So I have been thinking about what I want to see in DnD 5.5e, and I have a few thoughts about the bonus action attacks for dual wielding, feats and spell weapon attacks design standards:
A. If you aren't dual wielding you shouldn't get a bonus action weapon attack from a feat. Ex. Polearm Mastery (this feat is fine without this bloat)
B. If you are dual wielding you shouldn't get a stat damage to the bonus attack unless you have the fighting style. Ex. Dual wielding hand crossbows should not take the Crossbow Expertise feat. Ex. Getting DEX damage dual wielding hand crossbows should require Two Weapon Fighting Style. Ex. Great Weapon Mastery, Minotaurs' and Centaurs' charging bonus actions would not be dual wielding because their attacks are situational/conditional.
C. Remove concentration from one attack per round spell weapons. Ex. Mordekain's Sword, Magical Weapon, Vampiric Touch, etc. Discussion: IMO Spiritual Weapon is a healthy spell/class feature. It's good but not over powering and requires a bonus action to benefit.
D. Spells that are weapons should be weapons for making attacks and using extra attack and dual wield combat features. Produce Flame, Flame Blade, etc Ex. You could extra attack with Flame Blade if it counted as a weapon. Ex. You could dual wield Produce Flame. Allow multiple casts if both hands are free.
E. Open the entire feat Great Weapon Mastery to all weapons wielded two handed. Ex. Versatile
F. Require two-hands on one weapon for Sharp Shooting.
G. Reduce bonus damage from Sharp Shooter and Great Weapon Master to +5 (instead of +10).
H. Remove Crossbow Expertise feat feature to ignore the reload feature. Add repeater crossbows (of all sizes) with high expense to purchase with gold. See arcanist weapon description. They could be a product export of gnome and/or dark elf communities.
I. Add new feat True Grit to replace Crossbow Expert. Allows ranged attacks in melee without disadvantage.
J. Alert (Remove) Enemies do not get advantage from stealth. This is a level 18 rogue feature!
K. Athlete. (new) Swimming doesn't cost you extra movement.
L. Charger. Allow players to make a full attack and remove the +5 damage. Add weapon properties for +5 damage when charging with spears and lances.
O. Defensive Duelist. Remove finesse weapon requirement.
P. Durable. Gain the Second Wind feature. If you already have it, you may use it twice per short rest.
Q. Grappler. You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling even if you also have disadvantage. Q. cont'd. You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, the other creature is restrained until the grapple ends. Once pinned, your opponent also has disadvantage to leave the grapple. Other enemies have advantage to attack you while you keep an enemy restrained in this way.
R. Healer. 1d6+INT+Level.
S. Inspiring Leader. You may also add your CHA to any spell which adds temporary health.
T. Linguist you have advantage on CHA saving throws with a verbal component.
U. Mobility (remove) When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not. (new) Enemies receive disadvantage to opportunity attacks against you. V. Sentinel (remove) Sentinel drops enemies speed to zero. (new) Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they have the Mobility feat or a teleport feature. (new) You may use your opportunity attack to make a shove.
W. Grappling Combat Action (Explain) You must go prone to grapple a prone enemy unless you have innate unarmed reach 10'. Note, bugbears only have +5 reach for attacks not inately.
X. Frightened (new) Consider a Terror Optional Rule for Strong Solo Monsters: The creature must use it’s action to move away from the enemy they are afraid of. Moving further with other actions is up to the creature, but it may not move closer to the object of fear while under the fear condition.
Y. Unarmed Strikes Combat Action (new) Count as simple, light, finesse melee weapons. The fact this doesn't work right now is frustrating. (specifically note) This can be used in conjunction with two-handed weapons for a bonus attack such as a round house kick. This can be improved to 1d4 damage with Tavern Brawler. (also note) Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes.
Z. Charging Bring back charging for one attack as an action. Anyone should be able to do it. Charger feat would be for multi-attackers like 5th+ level Fighters.
Final Suggestion. Flanking and Opportunity Attacks Bring back advantage for flanking as an official rule. Add a note that some creatures are immune to flanking like hydras and beholders. Bring back opportunity attacks for enemies moving within your reach after entering your reach.
I think this would reduce my OCD related to inconsistencies with 5e and realism in general. What do you think of this list? Is there anything you like? Is there anything you would like to add or remove? Thanks for reading!
TLDR: 5e should be more consistent, and suggestions were provided to make it so.
I mean, I guess you're i excited about the possibility of future mechanics to the game, that might be introduced over the course of two years, but my sense is things will be a lot more flexible, so you that you could introduce some greater crunch ... but you won't have to.
Combat revisions, if any will likely be some sort of streamlining with fluid options, I don't know what that really means, but just a sense of what I think they're trying to go for with the most recent (albeit rejected) mechanical innovation in the Strixhaven UA ... lot so of overlap as opposed to clear lanes.
Will say there's no need for everyone to be proficient in unarmed strikes and definitely not out of "realism". I've seen a lot of fights, mostly of the non sporting variety. A lot of them take so dang long to resolve because none of the particiapants really know how to hit. Whatever instincts someone thinks they have when the adrenaline kicks in is nothing compared to the skill of trained fighter who actually knows how to most effectively land a blow, and manage that adrenaline.
...And the "but these folks are trained in weapons proficiencies" objection to my reasoning. A lot of folks who work in weapons professions get some "hand to hand" training alongside their modern weapons, sometimes its called defensive tactics, or combatives, or officer response training. At the end of this training, the good instructors tell their class they now know enough about fighting to get their asses kicked by someone who really knows what they're doing. It's not a discredit to the training it's a simple reality that someone really proficient in fighting is just better than the untrained/inexperienced fistfighter or headbutter etc. So you have unproficient fighting, proficient fighting and then Monks ki based martial arts and the unarmed fighting style along a spectrum. Most people just aren't "good" at throwing a punch, even if they are very strong or fast or what have you.
I disagree with pretty much everything said here, the only thing this would do is widen the gap between martials and casters.
Please be more specific. I honestly don't know if you are saying martials will get weaker than caster or casters will get weaker than martials and how it's problematic.
