The funny thing about grappler is it is objective as you literally have options that are just better from a mechanical stand point.
Its just inferior in every way. The other feats are just better....its not even a subjective thing. There is no one who would suggest you take it over another option. Like True Strike its just bad....and thats ok.
Beastmaster is a toss up as it could be seen as more thematic to have the 8 hour bonding with the creature which does add some RP potential. Its less objective and more preferential in that case. It has more mechanical benefits to go with the new version but less of the thematic elements which I could see being something that someone might want.
"These facts and opinions look so similar!" -Joy, Inside Out (2015)
You can deny it but that doesn't mean it isn't true.
A good amount of stuff is subjective....but True Strike and Grappler feat being terrible...that is dem facts.
Like a great many things, their use is situationally dependent. But if you want to keep digging yourself that hole, be my guest.
I am uncertain of what you mean? Are you actually saying either is a good choice? If so its worse than I thought...
But back to the actual topic:
I do think Animate Objects is fairly overtuned. As the think DM article suggests it violates a lot of the guidelines that the DMG puts on spells and Tiny objects far outpace damage for that level.
It also is hard to dispel as you can only dispel one creature at a time with Dispel Magic. Attacking the creatures with AoE is suggested but likely they are centered around a target so AoE would effect the target as well which means you are basically having the enemy use an action to damage itself or an ally. Also with the HP and saves its likely that they will survive a stand AoE attack meaning the enemy is taking 2 turns minimum to attempt to dispel the magic which might not even work. In the mean time they are putting out like 45 damage per round as a BONUS ACTION. This means that the caster can still cast spells with their action! They can cast fireball and do an additional 28 average damge to another group of enemies or some other kind of non-concentration spell.
Overall its definitely over tuned and I think their solution for the spell works well.
I can think of a good use of grappler right here and didn't even think all that much.
difficult high AC bad guy grappled by fighter but still winning, fighter looking bad. Fighter shouts out to group "When I say go, Let 'em have it!. Everyone holds their action for fighters signal. Fighter uses the Pin action granted by grappler and shouts "NOW!" whole party lets lose now with advantage because enemy is restrained. No resources (other than the fighters action) were spent, the WHOLE party got an uninterrupted wave of actions ALL with advantage. And next turn the fighter ends the pin and goes back to smacking (if the bad guy still alive at that point).
And before I'm told "Well that's highly situational" its really not.... This could literally happen in EVERY fight the fighter is able to grapple something in. And if the player is to go so far as picking the grappling feat, they probably enjoy the idea of grappling and picked goliath allowing them to do this with every enemy up to huge sized.
So is grappler specific? Absolutely. But is it useless, not at all. I literally just thought of this application for it glimpsing through this thread, and I'm sure more uses can be found.
I can whole heartedly agree though that true strike is dumb lol
That's a good example of Grappler. Yes, it's a great teamwork feat. That's what sets it apart from so many of the other popular feats in the "meta". The people who grade these feats almost exclusively care about making the PC better. They don't care about bolstering the party as a whole; which is somewhat understandable. Every party is different, so their needs can vary wildly. People don't like the Commander's Strike maneuver for the same reason. They can't fathom giving up an attack to give someone else in the party an attack that might do more damage, like a paladin or rogue. "Situational" is a dirty word in those circles. What they're also forgetting is that everything is situational. That said, it's fine not to know the maneuver. But to decry these choices is the D&D equivalent of cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
Take true strike for example. It's great before Initiative has been rolled. It has no material component, so a sorcerer can cast it with Subtle Spell without triggering a fight if they think things are going to go south. A rogue, likewise, cannot use their Sneak Attack with disadvantage. If the potential damage dealt by waiting a turn and getting in a Sneak Attack is greater than two attacks made without sneak Attack and at disadvantage, then it's a worthwhile option. Granted, these are edge cases. But that shouldn't have a bearing on whether or not they're known by a PC. Players should be looking for opportunities to use their choices. And the DM, aware of their PCs' capabilities, should present situations to highlight player choices.
There can, and I think should, even talk between sessions to make sure stuff like this can happen. There are no bad ideas during a brainstorming session, but don't invalidate a previous choice by saying it was bad. That's not productive. Anyone can tear down. Actually building something is an achievement. Validate those existing choices by giving the PC moments to shine. But this also requires patience and a willingness to learn; to understand how all the different pieces work together. Not everyone wants to. Instant gratification is a helluva drug.
The argument here appears to be that if one implements Proper Role Playing, i.e. immersing oneself deeply within the character and attempting to edit one's own brain out of the game, then no player option is 'broken' as any option is only taken by a player who is taking it to remain true to the spirit of the character, and that means it's fine. Yes?
If so: the issue is what happens when one player manages to stumble by random happenstance on a particularly effective combination. Perhaps one player in the group has decided his former soldier lost friends in the war, and has vowed to never again let enemies slip by him when he could stop them, and so he takes Sentinel to reflect that vow. This former soldier retained the halberd he fought the war with and has dedicated himself to its use, learning its intricacies so he can better protect his allies. He takes Polearm Master to represent this. He has no metagamey intent, no desire to Be Da Bess, but simply because he wants to play a heavily armed and armored soldier haunted by losses in the war, he manages to stumble across a powerful combination that just-so-happens to line up with his character ideal.
