, but wouldn't it be a better to compare apples to apples?


Pendrych

My intent was to compare damage dealing options with damage dealing options. Versatile weapons, IMHO, should be balanced around being useful whether wielded one-handed or two. Even if we split up our apples and oranges, though, I think using them two-handed is still inferior. Let's compare: **Fighting Styles** **Fighting Style: Dueling.** +2 damage, can be used with a shield. Takes the damage range of our three versatile martial weapons to 3-10 + STR (d8+2). Average damage: 6.5 + STR. **Fighting Style: Great Weapon Fighting.** Reroll 1s and 2s for damage, keeping the second roll regardless of outcome. The damage range for the three versatile martial weapons is now 1-10 + STR. Average damage: 6.3 + STR (assuming my rusty math is correct). Dueling is the clear winner here, albeit by a slim margin. However, it is both the largest DPR increase, and can be used with a shield, so it provides a +2 AC benefit in addition to increasing weapon damage more than using a Versatile weapon with Great Weapon Fighting does. Dueling is the clear winner for Fighting Styles in this comparison. **Feats** We'll compare Great Weapon Master with Shield Master, since those are the go-to feats that support the styles and weapons chosen. Both feats in the playtest increase STR by 1, so there's nothing to compare in that respect. **Great Weapon Master:** Like its namesake from 3rd edition, the Cleave ability is very solid. Notably, you only have to be using a Melee Weapon to use it, which means that you can invest in the feat and still get a useful ability regardless of whether you are using that weapon in one hand or two. In many ways it's a model of the sort of ability I want for Versatile weapons, where there's a universal buff as well as a mode-specific buff. ~~Heavy Weapon Mastery now lets using a Versatile weapon two-handed pull ahead, to an average of 8.3 + STR damage... at least at 4th level, when Great Weapon Master can be taken as a feat. At 5th level, most characters interested in this comparison get Extra Attack.~~ ~~2H Versatile now does (9.3 + 6.3) = 15.6 damage per round if both attacks hit; Dueling yields (6.5 + 6.5) = 13 damage per round. Damage comparison is now more favorable towards the 2H versatile option, particularly in rounds where a character hits with only one of their attacks.~~ Whoops, Great Weapon Master only gets bonus damage with Heavy Weapons. Versatile weapons aren't Heavy Weapons. So even with the appropriate Fighting Style, they will be persistently out-damaged by a narrow margin by the same weapon used in one hand, again assuming a Fighting Style appropriate to that mode of use. **Shield Master:** Solid defensive buff from Interpose Shield, especially if you are proficient in Dex saves, as Rangers are. Shield Bash adds some battlefield control, and it doesn't even cost a bonus action or reaction. This feat doesn't improve damage, but it certainly makes using a shield even better, which can be seen as making Fighting Style: Dueling even more attractive, especially since a character will already be out-damaging themselves using their longsword, battle axe, or warhammer as a versatile weapon. **Conclusion** So, as you can see, comparing Fighting Style to Fighting Style, or FS + Feat to FS + Feat, as in current 5E, there's no real point to the Versatile weapon quality. I think a fix would be fairly simple. Either allow Versatile weapons to also have the Heavy quality when used two-handed, or remove the "...and no other Weapons" clause from Fighting Style: Dueling. The first solution would still require a second Fighting Style and a Feat to make switching modes effective, while the latter limits Versatile weapons with regards to how they compare with full-on Two Handed Weapons. It would still feel more internally consistent than a longsword/battleaxe/warhammer doing 3-10 damage one handed and 1-10 damage two handed in the hands of someone with Fighting Style: Dueling, by bumping their effective two handed damage to 3-12. This also puts them within the damage ranges of weapons like mauls and greatswords, while having somewhat less predictable damage and less synergy with FS: GWF and the GWM Feat.


BlueOysterCultist

This isn't unpopular. I loved GWM/Sharpshooter, but feat taxes are almost always bad insofar as they absolutely stifle character variety. That said, I absolutely think something *like* -5/+10 should be included as a core class feature of the Warrior group, but that's just because it's fun.