Will say there's no need for everyone to be proficient in unarmed strikes and definitely not out of "realism". I've seen a lot of fights, mostly of the non sporting variety. A lot of them take so dang long to resolve because none of the particiapants really know how to hit. Whatever instincts someone thinks they have when the adrenaline kicks in is nothing compared to the skill of trained fighter who actually knows how to most effectively land a blow, and manage that adrenaline.
Everyone already is proficient in unarmed strikes. Monks (class) and Tavern Brawlers (feat) have greater unarmed strike damage. It is known.
If you are implying they should change this. I guess that's fine to have that opinion.
My main issue is that 5.5e is supposedly backwards compatible. I actually really agree that a feat rework would be a good idea in the long run, but it needs to be paired with fundamental changes to classes, and I'm not sure how aggressive those changes can be while remaining backwards compatible.
Feats are a big reason why monks struggle, for example. There are a handful of "power-centric" feats that boost the raw damage of martial classes, and monks benefit from almost none of them. In a featless game, monks don't actually hit the same type of damage gaps.
If we could bake more strict offensive power into martial classes themselves and keep feats to utility, it solves two issues. First, it helps balance martial classes among each other, and offers a wider variety of playstyles that can still compete. Second, it offers greater utility to martials without them needing to sacrifice damage.
There are a lot of consequences to these changes that would necessitate further changes. If you buff Frightened, you buff every creature that imposes that condition and every class feature and spell that frightens. If you have to be prone to grapple a prone creature, can you just escape a grapple by falling prone?
Retconning is very messy. I agree that if we see widespread changes that could qualify as a '5.5e' (and that is still a big IF), it will be options that fit on top of the existing game.
And the imbalance between martial and caster? That's a feature, not a bug. They balanced them in 4e and people hated it. They want wizards who can be killed by housecats at level 1 and level cities at level 20. I don't think they will try to 'fix' the gap at all.
G. One of the house rules Treantmonk had in his latest video kind of addresses this. His house rule he’s been playtesting is: if you take the attack action with a weapon or unarmed strike you can take a -5 to hit and on a hit do +10 damage (I’m paraphrasing).
Basically it gives everyone that opportunity to do more damage, not just heavy weapon users and ranged weapon users. GWM and SS still have a place with their other features and they can be used on attacks other than the attack action. So reactions, bonus actions benefit fro GWM and SS but the house rule does not.
Advantage for Flanking only works when you reintroduce the rule (from 3.5/PF) that moving within a creature's reach provokes an opportunity attack - otherwise this will guarantee that all melee characters get advantage all the time for no penalty.
Advantage for Flanking only works when you reintroduce the rule (from 3.5/PF) that moving within a creature's reach provokes an opportunity attack - otherwise this will guarantee that all melee characters get advantage all the time for no penalty.
So I have been thinking about what I want to see in DnD 5.5e, and I have a few thoughts about the bonus action attacks for dual wielding, feats and spell weapon attacks design standards:
I'm only going to reply to some of your points but generally dislike basically all of them.
B. Dual wielding crossbows is and has always been dumb. You can't reload a crossbow while your hand is carrying another, different, crossbow. What are you using to draw a bolt, notching it, and cranking the tensioner with if both your hands are occupied? It has never made sense.
C. No. For one, these spells aren't bad IDK where you get that idea from. Shadowblade can dish out some crazy high damage, if you could also haste yourself while using it that'd get nuts quick. You ever see a Bladesinger with this spell? I promise you don't need to remove concentration from it.
V. The idea that someone can op attack against someone who isn't there anymore after they teleported is entirely too comical to entertain. They might not even be on the same plane of existence but you're going to stab em through the veil of reality? Wut.
W. Ok. Look. How. How is someone 10ft away if they're on the ground at your feet??
X. Entirely too powerful. This would turn a simple movement-direction-denial condition into a full on action/turn denial. Some abilities, like the AOE fear of the dragon fear feat, would become even more potent than they already are. Something like the conquest paladin's aura would be a full on death sentence, too, since it locks creature's speeds to 0 will frightened, so they'd spend their action moving 0 ft away and essentially be locked down and unable to act in any way, and not to just one creature, to all creatures around them.
Y. Eh, maybe. Not so sure on the finesse part TBH. Not sure how being agile lets you punch someone harder without specific martial arts training or similar (ie being a monk/having a fighting style).
Re: Final Suggestion: For flanking I've been thinking about it over the years and honestly I don't think handing out advantage to everyone is not the right way to handle it. Better fix: create a new default Reaction available to anyone:
Parry. When you are attacked by a creature making a melee attack against you, you can impose disadvantage to melee attacks against you by that creature until the start of your next turn.
So no flanking bonus, no position requirements, etc. Just...just attack the dude who already burned his reaction on something else so he can't parry you. The more enemies attacking the same dude the easier it is for each other to do because he can only parry one of them. It has side effects, makes duals last longer, makes getting randomly or briefly tagged less dangerous if you can react to it. Gives tactical weight to even default combat options, are you picking offense so saving reaction for op attacks or defense and trying to not get wrekt? I think it is an easy fix.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A.So completely cripple the monk class for a tiny shard of consistency, okay.
B.I'm assuming you mean bonus action attack don't get ability score boost.
C.I have no idea where you got this idea, these spells are famously some of the best out their, minus mordekainens sword, which is a slightly better spiritual weapon at 7th level.
D.This is already how flame blade and shadow blade work, and produce flame makes no sense this way.
E.Cool
F.Why? This seems overly restrictive (I can't sharpshoot with my crossbow now.)
G.Cool.
H. Repeater crossbows, a thing I'm pretty sure never existed.
I. This needs more effects to work.
J.Correction, this a teensy, tine sliver off a 18th level rogue feature.
K.Cool.
L: Cool, though the weapons with the bonus should be heavy weapons.
O-T. These are all rather odd changes that barely matter, minus the charger one.
U.I have always liked the current form, it think it's more mobile to just ignore attacks than give them disadvantage, and the attack requisite is great flavor for 90% of mobile characters.
V.Cool
W.No, this is exploitable and such a minor inconsistency.
X. This is extremely overpowered, while I agree frightened does no work right now, buffing it is not necessary.
Y.Cool
Z: Conflicts with L but who cares
Final suggestion: No, this is straight up to powerful in the current 5e, and would require far more changes just this.