That player will be significantly more effective than the Great Old One warlock with an 8 in Charisma who uses Pact of the Blade to summon a ritual dagger, and only a ritual dagger, he uses only on those about to die so he can send their soul to Cthulhu. Both of them have a concept in mind for their character. One of those concepts, the game supports very well. The other concept, the player is fighting the mechanics the entire time. Those two players are both just trying to Play Their Role, but they will easily be able to tell who ends up more effective. Perhaps the warlock is fantastic out of combat and that's great - but he's a boat anchor once initiative starts and he will know it. He's going to end up very frustrated by his inability to contribute to the primary game mode of D&D 5e, and eventually he's going to ask why the fighter gets all that 'broken' stuff to make him super good at combat.
Side note: if you don't believe combat is the primary intended game mode of D&D 5e, then there's just no sense in having this conversation because I can't talk to people who tell me the sky is chartreuse and get mad when I point out it's actually blue. Eighty percent of the DMG and the PHB and the entire Monster Manual are dedicated to combat, virtually all class abilities center on things to do in/around/for/with combat, and at least half the spells and magic items are dedicated to combat. That doesn't mean it's wrong to enjoy noncombat D&D, not by any stretch. An unrelenting, nothing-but-fyte D&D campaign would be an awful slog and everybody knows it. But it does mean the rules are overwhelmingly tailored towards facilitating combat, with everything else being a throw-it-in-later afterthought. Again: if you disagree with this - Lyxen - just don't bother trying to debate the point because nobody's ever going to be able to convince you the sky is not, in fact, chartreuse.
This is why a certain level of balance between intra-party options is good. That balance is allowed to be fuzzy. In fact, it can't not be fuzzy because even in a choice-starved game like D&D, the range of Player Competence Levels and the open-endedness of the game is too broad for the developers to hone everything to a knife's edge like a modern shooter game. But getting everybody into the same ballpark helps both the players and the DM to invest more fully in the game and the characters. One guy who's significantly behind the others and constantly *****ing at the rest of the table that they're all powergaming asshats is just as disruptive as one guy being significantly ahead and *****ing at the rest of the table that they're all idiot noobs.
It's not just on the DM, either - part of putting together a gaming group is making sure everybody at the table is okay with the same general style/method of play. That should be an everybody conversation, not just something the players expect the DM to handle as DM Homework while they're off at the casino enjoying blackjack and hookers. And if a player is falling behind or pulling ahead, there should be whole-table conversations about the best way to keep everybody in the same ballpark. Maybe the fighter player agrees to sacrifice Polearm Master in exchange for a homebrew reworked version that lets him feel like a master of the polearm without the obnoxious Sentinel interaction, and maybe the warlock agrees that dumping his casting stat isn't really good for the game and rejiggers his stats, with the understanding that he doesn't have to alter his character's personality around the rejiggered stats.
Nobody can play a game of baseball if everybody's in different ballparks, after all. Same with playing a game of D&D.
EDIT: On "The DM should make sure every single choice a player makes is The Best Choice"
No. Absolutely not. By all means, the DM and the players should talk about what kind of game they'd all like to communally play and then characters should generally be built with that framework in mind. But this idea that every DM's highest calling should be turning every single session of D&D into a job for Aquaman is abhorrent. What an incredible way to ensure that players' choices don't matter at all, and that they could've simply hit "Randomize" in the DDB tool and played that. What a repugnant, horrific notion. I would far rather lose a character to poor choices and learn something in the doing than have the DM contort and mutate the game into some ridiculous contrivance wherein my poor choices are the only thing that Save The Day.
Gods above and below, I'd just stop playing the campaign entirely at that point. There is absolutely no point whatsoever to even calling your game a game if you're going to be pulling this kind of crap, and I cannot condemn it strongly enough.
It never occurred to me to use truestrike BEFORE combat lol! I actually kinda like that! My group of friends REALLY like the teamwork aspect of combat and will often pull off group combos because those are the things you end up talking about after the session is over. Like the Warlock and Monk in my party pulled off an AWESOME combo of setting up a circular wall of fire (Warlock) AROUND the monk with the damage angled INWARD fully knowing his evasion would save him. and the monk through combinations of stunning strike and water whips got like 4 enemies trapped in the circle with him while the fire roasted them, meanwhile taking no damage. That WHOLE fight was filled with characters setting up others for success and because of that, there was a lot of In-Combat RP and we STILL talk about this encounter as a highlight of combat and it all came about from doing things that weren't necessarily the "Best" option for that character, but the best for the group.
I can think of a good use of grappler right here and didn't even think all that much.
difficult high AC bad guy grappled by fighter but still winning, fighter looking bad. Fighter shouts out to group "When I say go, Let 'em have it!. Everyone holds their action for fighters signal. Fighter uses the Pin action granted by grappler and shouts "NOW!" whole party lets lose now with advantage because enemy is restrained. No resources (other than the fighters action) were spent, the WHOLE party got an uninterrupted wave of actions ALL with advantage. And next turn the fighter ends the pin and goes back to smacking (if the bad guy still alive at that point).
