Lets say it is rarely used, what that means is it took away their ability to rarely shine in combat. I'm not sure that is a good thing. The idea though that rogues can't sneak attack when people run way without disengaging, sneak attack with a readied ambush, seems off and if they rarely got it from order cleric, haste or a weird sentinel build etc the loss of it when I think it was clearly intended(ready/AoOs) seems a bigger problem than it solved. And even if in this case it was good over all, what did they gain in return for it a class that even when they could get reaction sneak attacks off was on the weaker end of classes. Well nothing and heck their one sub class presented was nerfed as well.
They have skills to shine out of combat, woo with backgrounds and class choices anyone who wants to be sneaky can be, expertise I mean that is okay but the DCs for sneaking etc aren't really that high the die mechanic design is around having a fairly narrow range of differences in bonuses.(I think its kind of bad design as it over emphasizes the d20 roll as the determiner of skill) So what exactly are rogues getting. All they have is job satisfaction in that people like the idea behind being a rogue. The mechanics just aren't up to snuff though.
Allow rogues to sneak attack with any weapon attack, when they add arcane trickster let them sneak attack with magic attacks as well. Expand sneak attack to a handful of moves to provide alternate effects beyond just meh damage some of which don't need an ally/advantage give them something, don't just take away.
This already was one of the mechanically weaker classes, and all they did is take away from it when bard one of the mechanically powerful classes at worst stayed even but maybe got a buff overall and ranger definitely got a buff mechanically though lost thematic elements. So fine take away this "exploit" but give more than you took away as it was a weaker class.
From what I understand, being able to reliably hit sneak attacks on off turns is a consistantly used method on the min-maxer circles. This is just 1dnd closing abused loopholes from what I understand. Its why we can't have nice things.
Though, if you really want it, complain in the survey. Its a test to see how married people are to the idea of it.
To me I saw it as a way to be more of a up front rogue instead of the playing it as a slip in and out rogue. It gave you more options as it was a threat you can use on your enemies and force them to use their action to disengage. It gave you more freedom to play your rogue anyway you wanted. Much how you could play the arcana domain cleric as a range or up front fighter depending on how you built it, but I guess some people are stuck with the mentality that there is only one way to play as a rogue and that is to slip in and out.
Even when compared to casters optimized GWF and SS martial classes are generally doing more DPR through a typical adventuring day than casters are simply due to it costing 0 resources. Spellcasters really only shine in DPR if they are able to hit 3+ creatures routinely with AoE damage. In the majority of situations like that, minions are generally wiped out in one or two castings and the 2nd half of the fight frequently becomes single-target focused to finish off the "boss"). Full casters benefits come more from diversity of what they can do than sheer DPR/Nova numbers. There is a reason that the highest sustained damage optimized characters in-game tend to be SS/XBM Fighters or GWM/PAM Fighters. With how easy it is to get advantage to offset the -5 to hit (or effective -3 if you consider Archery FS) and a +4 Ability Bonus that is a rather reliable minimum of 15 x 5 (75) damage per turn (60 if you assume ~75-80% hit chance) every round all day.
Also, we don't yet know what they are going to be doing to spellcaster damage in the future. By seeing the way things are looking, I would not be surprised to see WOTC looking to reduce overall damage output across the board in general. The lower and less spikey damage output is overall, the easier it is to "balance" combat encounters, especially for new DMs. We'll have to wait and see the details for spellcasters to truly know how GWF/SS nerfs effect martial vs spellcaster balance.
DPR isn't everything and was usually considered the weakest option a full caster could do in combat. Part of that was because you knew your martial would be knocking out great DPR so you focusing on crowd control etc was just a better action for the team. But GWM etc let the martial at least have one niche, highest sustained damage in combat and even with that most still considered full casters the better classes.
And yeah sure we don't know what they will do to full casters. But all I have to playtest these changes against is the current spell casters.
I think just limiting it to once per round instead of once per turn would do it, i.e. once in the time between the start of the rogue's turn and just before the beginning of their next, rather than potentially on each and every enemy's turn.
It's what 4th edition did. It meant having something like a warlord to grant out of turn attacks was handy because there was a chance you missed on your turn, but wasn't the overwhelming damage increase it is in 5e.
The change to sneak attack is consistent with other decisions in 5e, though -- extra attack only works on your turn (making readying the attack action terrible), readying spells is also terrible (eats the spell slot even if not used, requires concentration).
I'm a bit mystified why they made polearm master better, though. Sure, it's no longer an opportunity attack so it doesn't interact with abilities that boost opportunity attacks (though it also doesn't interact with abilities that prevent opportunity attacks, so that's kind of net neutral), and you can't use it with a spear or staff (the polearm mastery/dueling/shield setups were kinda silly), but it didn't lose anything else and it became a half feat.
I think just limiting it to once per round instead of once per turn would do it, i.e. once in the time between the start of the rogue's turn and just before the beginning of their next, rather than potentially on each and every enemy's turn.
It's what 4th edition did. It meant having something like a warlord to grant out of turn attacks was handy because there was a chance you missed on your turn, but wasn't the overwhelming damage increase it is in 5e.
The change to sneak attack is consistent with other decisions in 5e, though -- extra attack only works on your turn (making readying the attack action terrible), readying spells is also terrible (eats the spell slot even if not used, requires concentration).
I'm a bit mystified why they made polearm master better, though. Sure, it's no longer an opportunity attack so it doesn't interact with abilities that boost opportunity attacks (though it also doesn't interact with abilities that prevent opportunity attacks, so that's kind of net neutral), and you can't use it with a spear or staff (the polearm mastery/dueling/shield setups were kinda silly), but it didn't lose anything else and it became a half feat.