In general, this is a bad idea, given that 5.5 has to backwards compatible.
A.So completely cripple the monk class for a tiny shard of consistency, okay. Nah, I point out that unarmed strikes should count towards dual weapons on Y. This would not effect the monk. You probably saw that.
B.I'm assuming you mean bonus action attack don't get ability score boost. Yes, if you don't have two-weapon fighting style you shouldn't have feats and racial abilities to by-pass it.
C.I have no idea where you got this idea, these spells are famously some of the best out their, minus mordekainens sword, which is a slightly better spiritual weapon at 7th level. They are bad. Mordekainen's sword is slightly worse than a 6th level up cast Spiritual Weapon regardless of concentration assuming WIS and/or focus +4. One thing Jeremy could consider doing to balance spell blades (Flame Blade, Shadow Blade) is make them two-handed and not shareable, so you cannot summon more than one per fight per caster. Magical Weapon is super weak for a concentration. It's never going to be healthy with concentration.
D.This is already how flame blade and shadow blade work, and produce flame makes no sense this way. Right now Flame Blade is a spell attack like Vampiric Touch, so it's not that way RAW. Shadow Blade is a newer spell and is this way yes. Why wouldn't it make sense to hold a produced flame in each hand? This seems rather obvious under the existing system paradigm.
E.Cool
F.Why? This seems overly restrictive (I can't sharpshoot with my crossbow now.) You cannot sharp shoot with a one handed crossbow fired one handed with this change. You can use two hands with your hand crossbow, but then you don't get a bonus hand crossbow attack that turn. Think about how that might make sense to someone who actually shoots fire arms.
G.Cool.
H. Repeater crossbows, a thing I'm pretty sure never existed. This is fantasy, and they do exist IRL.
I. This needs more effects to work. You mean removing disadvantage is not good enough? Many Warlocks take this feat without the crossbow shenanigans.
J.Correction, this a teensy, tine sliver off a 18th level rogue feature. Agree to disagree. Gary Gygax would have a fit over this feat. Sneaking up on people who aren't magically protected is sacred. Spider Senses is not something you pick a feat over. Imagine you are playing a rogue and your DM was like the wizard has and is Alert. You are alone and now you have no way to sneak attack... That's a realistic world where this feat exists in it's current state.
K.Cool.
L: Cool, though the weapons with the bonus should be heavy weapons. Assuming you are on foot, I could live with that.
O-T. These are all rather odd changes that barely matter, minus the charger one. Yeah, these are weak feats, so I just gave some suggestions. No biggy.
U.I have always liked the current form, it think it's more mobile to just ignore attacks than give them disadvantage, and the attack requisite is great flavor for 90% of mobile characters. It makes sentinel, abilities and positioning look like a joke. Way too powerful in the right hands and useless in other hands. It's not healthy for the game to ignore enemy powers especially when the enemy paid a similar tax to get said power. You don't even require a hit... that's insulting.
V.Cool
W.No, this is exploitable and such a minor inconsistency. Exploitable? People are already exploiting grapple vs prone. I am pointing out that grappling prone should require prone, because that makes sense and if your DM is realistic that's what happens. The exception would of course be a Giant or Dr. Reed Richards. I am pointing out common sense here, and the PHB should too, because it's a common misconception. All the videos on Youtube about grapple are ignoring basic realities and telling us that this feat is bad, which it shouldn't be.
X. This is extremely overpowered, while I agree frightened does no work right now, buffing it is not necessary. I disagree, but at least we agree on the problem. Not sure how this would be used in an unrealistic way, and if it is realistic it's the right amount of power.
Y.Cool
Z: Conflicts with L but who cares Sorry, wasn't intended to be inconsistent, but you cannot read my mind. In 4e a charge was 1 attack using 10 feet minimum movement toward the enemy during the action. So the existing Charger feat would be for everyone, but would make the 5.5 Charger feat a full attack action. This is consistent and still weaker than a bonus action dash move. I will update the original post to properly frame this idea.
Final suggestion: No, this is straight up to powerful in the current 5e, and would require far more changes just this. Yes, it would require movement within reach receive opportunity attacks like 4e as Farling pointed out. I am for this as well. It's a small additional thing. I will add it to the list.
In general, this is a bad idea, given that 5.5 has to backwards compatible. 5.5 won't be backwards compatible with the PHB. That's kind of the point. Any spell that they want to replace outside the PHB would be in the new PHB. The primary concern of Backwards Compatible is adventures and monsters which would be fine given these adjustments to the core rules.
Thanks for all your responses! I really appreciate you taking the time to go through the list and give it some feedback.
So I have been thinking about what I want to see in DnD 5.5e, and I have a few thoughts about the bonus action attacks for dual wielding, feats and spell weapon attacks design standards:
I'm only going to reply to some of your points but generally dislike basically all of them. Ok, thanks for the TLDR.
B. Dual wielding crossbows is and has always been dumb. You can't reload a crossbow while your hand is carrying another, different, crossbow. What are you using to draw a bolt, notching it, and cranking the tensioner with if both your hands are occupied? It has never made sense. Ok, so you agree with my suggestions?
C. No. For one, these spells aren't bad IDK where you get that idea from. Shadowblade can dish out some crazy high damage, if you could also haste yourself while using it that'd get nuts quick. You ever see a Bladesinger with this spell? I promise you don't need to remove concentration from it. Disagree. See my reply to AlexandrosThegreat for more details on how bad they are. I want to give your credit for your counter example though. Good counter example, I can imagine a Shadowblade wielded by a blade singer with Haste would be good... Almost as good as a Hasted Paladin using smite. Ok, I agree with you about Shadow Blades and I think Flameblade should be more like that. I think you made a good argument.
V. The idea that someone can op attack against someone who isn't there anymore after they teleported is entirely too comical to entertain. They might not even be on the same plane of existence but you're going to stab em through the veil of reality? Wut. It's a reaction. It happens while the enemy is doing the thing. This argument is similar to saying how could he opportunity attack me, I moved a cross the room. The answer is clearly that you were within range long enough for the attack to occur.