And before I'm told "Well that's highly situational" its really not.... This could literally happen in EVERY fight the fighter is able to grapple something in. And if the player is to go so far as picking the grappling feat, they probably enjoy the idea of grappling and picked goliath allowing them to do this with every enemy up to huge sized.
So is grappler specific? Absolutely. But is it useless, not at all. I literally just thought of this application for it glimpsing through this thread, and I'm sure more uses can be found.
I can whole heartedly agree though that true strike is dumb lol
Fair enough on the grapple very specific scenario but to be honest it would be better to just....Hold Person/Monster the thing....if you are relying on them getting a high enough check without expertise or increased STR (Both alternative options to grappler) then its pretty much a lost cause. Basically making the check a higher likelihood of success is just....better. Especially in this scenario where everyone is reliant on that check succeeding...
Also you could just....use a net with no feat investment.
And honestly just one specific scenario vs. the other benefits of having alternatives (Higher STR to hit, Tavern Brawler for the +1 to STR and BA grapple, Skill expert to get expertise) its less about finding a way to make it useful and more the opportunity cost of taking vs your other options.
Thats the real issue with grappler....you may succeed in this one very unlikely scenario but you give up a lot more to make it even possible.
There is not a build where a different feat wouldn't be better for the character overall due to this opportunity cost....thats just the sad reality of it.
Aquaman was one of the best characters on Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and his film grossed over $1 billion. The hate for the guy who "talks to fish" needs to stop. If someone wanted to play Aquaman at my table, I'd darn well help them.
Setting that toxicity aside, the issue isn't people with effective combinations. Those are largely fine. Most people don't min-max and steal thunder from others. The issue is telling people that perfectly valid choices are actually invalid.
Aquaman was one of the best characters on Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and his film grossed over $1 billion. The hate for the guy who "talks to fish" needs to stop. If someone wanted to play Aquaman at my table, I'd darn well help them.
Setting that toxicity aside, the issue isn't people with effective combinations. Those are largely fine. Most people don't min-max and steal thunder from others. The issue is telling people that perfectly valid choices are actually invalid.
Being honest that something isn't the best isn't invalidating it.... It's more that you are being honest on its weaknesses and making sure someone understands the cost
Aquaman was one of the best characters on Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and his film grossed over $1 billion. The hate for the guy who "talks to fish" needs to stop. If someone wanted to play Aquaman at my table, I'd darn well help them.
Setting that toxicity aside, the issue isn't people with effective combinations. Those are largely fine. Most people don't min-max and steal thunder from others. The issue is telling people that perfectly valid choices are actually invalid.
Being honest that something isn't the best isn't invalidating it.... It's more that you are being honest on its weaknesses and making sure someone understands the cost
It doesn't matter if you think a particular choice is "the best" or not. What matters is whether it helps the player do what they want to do. If the answer is "yes", then it's the best choice for them. A creative player will find a way to make it work. A DM should encourage that creativity, not stifle it.
Aquaman was one of the best characters on Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and his film grossed over $1 billion. The hate for the guy who "talks to fish" needs to stop. If someone wanted to play Aquaman at my table, I'd darn well help them.
Setting that toxicity aside, the issue isn't people with effective combinations. Those are largely fine. Most people don't min-max and steal thunder from others. The issue is telling people that perfectly valid choices are actually invalid.
Being honest that something isn't the best isn't invalidating it.... It's more that you are being honest on its weaknesses and making sure someone understands the cost
It doesn't matter if you think a particular choice is "the best" or not. What matters is whether it helps the player do what they want to do. If the answer is "yes", then it's the best choice for them. A creative player will find a way to make it work. A DM should encourage that creativity, not stifle it.
That's The point... grappler is bad at making them good at grappling.
Aquaman was one of the best characters on Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and his film grossed over $1 billion. The hate for the guy who "talks to fish" needs to stop. If someone wanted to play Aquaman at my table, I'd darn well help them.
Setting that toxicity aside, the issue isn't people with effective combinations. Those are largely fine. Most people don't min-max and steal thunder from others. The issue is telling people that perfectly valid choices are actually invalid.
Being honest that something isn't the best isn't invalidating it.... It's more that you are being honest on its weaknesses and making sure someone understands the cost
It doesn't matter if you think a particular choice is "the best" or not. What matters is whether it helps the player do what they want to do. If the answer is "yes", then it's the best choice for them. A creative player will find a way to make it work. A DM should encourage that creativity, not stifle it.
That's The point... grappler is bad at making them good at grappling.
You can be creative and make up a better feat!
That's just not true. They're objectively better at grappling, receiving advantage on melee attacks against a grappled target. And it gives them a new option, restraining the target, that comes with an opportunity cost. And restrained is an objectively better condition to leave a foe in than merely prone. Yes, the grappler is also restrained. This is called a risk-return payoff, not unlike fighting in melee versus fighting at range.
Yes, spells like hold person and hold monster could also do the job, and do it better. They also cost spell slots, which might be tapped out or are being saved for something else. They might not be prepared or known. And they require concentration, which might be taken up by something else. A grappler doesn't have to worry about any of that. It's just another solution for the same problem. It opens up more options for the party.