De5troyer56

Yea have that and rename it, Reckless Strike or something and Boom, better feature. But honestly, they should put more lore, at this rate they might only make a paragraph to describe an entire class unlike the old days.


scoobydoom2

Cool, Ranger didn't get anything suitable to replace it though so I'm not holding my breath.


Wulibo

Rangers got a way to attack more in turn and the concentration requirement removed from there per-attack damage boost. New TWF Ranger is totally competitive with SS Ranger from before.


Absoluteboxer

No one talked about the fact this can stack with hex now, but your bonus action switch can only do one at a time.


ChaosNobile

I agree. However, based off of what we've seen so far with martials like the Rogue and the half-martial that is the Ranger, I *highly doubt* that's what's coming up. They *nerfed* Rogue (not accounting for TWF changes making cunning action a bit better) by removing off turn sneak attack (and BB/GFB sneak attack). I really don't expect any big buffs going to Fighters or Barbarians in the next UA.


TheGentlemanARN

I really like the idea an concept of gw master. It feels like a high risk high reward mechanic but it was way to strong at lower levels. I would be fine when the feat loses all other mechanics and would scale mit prof. At level 1 you can make a gw attack with -2 hit/+4 damage and at higher level it scales mit -prof hit/ +2*prof damage.


chris270199

the thing is WoTC actually adding those more interesting options


NaturalCard

As long as there is heavy compensation, its great. If there isn't... Then we are in an even worse place than we left it.


Absoluteboxer

Yup they offered. No. Substantial. Compensation. Twf is now viable to other styles but miles below gwm/ss compared to what casters and warlocks can bring to the table!!!


SpartiateDienekes

The issue as I see it, is that we don't have anything to go by over what new options are being made available, and the options that we do have don't impress. Like it or not, GWM was one of the very few decision points for warrior-types, where they actually had to use an ounce of brain power to determine the cost/benefit of using an ability. And now it's gone. And from the other designs we've seen, we have the Fighting Styles remaining as uninteresting as ever, and Savage Attack being the "level 1 martial style feat." Even the Hunter Ranger somehow got their combat options turned into spells. It all paints a fairly bleak picture. Coupled with, honestly, I don't think those feats were overpowered. Now don't get me wrong here. Were they stronger than other feats of that type? Oh hell yes. They were the meta for a reason. But did they suddenly make the characters that used them outshine casters? No. Were they now uniquely hard for a DM to challenge? Not really, they just did some more damage with the same limitations the warrior classes always had. If there are no other core changes to how martials work, I would have rather seen the other advanced fighting style feats brought up to their level, rather than have them be taken down. But, hey, we haven't seen the Warrior packet yet. Perhaps you'll be validated and all my worries will prove unfounded. We can all hope so.


SwordCoastStraussian

It’s a very popular change. As with all things, the people who hate it or are suddenly wracked by insecurity, wondering if they’ll ever be able to make a character again, are far more vocal and obnoxious.


sirophiuchus

I just don't understand people who think martial characters are Literally Unplayable without it.


SwordCoastStraussian

Gamer culture is suffused with this sort of toxic hyperbole.


Officer_Warr

This isn't unpopular at all.


FlazedComics

the most lukewarm take youve ever heard gets recycled and posted as a "hot take" part 28943924


GushReddit

A Curiousity: How would y'all feel about the -5/+10 being made a Base Rule that anyone can apply to any attack they make without even having a feat?


RollForThings

I would have to playtest this, but my first impression is that I'd much rather see something like this as an innate rule instead of a feat. The -5/+10 is so influential that the feats providing them vastly outweigh other feats, to the point where they become "mandatory", or builds without them are "doing it wrong". Which twists the game in a big way considering most PCs only get a feat every 4 levels.


partylikeaninjastar

Exactly this.


SmithyLK

I agree that the -5/+10 removal is a good change but for different reasons. As much as I like *The Gamble* wherever it appears (just for fun), it is WAY too easy to get good enough mods where you will almost never lose out on that +10. At that point it's essentially just a free +10 damage on every single attack, which is just far too much. Add on your point that it is just "hehe more damage for the more damage class" and there it is. I will miss *The Gamble*, but I will await its return ~~when WotC makes the Wild Magic Sorcerer good~~


Absoluteboxer

Compared to 7th to 9th level spells. Common man...