W. Ok. Look. How. How is someone 10ft away if they're on the ground at your feet?? I am pointing out what is required (reach) to grapple a prone without going prone.
X. Entirely too powerful. This would turn a simple movement-direction-denial condition into a full on action/turn denial. Some abilities, like the AOE fear of the dragon fear feat, would become even more potent than they already are. Something like the conquest paladin's aura would be a full on death sentence, too, since it locks creature's speeds to 0 will frightened, so they'd spend their action moving 0 ft away and essentially be locked down and unable to act in any way, and not to just one creature, to all creatures around them. I agree with you here. I think it's reasonable to ask why WOTC gave Conquest Paladins a third level feature that is so strong. When compared to the 10th level Beserker ability it is an astounding level of power creep. I think they could rewrite this subclass feature and add it to the new PHB.
Y. Eh, maybe. Not so sure on the finesse part TBH. Not sure how being agile lets you punch someone harder without specific martial arts training or similar (ie being a monk/having a fighting style). Yeah, you might be right about finesse. I could live without that. Will remove it from the suggestions above.
Re: Final Suggestion: For flanking I've been thinking about it over the years and honestly I don't think handing out advantage to everyone is not the right way to handle it. Better fix: create a new default Reaction available to anyone:
Parry. When you are attacked by a creature making a melee attack against you, you can impose disadvantage to melee attacks against you by that creature until the start of your next turn.
So no flanking bonus, no position requirements, etc. Just...just attack the dude who already burned his reaction on something else so he can't parry you. The more enemies attacking the same dude the easier it is for each other to do because he can only parry one of them. It has side effects, makes duals last longer, makes getting randomly or briefly tagged less dangerous if you can react to it...
Flanking should be about positioning. Gaining flanking in 4e required thoughtful and difficult positioning but felt great when you got it. Parry might make combat more cumbersome as you pointed out, and we have a feat for this called Defensive Duelist which I would agree everyone should be able to take.
Gives tactical weight to even default combat options, are you picking offense so saving reaction for op attacks or defense and trying to not get wrekt? I think it is an easy fix. I was thinking it might be nice to provide some powers that remove or use your reaction during the attack such as the Beserker extra attack could be a reaction rather than a bonus action. This would be powerful, but cost your defensive tool and represent the mad fearless rage. It would also give more weapon options such as dual wielding which I think is very Berserker. Might be a bit much though getting 4 attacks at advantage. Probably need some mechanics crunching to get it to fit right. Reckless attack is just such a silly good feature on someone who is resistant to damage.
Thanks for your responses! You put some good thoughts into them and gave me some very strong cases to consider.
So I have been thinking about what I want to see in DnD 5.5e, and I have a few thoughts about the bonus action attacks for dual wielding, feats and spell weapon attacks design standards:
V. The idea that someone can op attack against someone who isn't there anymore after they teleported is entirely too comical to entertain. They might not even be on the same plane of existence but you're going to stab em through the veil of reality? Wut. It's a reaction. It happens while the enemy is doing the thing. This argument is similar to saying how could he opportunity attack me, I moved a cross the room. The answer is clearly that you were within range long enough for the attack to occur.
I think you and I have very different headcannon about what a teleport is. If someone teleports away you know they're doing it because they vanish. Conversely, you know someone is trying to run away because they start to pivot, then shift their weight, then change their facing, then drop their guard, then turn their back, and then start taking step after step moving away from you. You have time to respond to the opening they're giving you. But, teleports are instant. You're there and then not there. There isn't even something to respond to until after they're gone.
W. Ok. Look. How. How is someone 10ft away if they're on the ground at your feet?? I am pointing out what is required (reach) to grapple a prone without going prone.
You don't need reach to touch your toes. You can stay on your feet and also grab something from the ground. This suggestion makes no sense. Why does someone need to lay down flat on the ground to touch something also on the ground in your headcannon? Seems really odd.
X. Entirely too powerful. This would turn a simple movement-direction-denial condition into a full on action/turn denial. Some abilities, like the AOE fear of the dragon fear feat, would become even more potent than they already are. Something like the conquest paladin's aura would be a full on death sentence, too, since it locks creature's speeds to 0 will frightened, so they'd spend their action moving 0 ft away and essentially be locked down and unable to act in any way, and not to just one creature, to all creatures around them. I agree with you here. I think it's reasonable to ask why WOTC gave Conquest Paladins a third level feature that is so strong. When compared to the 10th level Beserker ability it is an astounding level of power creep. I think they could rewrite this subclass feature and add it to the new PHB.
But...
OK. Hold up.
It isn't currently that powerful, certainly not overpowered. Your suggested change would make it overpowered. It'd make all kinds of frightened causing abilities overpowered. You'd have to change more than just this subclass, you'd need to rework and rebalances several subclasses, several races, feats, spells. Anything that causes this condition would need a balance pass.
Re: Final Suggestion: For flanking I've been thinking about it over the years and honestly I don't think handing out advantage to everyone is not the right way to handle it. Better fix: create a new default Reaction available to anyone:
Parry. When you are attacked by a creature making a melee attack against you, you can impose disadvantage to melee attacks against you by that creature until the start of your next turn.
So no flanking bonus, no position requirements, etc. Just...just attack the dude who already burned his reaction on something else so he can't parry you. The more enemies attacking the same dude the easier it is for each other to do because he can only parry one of them. It has side effects, makes duals last longer, makes getting randomly or briefly tagged less dangerous if you can react to it...
Flanking should be about positioning. Gaining flanking in 4e required thoughtful and difficult positioning but felt great when you got it. Parry might make combat more cumbersome as you pointed out, and we have a feat for this called Defensive Duelist which I would agree everyone should be able to take.
Why should it be about positioning? Not everyone plays on a battlemap, and having to constantly try to draw lines of effect from your character through and enemy into a space 180° directly across with special allowable offsets or whatever is not really doable for some games. In fact, technically speaking, despite it being super commonplace the battle grid is an optional ruleset and default game mechanics assume theater of the mind. So any rules should be, by default, easy to implement in a grid-free environment.