I still can't believe some people are still arguing against adding more tools to their toolbox. I know I'm not going to convince you, you're a lost cause. Your mind has been made up. But others...I still have hope for them.
Aquaman was one of the best characters on Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and his film grossed over $1 billion. The hate for the guy who "talks to fish" needs to stop. If someone wanted to play Aquaman at my table, I'd darn well help them.
Setting that toxicity aside, the issue isn't people with effective combinations. Those are largely fine. Most people don't min-max and steal thunder from others. The issue is telling people that perfectly valid choices are actually invalid.
Being honest that something isn't the best isn't invalidating it.... It's more that you are being honest on its weaknesses and making sure someone understands the cost
It doesn't matter if you think a particular choice is "the best" or not. What matters is whether it helps the player do what they want to do. If the answer is "yes", then it's the best choice for them. A creative player will find a way to make it work. A DM should encourage that creativity, not stifle it.
That's The point... grappler is bad at making them good at grappling.
You can be creative and make up a better feat!
That's just not true. They're objectively better at grappling, receiving advantage on melee attacks against a grappled target. And it gives them a new option, restraining the target, that comes with an opportunity cost. And restrained is an objectively better condition to leave a foe in than merely prone. Yes, the grappler is also restrained. This is called a risk-return payoff, not unlike fighting in melee versus fighting at range.
Yes, spells like hold person and hold monster could also do the job, and do it better. They also cost spell slots, which might be tapped out or are being saved for something else. They might not be prepared or known. And they require concentration, which might be taken up by something else. A grappler doesn't have to worry about any of that. It's just another solution for the same problem. It opens up more options for the party.
I still can't believe some people are still arguing against adding more tools to their toolbox. I know I'm not going to convince you, you're a lost cause. Your mind has been made up. But others...I still have hope for them.
The main issue is there are at least 5 or more feats that are better. That also means you take it instead of ASI which makes your checks better.
100% your creative nature should be spent coming up with a better feat you make yourself.
Aquaman was one of the best characters on Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and his film grossed over $1 billion. The hate for the guy who "talks to fish" needs to stop. If someone wanted to play Aquaman at my table, I'd darn well help them.
Setting that toxicity aside, the issue isn't people with effective combinations. Those are largely fine. Most people don't min-max and steal thunder from others. The issue is telling people that perfectly valid choices are actually invalid.
Being honest that something isn't the best isn't invalidating it.... It's more that you are being honest on its weaknesses and making sure someone understands the cost
It doesn't matter if you think a particular choice is "the best" or not. What matters is whether it helps the player do what they want to do. If the answer is "yes", then it's the best choice for them. A creative player will find a way to make it work. A DM should encourage that creativity, not stifle it.
That's The point... grappler is bad at making them good at grappling.
You can be creative and make up a better feat!
That's just not true. They're objectively better at grappling, receiving advantage on melee attacks against a grappled target. And it gives them a new option, restraining the target, that comes with an opportunity cost. And restrained is an objectively better condition to leave a foe in than merely prone. Yes, the grappler is also restrained. This is called a risk-return payoff, not unlike fighting in melee versus fighting at range.
Yes, spells like hold person and hold monster could also do the job, and do it better. They also cost spell slots, which might be tapped out or are being saved for something else. They might not be prepared or known. And they require concentration, which might be taken up by something else. A grappler doesn't have to worry about any of that. It's just another solution for the same problem. It opens up more options for the party.
I still can't believe some people are still arguing against adding more tools to their toolbox. I know I'm not going to convince you, you're a lost cause. Your mind has been made up. But others...I still have hope for them.
The main issue is there are at least 5 or more feats that are better. That also means you take it instead of ASI which makes your checks better.
100% your creative nature should be spent coming up with a better feat you make yourself.
At least 5 more feats better at what? Is it just grappling, or something else? What are these mythical feats?
And, again, opportunity cost. The player decides what it's worth to them. You, as an outside observer, don't get a say. Their character sheet, their choice.
Continue hating all you want. I'm sipping iced tea. Raspberry, if you must know.
Tavern Brawler: +1 to Str for better checks, grapple as. BA means you can Garpple/prone even with one attack.
Skill Expertise: +1 Str for better checks, Expertise in Athletics
Brawny UA: +1 Str for better checks, Large Build means you can lift a bigger opponent, Expertise in ATH
Fighting Initiate: unarmed fighting style for d4 damage grapples and can keep hands free
Prodigy: see skill expert
Mobile: you can move a grappled enemy. Getting extra movement helps get them where you want them. The rest of the feat is just great for any martial.
Lucky: fail that contest? Nope! I roll again.
Martial adept: trip attack means you can still attack and prone then grapple
Magic initiate Druid- Guidance before battle gives you a d4 to your first grapple check. Help everyone outside of combat too. Jump spell means you can straight up jump and drop an enemy as a free action.
It doesn't matter if you think a particular choice is "the best" or not. What matters is whether it helps the player do what they want to do. If the answer is "yes", then it's the best choice for them. A creative player will find a way to make it work. A DM should encourage that creativity, not stifle it.