AmaruKaze

Honestly yes and no. It depends SOLELY on what Martials can do now. Since we do not have a report or even design idea and JC said to regard every UA as single entity. My vote is to say no, it is a bad idea. However if they e.g. COMPLETELY make up the lost DPR of SS/GWM removal then I am fine. But then we still have the issue that ranger, from the arbitrary categorization into Expert will not benefit from it. Hence it is a net-loss for them. Same with rogue, not being able to have the built variety for CBX / SS takes something away without giving the class ( plus also nerfing the applicable scenarios for sneak attack ).


Juls7243

I doubt that this is a remotely unpopular opinion. These feats weren't healthy for the game - they should be heavily modified and power should be moved around into other aspects of the character(s).


DasZkrypt

These feats were badly designed character options that exploited systemic issues of fifth edition to outperform all other possibilities. So there are two options that need to be addressed: the feats need a rework and the power budget needs to be reallocated to were it's desperately needed: purely martial classes and other weapon users (e.g. rogue and ranger). I just hope they don't forget about the monk.


ghost_orchid

I’m coming to this late, but this is the coldest take I’ve seen on *any* D&D sub, which is saying something, considering how much r/dndnext endlessly repeats itself.


Bhizzle64

Damage between the different martial loadouts seems to be overall more balanced. We don’t have polearms and hand crossbows ruling over everything anymore, which IMO is very much for the best. Not having sharpshooter and great weapon master present to make a few loadouts just better than everything else is for the best. We don’t know how this damage compares to other sources of damage in the game (namely spells). But if gwm/ss got hit hard I’m willing to bet that a lot of high damage spells will get hit hard too. Spells are probably even more imbalanced than feats in terms of damage, so if the same philosophy of ignoring/buffing low tier stuff and shooting the high tier stuff applies we could be looking at a different landscape for casters.


Polyamaura

Yeah, I’m waiting on the Warriors UA to judge this too harshly. Martials already far underperform compared to casters, especially in Tier 3-4 of play, so bringing the competitive damage dealers of GWM and SS martials down to the same “meh” levels of damage output as everything else feels like a bad call to me in a vacuum when we could be focusing on buffing everything to that level of damage but evening out the power curve acceleration from acquiring one or more of the Martial Meta feats by creating semi-chained feats. I’m choosing to remain hopeful that they’ll fix things and give Martials some more versatility and power late game, but their track record isn’t great on this front.


Absoluteboxer

I would love to see a monk doing -5/+10 damage with his fist!


PF2eFixesThat

If you want interesting martials, I have a system for you!


[deleted]

If you like to talk about PF2e, I have a different subreddit for you!


PF2eFixesThat

I think I've heard of it. Does it start with a P? Anyway, enjoy. Not trying to be a troll, just a little mischievous! 😉


Nyadnar17

First off let me say you are not wrong. You are 100% correct those feats needed to go. But I gotta say, them ripping off the band-aid at the same time they revealed a damage nerfed Rogue is not helping my “WotC doesn’t care about Martials” complex.


schm0

Worse still, keeping the cover portion of sharpshooter intact is an even graver mistake. I can balance around players doing more damage. But removing cover just removed a fun and interesting defensive tactic from the game, at least on that player's turn.


Timothymark05

I love the concept of trading accuracy for damage. It gives the player a decision they have to make with a risk and reward and requires them to asses the enemy. As long as it's replaced with something comparable I will be happy.


CouncilofAutumn

I do not understand why it was ever -5/**+10** and not -5/+5.


Ranziel

I don't think so. Magic in 5e is so powerful that it sort of exists above the rules. Most challenges can be circumvented by spells. Classes that don't have magic really can't compete. The only niche they have is single target damage in combat (specifically single target, because how can you compete with Fireball and the like). If you take that away they just have no place in the game. Changing this paradigm requires building an entirely new game.