It is why flanking is also optional. It isn't easily introducible to TotM play, which is default ruleset. This change would make it possible to include it easily without having to draw careful lines across tiles or whatever. You either pary or you don't and if you get ganged up on you can't parry em all. Simple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
You don't need reach to touch your toes. You can stay on your feet and also grab something from the ground. This suggestion makes no sense. Why does someone need to lay down flat on the ground to touch something also on the ground in your headcannon? Seems really odd. Show me one picture of a man grappling another man who is prone while standing up.
You don't need reach to touch your toes. You can stay on your feet and also grab something from the ground. This suggestion makes no sense. Why does someone need to lay down flat on the ground to touch something also on the ground in your headcannon? Seems really odd. Show me one picture of a man grappling another man who is prone while standing up.
That's not grappling in 5e, that's restraining and requires the Grappler feat. Grappling is just grabbing and holding on, usually with one hand. That's why it's only effect is to reduce speed to 0. Also that would make Grappling completely useless because you could just drop prone and then stand up to break the grapple.
A lot of these changes don't make things more consistent. They just change things you dislike, and you clearly dislike martials and love casters because you only buff casters (except for the AoO on teleport but's that dumb) and all the nerfs are for martials. Some of the "changes" are already rules, or they are unneeded and sometimes make things more inconsistent. Things like B. is already how TWF works. and D. would make Produce flame a 12d8 damage per turn cantrip at 17 and is dumb, unless your a fighter, then its 20d8 a turn. Unless you meant it could only be one attack per action and bonus action, but that's still really powerful and also inconsistent. I do agree that Flame Blade should get an errata to work like Shadow Blade though. Frightened is fine the way it is because it allows scaling the condition up in power. Your suggestions turns every instance of Frighten into at the minimum Command plus whatever riders the ability/spell has. Everyone is already proficient with Unarmed Strikes. Repeater Crossbows costing a lot and the removal of Crossbow Expert only punishes martials and in an unnecessary way. Alert is fine and doesn't do the same thing as Rogue's Elusive, feats should be powerful because there is a lot of opportunity cost to them. You remove Mobiles AoO avoidance and then add to Sentinel that it bypasses Mobiles now removed feature. The change to Healer feat is a nerf for some unneeded reason. There is more but I am not going to cover all the issues.
You don't need reach to touch your toes. You can stay on your feet and also grab something from the ground. This suggestion makes no sense. Why does someone need to lay down flat on the ground to touch something also on the ground in your headcannon? Seems really odd. Show me one picture of a man grappling another man who is prone while standing up.
That's not grappling in 5e, that's restraining and requires the Grappler feat. Grappling is just grabbing and holding on, usually with one hand. That's why it's only effect is to reduce speed to 0. Also that would make Grappling completely useless because you could just drop prone and then stand up to break the grapple.
I assumed a grapple was a headlock, body grasp (preferably from behind), or arm lock.
I see what you are saying. So your picture is someone taking a knee to GRAB the prone person holding a limb, probably standing again with said limb and probably following up by hacking them. That's interesting that you feel that would give you advantage. That's a very dangerous position to put yourself in. Depending on the hold the enemy could also have advantage in return, particularly on your grasping arm.
I don't think you could drop prone if you are grappled standing up... I've tried it. Didn't take. If you did somehow out weigh someone and dropped prone the grappler could drop prone with you, but it would be easier to just say the grappled cannot move until they break free str or dex including dropping prone.
Anyway, I do think the rules need some work here. Getting a restrain should be more meaningful of an advantage. Getting a grab should be less meaningful. Hope Wizards do something about it. Most people malign the grappler feat, so it would be nice to see pins have value.
D. would make Produce flame a 12d8 damage per turn cantrip at 17 and is dumb, unless your a fighter, then its 20d8 a turn. Unless you meant it could only be one attack per action and bonus action, but that's still really powerful and also inconsistent. I was thinking you should be able to cast it twice: two actions to get two attacks on the second round. It would require precognition of the fight for a prep round and two free hands. It would do 8d8 at level 17 for one round using your bonus action. Pretty situational, but just something I thought would be cool. It would be slightly less powerful than a Sorcerer Quicken Spell of two Firebolts.
I do agree that Flame Blade should get an errata to work like Shadow Blade though. Thank you
Frightened is fine the way it is because it allows scaling the condition up in power. Your suggestions turns every instance of Frighten into at the minimum Command plus whatever riders the ability/spell has. I can see how people think this is problematic after reading the Conqueror example.
Everyone is already proficient with Unarmed Strikes. You cannot take a bonus attack with just Unarmed Strikes (unless you are a monk) and I would like it if you could take one. It's pretty unique cases like Dragon Born Hide feat or Altered Self spell but it just seems like something you should be able to do.
Repeater Crossbows costing a lot and the removal of Crossbow Expert only punishes martials and in an unnecessary way. In my mind it's making crossbows better... like plate mail. You don't need a feat for plate mail. I usually don't have trouble finding a little gold. 200g, 300g, and 500g sounds pretty reasonable to me. You could still buy the normal kind at level 1.
Alert is fine and doesn't do the same thing as Rogue's Elusive, feats should be powerful because there is a lot of opportunity cost to them. I would rather put +1 Dex on it. Making stealth and invisible not effect someone with a feat is a bit ridiculous especially when this feature is icing on the +5 initiative. Ex. You are affected by a small black cat, but you are not affected by an invisible man. That's absurd. All I can say is, "Go for eyes Boo!"
You remove Mobiles AoO avoidance and then add to Sentinel that it bypasses Mobiles now removed feature. True. That is redundant.
The change to Healer feat is a nerf for some unneeded reason. Maybe if you don't have any INT and are first level. 1d6+4+INT+LVL seemed like overkill at level 1, but maybe that would be better. It's clearly a buff by providing level scaling though. Also there are very few uses for INT, and Doctors tend to be smart. Rogues tend to be smart. Definitely isn't intended to be a nerf.
Good discussion points. Will drop the fear thing, except for the mega bosses in which case will call it terror. That should work if it is just used for the worst monsters.
I stopped reading after the third entry, as all three that I did read indicate a general lack of understanding about the system that the OP intends to "fix." Like most homebrew I see and almost all of the content in any unsolicited proposal to "fix" or "improve" something that was written by professional game designers factoring in the rest of the system for balance and playtesting as well as basic common sense (dual wielding crossbows, for example), this is the result of a lot of "I think this would be cooler if" without thinking about how the game actually works.