There's not actually a lot of creativity to what you can do with many choices, they're just flat mechanical benefits. The problem is when two or more choices both work to do what the player wants to do, but one of them is better at it.
I actually agree with almost everything OptimusGrimus wrote. I think all the anecdotel evidence just highlight problem players (who would have disrupted play whether they were min/maxing or not). In my experience, that can "easily" circumvented with a proper session 0 and good communication. Furthermore, my players actually like when I gave them advice on what is good. Then, they can make an informed choice. On the other hand, I had groups in which some players made "bad" mechanical choices and they didn't enjoyed their character because it was not doing what they imagined. Thus, I think, it is absoultely fine that players explore the best option for what they want (and so far it never was the Grapple feat for that matter...).
Therefore, I personally think it is very good to ask and to know about what is mechanical good and have rankings and all that supposedly bad "powergaming stuff". Based on that it is way easier to balance the game around players, have a conversation about how to achieve a certain character concept and play the game the group (dm + players) want.
I actually agree with almost everything OptimusGrimus wrote. I think all the anecdotel evidence just highlight problem players (who would have disrupted play whether they were min/maxing or not). In my experience, that can "easily" circumvented with a proper session 0 and good communication. Furthermore, my players actually like when I gave them advice on what is good. Then, they can make an informed choice. On the other hand, I had groups in which some players made "bad" mechanical choices and they didn't enjoyed their character because it was not doing what they imagined. Thus, I think, it is absoultely fine that players explore the best option for what they want (and so far it never was the Grapple feat for that matter...).
Therefore, I personally think it is very good to ask and to know about what is mechanical good and have rankings and all that supposedly bad "powergaming stuff". Based on that it is way easier to balance the game around players, have a conversation about how to achieve a certain character concept and play the game the group (dm + players) want.
This....
Basically if you truly believe any playstyle can work you will work it out ahead of time for everyone to be in on it including the DM.
EDIT: On "The DM should make sure every single choice a player makes is The Best Choice"
No. Absolutely not. By all means, the DM and the players should talk about what kind of game they'd all like to communally play and then characters should generally be built with that framework in mind. But this idea that every DM's highest calling should be turning every single session of D&D into a job for Aquaman is abhorrent. What an incredible way to ensure that players' choices don't matter at all, and that they could've simply hit "Randomize" in the DDB tool and played that. What a repugnant, horrific notion. I would far rather lose a character to poor choices and learn something in the doing than have the DM contort and mutate the game into some ridiculous contrivance wherein my poor choices are the only thing that Save The Day.
Gods above and below, I'd just stop playing the campaign entirely at that point. There is absolutely no point whatsoever to even calling your game a game if you're going to be pulling this kind of crap, and I cannot condemn it strongly enough.
Just.
Say.
NO.
To jobbing like Aquaman.
100% agreed.
Keen Mind comes to mind as an example of a feat that is sort of half trap (you still get +1 Int) by forcing the DM to either change the way they want to run campaign to make it useful or make half of the feat obsolete. Unless you know for a fact that the way your DM runs, it will make eidetic memory and built in compass useful.
EDIT: On "The DM should make sure every single choice a player makes is The Best Choice"
No. Absolutely not. By all means, the DM and the players should talk about what kind of game they'd all like to communally play and then characters should generally be built with that framework in mind. But this idea that every DM's highest calling should be turning every single session of D&D into a job for Aquaman is abhorrent. What an incredible way to ensure that players' choices don't matter at all, and that they could've simply hit "Randomize" in the DDB tool and played that. What a repugnant, horrific notion. I would far rather lose a character to poor choices and learn something in the doing than have the DM contort and mutate the game into some ridiculous contrivance wherein my poor choices are the only thing that Save The Day.
Gods above and below, I'd just stop playing the campaign entirely at that point. There is absolutely no point whatsoever to even calling your game a game if you're going to be pulling this kind of crap, and I cannot condemn it strongly enough.
Just.
Say.
NO.
To jobbing like Aquaman.
100% agreed.
Keen Mind comes to mind as an example of a feat that is either sort of half trap (you still get +1 Int) or forcing the DM to either change the way they want to run campaign to make it useful or make half of the feat obsolete. Unless you know for a fact that the way your DM runs, it will make eidetic memory and built in compass useful.
This one at least has good flavor and could be used outside of combat to be useful.
Grappler is just out classed in every way because its strictly a mechanical feat that is outclassed by other mechanical feats.
EDIT: On "The DM should make sure every single choice a player makes is The Best Choice"
No. Absolutely not. By all means, the DM and the players should talk about what kind of game they'd all like to communally play and then characters should generally be built with that framework in mind. But this idea that every DM's highest calling should be turning every single session of D&D into a job for Aquaman is abhorrent. What an incredible way to ensure that players' choices don't matter at all, and that they could've simply hit "Randomize" in the DDB tool and played that. What a repugnant, horrific notion. I would far rather lose a character to poor choices and learn something in the doing than have the DM contort and mutate the game into some ridiculous contrivance wherein my poor choices are the only thing that Save The Day.
Gods above and below, I'd just stop playing the campaign entirely at that point. There is absolutely no point whatsoever to even calling your game a game if you're going to be pulling this kind of crap, and I cannot condemn it strongly enough.