Healer Feat currently heals 1d6+4 plus maximum number of hit dice, which for players is equal to their level. Your change just makes it worse for characters with lower INT.
Produce Flame lets you attack with it when you cast it, that's why I said your change brings inconsistencies. How many times can I precast Produce Flames to attack with it. It's non-concentration and the flame appears in your hand so how many flames can I hold? It doesn't really bring any consistency and makes the spell stronger.
It's impossible to hold a person up with one arm no matter how strong you are, dropping prone while someone is holding you is super easy. You are still thinking that a grapple is more than it is. The name grapple is a misnomer in this regard. You could literally be holding someone's hand and they would be considered grappled. In fact, if someone is prone and you grab their foot they are grappled and they can't stand up, so it literally parallels real life physics. Plus they can try and contest your grapple which is also realistic, and you couldn't tell if I am using a real life example or not if I hadn't said that it was in game. The reason that the Grappler feat is bad is that restraining the target also restrains you which makes sense logically but is bad because you lose your advantage on attack rolls against them you gained from the feat and now you are just as vulnerable as your target.
Letting everyone unarmed attack as a bonus action for free nerfs Monks by giving everyone the one thing they can do.
The problem with making repeater crossbows and their cost is it's extremely campaign dependent on whether you will be able to afford it at a reasonable time or not, where a feat makes it to where upon reaching level 5 you can continue to use your crossbow effectively. Also there is nothing stopping adding repeating crossbows and the player taking the Gunner feat instead with a repeating crossbow and getting the +1 dex and no disadvantage in melee.
So I have been thinking about what I want to see in DnD 5.5e, and I have a few thoughts about the bonus action attacks for dual wielding, feats and spell weapon attacks design standards:
A. If you aren't dual wielding you shouldn't get a bonus action weapon attack from a feat. Ex. Polearm Mastery (this feat is fine without this bloat)
B. If you are dual wielding you shouldn't get a stat damage to the bonus attack unless you have the fighting style.
Ex. Dual wielding hand crossbows should not take the Crossbow Expertise feat.
Ex. Getting DEX damage dual wielding hand crossbows should require Two Weapon Fighting Style.
Ex. Great Weapon Mastery, Minotaurs' and Centaurs' charging bonus actions would not be dual wielding because their attacks are situational/conditional.
C. Remove concentration from one attack per round spell weapons. Ex. Mordekain's Sword, Magical Weapon, Vampiric Touch, etc.
Discussion: IMO Spiritual Weapon is a healthy spell/class feature. It's good but not over powering and requires a bonus action to benefit.
D. Spells that are weapons should be weapons for making attacks and using extra attack and dual wield combat features. Produce Flame, Flame Blade, etc
Ex. You could extra attack with Flame Blade if it counted as a weapon.
Ex. You could dual wield Produce Flame. Allow multiple casts if both hands are free.
E. Open the entire feat Great Weapon Mastery to all weapons wielded two handed. Ex. Versatile
F. Require two-hands on one weapon for Sharp Shooting.
G. Reduce bonus damage from Sharp Shooter and Great Weapon Master to +5 (instead of +10).
H. Remove Crossbow Expertise feat feature to ignore the reload feature. Add repeater crossbows (of all sizes) with high expense to purchase with gold. See arcanist weapon description. They could be a product export of gnome and/or dark elf communities.
I. Add new feat True Grit to replace Crossbow Expert. Allows ranged attacks in melee without disadvantage.
J. Alert
(Remove) Enemies do not get advantage from stealth. This is a level 18 rogue feature!
K. Athlete.
(new) Swimming doesn't cost you extra movement.
L. Charger. Allow players to make a full attack and remove the +5 damage. Add weapon properties for +5 damage when charging with spears and lances.
O. Defensive Duelist. Remove finesse weapon requirement.
P. Durable. Gain the Second Wind feature. If you already have it, you may use it twice per short rest.
Q. Grappler. You have advantage on attack rolls against a creature you are grappling even if you also have disadvantage.
Q. cont'd. You can use your action to try to pin a creature grappled by you. To do so, make another grapple check. If you succeed, the other creature is restrained until the grapple ends. Once pinned, your opponent also has disadvantage to leave the grapple. Other enemies have advantage to attack you while you keep an enemy restrained in this way.
R. Healer. 1d6+INT+Level.
S. Inspiring Leader. You may also add your CHA to any spell which adds temporary health.
T. Linguist you have advantage on CHA saving throws with a verbal component.
U. Mobility
(remove) When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.
(new) Enemies receive disadvantage to opportunity attacks against you.
V. Sentinel
(remove) Sentinel drops enemies speed to zero.
(new) Creatures provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they have the Mobility feat or a teleport feature.(new) You may use your opportunity attack to make a shove.
W. Grappling Combat Action
(Explain) You must go prone to grapple a prone enemy unless you have innate unarmed reach 10'. Note, bugbears only have +5 reach for attacks not inately.
X.Frightened
(new) Consider a Terror Optional Rule for Strong Solo Monsters: The creature must use it’s action to move away from the enemy they are afraid of. Moving further with other actions is up to the creature, but it may not move closer to the object of fear while under the fear condition.Y. Unarmed Strikes Combat Action
(new) Count as simple, light,
finessemelee weapons. The fact this doesn't work right now is frustrating.(specifically note) This can be used in conjunction with two-handed weapons for a bonus attack such as a round house kick. This can be improved to 1d4 damage with Tavern Brawler.
(also note) Everyone is proficient with unarmed strikes.
Z. Charging
Bring back charging for one attack as an action. Anyone should be able to do it. Charger feat would be for multi-attackers like 5th+ level Fighters.
Final Suggestion. Flanking and Opportunity Attacks
Bring back advantage for flanking as an official rule. Add a note that some creatures are immune to flanking like hydras and beholders. Bring back opportunity attacks for enemies moving within your reach after entering your reach.
I think this would reduce my OCD related to inconsistencies with 5e and realism in general. What do you think of this list? Is there anything you like? Is there anything you would like to add or remove? Thanks for reading!