Just.
Say.
NO.
To jobbing like Aquaman.
100% agreed.
Keen Mind comes to mind as an example of a feat that is either sort of half trap (you still get +1 Int) or forcing the DM to either change the way they want to run campaign to make it useful or make half of the feat obsolete. Unless you know for a fact that the way your DM runs, it will make eidetic memory and built in compass useful.
This one at least has good flavor and could be used outside of combat to be useful.
Grappler is just out classed in every way because its strictly a mechanical feat that is outclassed by other mechanical feats.
Sure, the flavor is there and we have TV shows and movies to thank for that. As for usage outside combat, well here comes the DM trying to manufacture specific scenarios that lets you shine if you don't want to end up doing memory parlor tricks for beer in a tavern :D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am uncertain of what you mean? Are you actually saying either is a good choice? If so its worse than I thought...
But back to the actual topic:
I do think Animate Objects is fairly overtuned. As the think DM article suggests it violates a lot of the guidelines that the DMG puts on spells and Tiny objects far outpace damage for that level.
It also is hard to dispel as you can only dispel one creature at a time with Dispel Magic. Attacking the creatures with AoE is suggested but likely they are centered around a target so AoE would effect the target as well which means you are basically having the enemy use an action to damage itself or an ally. Also with the HP and saves its likely that they will survive a stand AoE attack meaning the enemy is taking 2 turns minimum to attempt to dispel the magic which might not even work. In the mean time they are putting out like 45 damage per round as a BONUS ACTION. This means that the caster can still cast spells with their action! They can cast fireball and do an additional 28 average damge to another group of enemies or some other kind of non-concentration spell.
Overall its definitely over tuned and I think their solution for the spell works well.
I can think of a good use of grappler right here and didn't even think all that much.
difficult high AC bad guy grappled by fighter but still winning, fighter looking bad. Fighter shouts out to group "When I say go, Let 'em have it!. Everyone holds their action for fighters signal. Fighter uses the Pin action granted by grappler and shouts "NOW!" whole party lets lose now with advantage because enemy is restrained. No resources (other than the fighters action) were spent, the WHOLE party got an uninterrupted wave of actions ALL with advantage. And next turn the fighter ends the pin and goes back to smacking (if the bad guy still alive at that point).
And before I'm told "Well that's highly situational" its really not.... This could literally happen in EVERY fight the fighter is able to grapple something in. And if the player is to go so far as picking the grappling feat, they probably enjoy the idea of grappling and picked goliath allowing them to do this with every enemy up to huge sized.
So is grappler specific? Absolutely. But is it useless, not at all. I literally just thought of this application for it glimpsing through this thread, and I'm sure more uses can be found.
I can whole heartedly agree though that true strike is dumb lol
That's a good example of Grappler. Yes, it's a great teamwork feat. That's what sets it apart from so many of the other popular feats in the "meta". The people who grade these feats almost exclusively care about making the PC better. They don't care about bolstering the party as a whole; which is somewhat understandable. Every party is different, so their needs can vary wildly. People don't like the Commander's Strike maneuver for the same reason. They can't fathom giving up an attack to give someone else in the party an attack that might do more damage, like a paladin or rogue. "Situational" is a dirty word in those circles. What they're also forgetting is that everything is situational. That said, it's fine not to know the maneuver. But to decry these choices is the D&D equivalent of cutting off one's nose to spite their face.
Take true strike for example. It's great before Initiative has been rolled. It has no material component, so a sorcerer can cast it with Subtle Spell without triggering a fight if they think things are going to go south. A rogue, likewise, cannot use their Sneak Attack with disadvantage. If the potential damage dealt by waiting a turn and getting in a Sneak Attack is greater than two attacks made without sneak Attack and at disadvantage, then it's a worthwhile option. Granted, these are edge cases. But that shouldn't have a bearing on whether or not they're known by a PC. Players should be looking for opportunities to use their choices. And the DM, aware of their PCs' capabilities, should present situations to highlight player choices.
There can, and I think should, even talk between sessions to make sure stuff like this can happen. There are no bad ideas during a brainstorming session, but don't invalidate a previous choice by saying it was bad. That's not productive. Anyone can tear down. Actually building something is an achievement. Validate those existing choices by giving the PC moments to shine. But this also requires patience and a willingness to learn; to understand how all the different pieces work together. Not everyone wants to. Instant gratification is a helluva drug.
Avoiding over-specifics such as Grappler...
The argument here appears to be that if one implements Proper Role Playing, i.e. immersing oneself deeply within the character and attempting to edit one's own brain out of the game, then no player option is 'broken' as any option is only taken by a player who is taking it to remain true to the spirit of the character, and that means it's fine. Yes?
If so: the issue is what happens when one player manages to stumble by random happenstance on a particularly effective combination. Perhaps one player in the group has decided his former soldier lost friends in the war, and has vowed to never again let enemies slip by him when he could stop them, and so he takes Sentinel to reflect that vow. This former soldier retained the halberd he fought the war with and has dedicated himself to its use, learning its intricacies so he can better protect his allies. He takes Polearm Master to represent this. He has no metagamey intent, no desire to Be Da Bess, but simply because he wants to play a heavily armed and armored soldier haunted by losses in the war, he manages to stumble across a powerful combination that just-so-happens to line up with his character ideal.