TLDR: 5e should be more consistent, and suggestions were provided to make it so.
I mean, I guess you're i excited about the possibility of future mechanics to the game, that might be introduced over the course of two years, but my sense is things will be a lot more flexible, so you that you could introduce some greater crunch ... but you won't have to.
Combat revisions, if any will likely be some sort of streamlining with fluid options, I don't know what that really means, but just a sense of what I think they're trying to go for with the most recent (albeit rejected) mechanical innovation in the Strixhaven UA ... lot so of overlap as opposed to clear lanes.
Will say there's no need for everyone to be proficient in unarmed strikes and definitely not out of "realism". I've seen a lot of fights, mostly of the non sporting variety. A lot of them take so dang long to resolve because none of the particiapants really know how to hit. Whatever instincts someone thinks they have when the adrenaline kicks in is nothing compared to the skill of trained fighter who actually knows how to most effectively land a blow, and manage that adrenaline.
...And the "but these folks are trained in weapons proficiencies" objection to my reasoning. A lot of folks who work in weapons professions get some "hand to hand" training alongside their modern weapons, sometimes its called defensive tactics, or combatives, or officer response training. At the end of this training, the good instructors tell their class they now know enough about fighting to get their asses kicked by someone who really knows what they're doing. It's not a discredit to the training it's a simple reality that someone really proficient in fighting is just better than the untrained/inexperienced fistfighter or headbutter etc. So you have unproficient fighting, proficient fighting and then Monks ki based martial arts and the unarmed fighting style along a spectrum. Most people just aren't "good" at throwing a punch, even if they are very strong or fast or what have you.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I disagree with pretty much everything said here, the only thing this would do is widen the gap between martials and casters.
Please be more specific. I honestly don't know if you are saying martials will get weaker than caster or casters will get weaker than martials and how it's problematic.
Everyone already is proficient in unarmed strikes. Monks (class) and Tavern Brawlers (feat) have greater unarmed strike damage. It is known.
If you are implying they should change this. I guess that's fine to have that opinion.
My main issue is that 5.5e is supposedly backwards compatible. I actually really agree that a feat rework would be a good idea in the long run, but it needs to be paired with fundamental changes to classes, and I'm not sure how aggressive those changes can be while remaining backwards compatible.
Feats are a big reason why monks struggle, for example. There are a handful of "power-centric" feats that boost the raw damage of martial classes, and monks benefit from almost none of them. In a featless game, monks don't actually hit the same type of damage gaps.
If we could bake more strict offensive power into martial classes themselves and keep feats to utility, it solves two issues. First, it helps balance martial classes among each other, and offers a wider variety of playstyles that can still compete. Second, it offers greater utility to martials without them needing to sacrifice damage.
There are a lot of consequences to these changes that would necessitate further changes. If you buff Frightened, you buff every creature that imposes that condition and every class feature and spell that frightens. If you have to be prone to grapple a prone creature, can you just escape a grapple by falling prone?
Retconning is very messy. I agree that if we see widespread changes that could qualify as a '5.5e' (and that is still a big IF), it will be options that fit on top of the existing game.
And the imbalance between martial and caster? That's a feature, not a bug. They balanced them in 4e and people hated it. They want wizards who can be killed by housecats at level 1 and level cities at level 20. I don't think they will try to 'fix' the gap at all.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
G. One of the house rules Treantmonk had in his latest video kind of addresses this. His house rule he’s been playtesting is: if you take the attack action with a weapon or unarmed strike you can take a -5 to hit and on a hit do +10 damage (I’m paraphrasing).
Basically it gives everyone that opportunity to do more damage, not just heavy weapon users and ranged weapon users. GWM and SS still have a place with their other features and they can be used on attacks other than the attack action. So reactions, bonus actions benefit fro GWM and SS but the house rule does not.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Advantage for Flanking only works when you reintroduce the rule (from 3.5/PF) that moving within a creature's reach provokes an opportunity attack - otherwise this will guarantee that all melee characters get advantage all the time for no penalty.
Agreed
I'm only going to reply to some of your points but generally dislike basically all of them.
B. Dual wielding crossbows is and has always been dumb. You can't reload a crossbow while your hand is carrying another, different, crossbow. What are you using to draw a bolt, notching it, and cranking the tensioner with if both your hands are occupied? It has never made sense.
C. No. For one, these spells aren't bad IDK where you get that idea from. Shadowblade can dish out some crazy high damage, if you could also haste yourself while using it that'd get nuts quick. You ever see a Bladesinger with this spell? I promise you don't need to remove concentration from it.
V. The idea that someone can op attack against someone who isn't there anymore after they teleported is entirely too comical to entertain. They might not even be on the same plane of existence but you're going to stab em through the veil of reality? Wut.
W. Ok. Look. How. How is someone 10ft away if they're on the ground at your feet??
X. Entirely too powerful. This would turn a simple movement-direction-denial condition into a full on action/turn denial. Some abilities, like the AOE fear of the dragon fear feat, would become even more potent than they already are. Something like the conquest paladin's aura would be a full on death sentence, too, since it locks creature's speeds to 0 will frightened, so they'd spend their action moving 0 ft away and essentially be locked down and unable to act in any way, and not to just one creature, to all creatures around them.
Y. Eh, maybe. Not so sure on the finesse part TBH. Not sure how being agile lets you punch someone harder without specific martial arts training or similar (ie being a monk/having a fighting style).
Re: Final Suggestion: For flanking I've been thinking about it over the years and honestly I don't think handing out advantage to everyone is not the right way to handle it. Better fix: create a new default Reaction available to anyone:
So no flanking bonus, no position requirements, etc. Just...just attack the dude who already burned his reaction on something else so he can't parry you. The more enemies attacking the same dude the easier it is for each other to do because he can only parry one of them. It has side effects, makes duals last longer, makes getting randomly or briefly tagged less dangerous if you can react to it. Gives tactical weight to even default combat options, are you picking offense so saving reaction for op attacks or defense and trying to not get wrekt? I think it is an easy fix.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
A.So completely cripple the monk class for a tiny shard of consistency, okay.
B.I'm assuming you mean bonus action attack don't get ability score boost.
C.I have no idea where you got this idea, these spells are famously some of the best out their, minus mordekainens sword, which is a slightly better spiritual weapon at 7th level.
D.This is already how flame blade and shadow blade work, and produce flame makes no sense this way.
E.Cool
F.Why? This seems overly restrictive (I can't sharpshoot with my crossbow now.)
G.Cool.
H. Repeater crossbows, a thing I'm pretty sure never existed.
I. This needs more effects to work.
J.Correction, this a teensy, tine sliver off a 18th level rogue feature.
K.Cool.
L: Cool, though the weapons with the bonus should be heavy weapons.
O-T. These are all rather odd changes that barely matter, minus the charger one.
U.I have always liked the current form, it think it's more mobile to just ignore attacks than give them disadvantage, and the attack requisite is great flavor for 90% of mobile characters.
V.Cool
W.No, this is exploitable and such a minor inconsistency.
X. This is extremely overpowered, while I agree frightened does no work right now, buffing it is not necessary.
Y.Cool
Z: Conflicts with L but who cares
Final suggestion: No, this is straight up to powerful in the current 5e, and would require far more changes just this.
In general, this is a bad idea, given that 5.5 has to backwards compatible.
My homebrew content: Monsters, subclasses, Magic items, Feats, spells, races, backgrounds
I think you and I have very different headcannon about what a teleport is. If someone teleports away you know they're doing it because they vanish. Conversely, you know someone is trying to run away because they start to pivot, then shift their weight, then change their facing, then drop their guard, then turn their back, and then start taking step after step moving away from you. You have time to respond to the opening they're giving you. But, teleports are instant. You're there and then not there. There isn't even something to respond to until after they're gone.
You don't need reach to touch your toes. You can stay on your feet and also grab something from the ground. This suggestion makes no sense. Why does someone need to lay down flat on the ground to touch something also on the ground in your headcannon? Seems really odd.
But...
OK. Hold up.
It isn't currently that powerful, certainly not overpowered. Your suggested change would make it overpowered. It'd make all kinds of frightened causing abilities overpowered. You'd have to change more than just this subclass, you'd need to rework and rebalances several subclasses, several races, feats, spells. Anything that causes this condition would need a balance pass.
Why should it be about positioning? Not everyone plays on a battlemap, and having to constantly try to draw lines of effect from your character through and enemy into a space 180° directly across with special allowable offsets or whatever is not really doable for some games. In fact, technically speaking, despite it being super commonplace the battle grid is an optional ruleset and default game mechanics assume theater of the mind. So any rules should be, by default, easy to implement in a grid-free environment.
It is why flanking is also optional. It isn't easily introducible to TotM play, which is default ruleset. This change would make it possible to include it easily without having to draw careful lines across tiles or whatever. You either pary or you don't and if you get ganged up on you can't parry em all. Simple.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's not grappling in 5e, that's restraining and requires the Grappler feat. Grappling is just grabbing and holding on, usually with one hand. That's why it's only effect is to reduce speed to 0. Also that would make Grappling completely useless because you could just drop prone and then stand up to break the grapple.
A lot of these changes don't make things more consistent. They just change things you dislike, and you clearly dislike martials and love casters because you only buff casters (except for the AoO on teleport but's that dumb) and all the nerfs are for martials. Some of the "changes" are already rules, or they are unneeded and sometimes make things more inconsistent. Things like B. is already how TWF works. and D. would make Produce flame a 12d8 damage per turn cantrip at 17 and is dumb, unless your a fighter, then its 20d8 a turn. Unless you meant it could only be one attack per action and bonus action, but that's still really powerful and also inconsistent. I do agree that Flame Blade should get an errata to work like Shadow Blade though. Frightened is fine the way it is because it allows scaling the condition up in power. Your suggestions turns every instance of Frighten into at the minimum Command plus whatever riders the ability/spell has. Everyone is already proficient with Unarmed Strikes. Repeater Crossbows costing a lot and the removal of Crossbow Expert only punishes martials and in an unnecessary way. Alert is fine and doesn't do the same thing as Rogue's Elusive, feats should be powerful because there is a lot of opportunity cost to them. You remove Mobiles AoO avoidance and then add to Sentinel that it bypasses Mobiles now removed feature. The change to Healer feat is a nerf for some unneeded reason. There is more but I am not going to cover all the issues.
I stopped reading after the third entry, as all three that I did read indicate a general lack of understanding about the system that the OP intends to "fix." Like most homebrew I see and almost all of the content in any unsolicited proposal to "fix" or "improve" something that was written by professional game designers factoring in the rest of the system for balance and playtesting as well as basic common sense (dual wielding crossbows, for example), this is the result of a lot of "I think this would be cooler if" without thinking about how the game actually works.
Healer Feat currently heals 1d6+4 plus maximum number of hit dice, which for players is equal to their level. Your change just makes it worse for characters with lower INT.
Produce Flame lets you attack with it when you cast it, that's why I said your change brings inconsistencies. How many times can I precast Produce Flames to attack with it. It's non-concentration and the flame appears in your hand so how many flames can I hold? It doesn't really bring any consistency and makes the spell stronger.
It's impossible to hold a person up with one arm no matter how strong you are, dropping prone while someone is holding you is super easy. You are still thinking that a grapple is more than it is. The name grapple is a misnomer in this regard. You could literally be holding someone's hand and they would be considered grappled. In fact, if someone is prone and you grab their foot they are grappled and they can't stand up, so it literally parallels real life physics. Plus they can try and contest your grapple which is also realistic, and you couldn't tell if I am using a real life example or not if I hadn't said that it was in game. The reason that the Grappler feat is bad is that restraining the target also restrains you which makes sense logically but is bad because you lose your advantage on attack rolls against them you gained from the feat and now you are just as vulnerable as your target.
Letting everyone unarmed attack as a bonus action for free nerfs Monks by giving everyone the one thing they can do.
The problem with making repeater crossbows and their cost is it's extremely campaign dependent on whether you will be able to afford it at a reasonable time or not, where a feat makes it to where upon reaching level 5 you can continue to use your crossbow effectively. Also there is nothing stopping adding repeating crossbows and the player taking the Gunner feat instead with a repeating crossbow and getting the +1 dex and no disadvantage in melee.