That player will be significantly more effective than the Great Old One warlock with an 8 in Charisma who uses Pact of the Blade to summon a ritual dagger, and only a ritual dagger, he uses only on those about to die so he can send their soul to Cthulhu. Both of them have a concept in mind for their character. One of those concepts, the game supports very well. The other concept, the player is fighting the mechanics the entire time. Those two players are both just trying to Play Their Role, but they will easily be able to tell who ends up more effective. Perhaps the warlock is fantastic out of combat and that's great - but he's a boat anchor once initiative starts and he will know it. He's going to end up very frustrated by his inability to contribute to the primary game mode of D&D 5e, and eventually he's going to ask why the fighter gets all that 'broken' stuff to make him super good at combat.
Side note: if you don't believe combat is the primary intended game mode of D&D 5e, then there's just no sense in having this conversation because I can't talk to people who tell me the sky is chartreuse and get mad when I point out it's actually blue. Eighty percent of the DMG and the PHB and the entire Monster Manual are dedicated to combat, virtually all class abilities center on things to do in/around/for/with combat, and at least half the spells and magic items are dedicated to combat. That doesn't mean it's wrong to enjoy noncombat D&D, not by any stretch. An unrelenting, nothing-but-fyte D&D campaign would be an awful slog and everybody knows it. But it does mean the rules are overwhelmingly tailored towards facilitating combat, with everything else being a throw-it-in-later afterthought. Again: if you disagree with this - Lyxen - just don't bother trying to debate the point because nobody's ever going to be able to convince you the sky is not, in fact, chartreuse.
This is why a certain level of balance between intra-party options is good. That balance is allowed to be fuzzy. In fact, it can't not be fuzzy because even in a choice-starved game like D&D, the range of Player Competence Levels and the open-endedness of the game is too broad for the developers to hone everything to a knife's edge like a modern shooter game. But getting everybody into the same ballpark helps both the players and the DM to invest more fully in the game and the characters. One guy who's significantly behind the others and constantly *****ing at the rest of the table that they're all powergaming asshats is just as disruptive as one guy being significantly ahead and *****ing at the rest of the table that they're all idiot noobs.
It's not just on the DM, either - part of putting together a gaming group is making sure everybody at the table is okay with the same general style/method of play. That should be an everybody conversation, not just something the players expect the DM to handle as DM Homework while they're off at the casino enjoying blackjack and hookers. And if a player is falling behind or pulling ahead, there should be whole-table conversations about the best way to keep everybody in the same ballpark. Maybe the fighter player agrees to sacrifice Polearm Master in exchange for a homebrew reworked version that lets him feel like a master of the polearm without the obnoxious Sentinel interaction, and maybe the warlock agrees that dumping his casting stat isn't really good for the game and rejiggers his stats, with the understanding that he doesn't have to alter his character's personality around the rejiggered stats.
Nobody can play a game of baseball if everybody's in different ballparks, after all. Same with playing a game of D&D.
EDIT: On "The DM should make sure every single choice a player makes is The Best Choice"
No. Absolutely not. By all means, the DM and the players should talk about what kind of game they'd all like to communally play and then characters should generally be built with that framework in mind. But this idea that every DM's highest calling should be turning every single session of D&D into a job for Aquaman is abhorrent. What an incredible way to ensure that players' choices don't matter at all, and that they could've simply hit "Randomize" in the DDB tool and played that. What a repugnant, horrific notion. I would far rather lose a character to poor choices and learn something in the doing than have the DM contort and mutate the game into some ridiculous contrivance wherein my poor choices are the only thing that Save The Day.
Gods above and below, I'd just stop playing the campaign entirely at that point. There is absolutely no point whatsoever to even calling your game a game if you're going to be pulling this kind of crap, and I cannot condemn it strongly enough.
Just.
Say.
NO.
To jobbing like Aquaman.
Please do not contact or message me.
It never occurred to me to use truestrike BEFORE combat lol! I actually kinda like that! My group of friends REALLY like the teamwork aspect of combat and will often pull off group combos because those are the things you end up talking about after the session is over. Like the Warlock and Monk in my party pulled off an AWESOME combo of setting up a circular wall of fire (Warlock) AROUND the monk with the damage angled INWARD fully knowing his evasion would save him. and the monk through combinations of stunning strike and water whips got like 4 enemies trapped in the circle with him while the fire roasted them, meanwhile taking no damage. That WHOLE fight was filled with characters setting up others for success and because of that, there was a lot of In-Combat RP and we STILL talk about this encounter as a highlight of combat and it all came about from doing things that weren't necessarily the "Best" option for that character, but the best for the group.
Fair enough on the grapple very specific scenario but to be honest it would be better to just....Hold Person/Monster the thing....if you are relying on them getting a high enough check without expertise or increased STR (Both alternative options to grappler) then its pretty much a lost cause. Basically making the check a higher likelihood of success is just....better. Especially in this scenario where everyone is reliant on that check succeeding...
Also you could just....use a net with no feat investment.
And honestly just one specific scenario vs. the other benefits of having alternatives (Higher STR to hit, Tavern Brawler for the +1 to STR and BA grapple, Skill expert to get expertise) its less about finding a way to make it useful and more the opportunity cost of taking vs your other options.
Thats the real issue with grappler....you may succeed in this one very unlikely scenario but you give up a lot more to make it even possible.
There is not a build where a different feat wouldn't be better for the character overall due to this opportunity cost....thats just the sad reality of it.
Aquaman was one of the best characters on Batman: The Brave and the Bold, and his film grossed over $1 billion. The hate for the guy who "talks to fish" needs to stop. If someone wanted to play Aquaman at my table, I'd darn well help them.
Setting that toxicity aside, the issue isn't people with effective combinations. Those are largely fine. Most people don't min-max and steal thunder from others. The issue is telling people that perfectly valid choices are actually invalid.
Being honest that something isn't the best isn't invalidating it.... It's more that you are being honest on its weaknesses and making sure someone understands the cost
It doesn't matter if you think a particular choice is "the best" or not. What matters is whether it helps the player do what they want to do. If the answer is "yes", then it's the best choice for them. A creative player will find a way to make it work. A DM should encourage that creativity, not stifle it.
That's The point... grappler is bad at making them good at grappling.
You can be creative and make up a better feat!
That's just not true. They're objectively better at grappling, receiving advantage on melee attacks against a grappled target. And it gives them a new option, restraining the target, that comes with an opportunity cost. And restrained is an objectively better condition to leave a foe in than merely prone. Yes, the grappler is also restrained. This is called a risk-return payoff, not unlike fighting in melee versus fighting at range.
Yes, spells like hold person and hold monster could also do the job, and do it better. They also cost spell slots, which might be tapped out or are being saved for something else. They might not be prepared or known. And they require concentration, which might be taken up by something else. A grappler doesn't have to worry about any of that. It's just another solution for the same problem. It opens up more options for the party.
I still can't believe some people are still arguing against adding more tools to their toolbox. I know I'm not going to convince you, you're a lost cause. Your mind has been made up. But others...I still have hope for them.
The main issue is there are at least 5 or more feats that are better. That also means you take it instead of ASI which makes your checks better.
100% your creative nature should be spent coming up with a better feat you make yourself.
At least 5 more feats better at what? Is it just grappling, or something else? What are these mythical feats?
And, again, opportunity cost. The player decides what it's worth to them. You, as an outside observer, don't get a say. Their character sheet, their choice.
Continue hating all you want. I'm sipping iced tea. Raspberry, if you must know.
Feats better than Grappler:
Tavern Brawler: +1 to Str for better checks, grapple as. BA means you can Garpple/prone even with one attack.
Skill Expertise: +1 Str for better checks, Expertise in Athletics
Brawny UA: +1 Str for better checks, Large Build means you can lift a bigger opponent, Expertise in ATH
Fighting Initiate: unarmed fighting style for d4 damage grapples and can keep hands free
Prodigy: see skill expert
Mobile: you can move a grappled enemy. Getting extra movement helps get them where you want them. The rest of the feat is just great for any martial.
Lucky: fail that contest? Nope! I roll again.
Martial adept: trip attack means you can still attack and prone then grapple
Magic initiate Druid- Guidance before battle gives you a d4 to your first grapple check. Help everyone outside of combat too. Jump spell means you can straight up jump and drop an enemy as a free action.
There's not actually a lot of creativity to what you can do with many choices, they're just flat mechanical benefits. The problem is when two or more choices both work to do what the player wants to do, but one of them is better at it.
I actually agree with almost everything OptimusGrimus wrote. I think all the anecdotel evidence just highlight problem players (who would have disrupted play whether they were min/maxing or not). In my experience, that can "easily" circumvented with a proper session 0 and good communication. Furthermore, my players actually like when I gave them advice on what is good. Then, they can make an informed choice. On the other hand, I had groups in which some players made "bad" mechanical choices and they didn't enjoyed their character because it was not doing what they imagined. Thus, I think, it is absoultely fine that players explore the best option for what they want (and so far it never was the Grapple feat for that matter...).
Therefore, I personally think it is very good to ask and to know about what is mechanical good and have rankings and all that supposedly bad "powergaming stuff". Based on that it is way easier to balance the game around players, have a conversation about how to achieve a certain character concept and play the game the group (dm + players) want.
This....
Basically if you truly believe any playstyle can work you will work it out ahead of time for everyone to be in on it including the DM.
100% agreed.
Keen Mind comes to mind as an example of a feat that is sort of half trap (you still get +1 Int) by forcing the DM to either change the way they want to run campaign to make it useful or make half of the feat obsolete. Unless you know for a fact that the way your DM runs, it will make eidetic memory and built in compass useful.
This one at least has good flavor and could be used outside of combat to be useful.
Grappler is just out classed in every way because its strictly a mechanical feat that is outclassed by other mechanical feats.
Sure, the flavor is there and we have TV shows and movies to thank for that. As for usage outside combat, well here comes the DM trying to manufacture specific scenarios that lets you shine if you don't want to end up doing memory parlor tricks for beer in a tavern :D