The "problem" with PAM currently (if you consider it one) though isn't PAM itself, but how it interacts with GWM and Sentinel. If you look at PAM on it's own it wasn't problematic. I can agree that it didn't NEED the +1 STR added to it; but considering EVERY 4th level feat is a 1/2 feat, that means they would have needed to make it a 8th level or higher feat (assuming ALL feats aren't going to be 1/2 feats now).
Also, I don't agree that PAM+Shield+Spear+Dueling was "silly" at all. It's a VERY effective fighting style and very balanced. Makes for a great front line combat controller. When combined with Battlemaster Maneuvers and/or Paladin Smites/Improved Divine Smite features puts out consistent damage while defending the rest of the party.
The "problem" with PAM currently (if you consider it one) though isn't PAM itself, but how it interacts with GWM and Sentinel. If you look at PAM on it's own it wasn't problematic.
Um... yes it was. Getting both a bonus action attack and a reaction attack, both of which add all of your damage bonuses and are quite easy to qualify for, is a huge damage increase.
There are two ways to look at that, though. It could be that it is too much compared to other melee options, or that other melee options do too little.
My general opinion of GWM and PAM in 5e was that they were overpowered but made strength builds viable (I had more issues with SS).
There are two ways to look at that, though. It could be that it is too much compared to other melee options, or that other melee options do too little.
How much are casters going to be nerfed to balance this now?
Personally I think other options were doing too little. Melee it was GWm, ranged it was SS but all other options looked just bad. If they massively nerf spell casters that is an option but i don't think it will be well received. I'm okay with nerfiing them I've said they could consider going a 4e model for a lot of the spells by making them ritual only and giving everyone access to rituals, and all spells need something like a save, to hit, and HP thresholds work as well. As there are problem spells like wall of force with no save, or hyptnotic pattern with only a initial save when every other effect is a save every round. Nerf some spells, open up rituals you may be on your way to balancing classes, but I think even with that you need some oomph for martials. People seem to claim PF 2e is balanced, given the action system where 2nd hit is at -5, 3rd at -10 if they use all actions for attacks and using your shield for its AC bonus takes a action, so I am assuming martials hit for more than 1d8+5. Look to them maybe for giving martials a bit more.
It can go to far I think were sometimes all casters feel like are hirelings so the martials can do the big stuff. 4e could feel like that sometimes where you are robin handling the weaklings while the fighters are batman taking on the joker. But there is a issue currently imo, even if the dude who wants to just smash things with his barbarian is still having fun at our tables its hard not to see it.
I’m missing the nerf to spellcasters overall. I see a buff to Bard in this UA. They gain greater over all versatility at the cost of not having a high spell level versatility. So you can’t get rid of low level spells to have more high level spells. That’s not a nerf. Why are so many of you jumping to the worst possible scenario. That this is they way casting will work for all classes. We know that’s impossible because Warlock will still have Pact magic in some form. That’s confirmed by this UA. If you warlock can only prepare spells of the level of their spell slots it would be very awkward. Also Wizards have spell books. I doubt they will have all Arcane spells available to them to prepare like other casters. It will probably become a thing where Wizards who have less overall access to their spells list has the most control over what spells they prepare from their book. It will likely be the same as it is in 2014 phb or they will swap int mod with proficiency bonus to determine how many spells you can prepare. Sorcerer is the one I’m worried about because I don’t see a reason for them to have a different prepare style than what’s presented in this UA. But it’s still hard to call it a nerf on the Sorcerer. Similar to the Bard the Sorcerer would be gaining over all versatility. Druid and Cleric receiving this style of preparing spells is a nerf.
We are not seeing a nerf yet, that could be because one isn't coming or it could be because we have not seen those classes, spells yet. They have definitely nerfed martials. They can't not have been aware that people think there is a martial/caster divide with martials being on the weaker side of that divide. They are either making it worse, they have some hidden martial buff coming down the line or they are nerfing casters. A nerf is not that unlikely.
We are not seeing a nerf yet, that could be because one isn't coming or it could be because we have not seen those classes, spells yet. They have definitely nerfed martials. They can't not have been aware that people think there is a martial/caster divide with martials being on the weaker side of that divide. They are either making it worse, they have some hidden martial buff coming down the line or they are nerfing casters. A nerf is not that unlikely.
This is the thing that people have to remember. You cannot compare classes against each other at this point except for the 3 classes in this UA. Early playtesting of these UA can only be used to see how the abilities work and flow and not how they compare to what other classes can do because we don't know how those other classes are going to play. I understand the people that say they can only compare this stuff to existing 5E classes, because that's all we have to work with; and while that is technically true, it's also important to note you SHOULDNT being trying to make that comparison at all at this point, because it's an inaccurate representation.
All we can do is compare the 1DD classes against the old versions of themselves and against each other as they are released. Also anyone not familiar with game design needs to understand that "balance" is one of the last things that get modified for during the design process. It is more important to test the design, flow, and interactions of the different classes, feats, and abilities to make sure that is all working as intended and then the actual numbers can be adjusted at the end for balance purposes.
But offering your feedback on the surveys is the best way to get your opinion heard and just because we don't see something change immediately in future UA's doesn't mean that it won't be taken into consideration down the line when WOTC starts working on balancing the different aspects against each other. For all we know there could be 8th and 12th level Martial Feats in store that suddenly makes Martial characters completely outshine classes that have to more closely manage their resources over a typical 8+ encounter adventuring day.
That's just really terrible play test design. Its not really a play test at this point.
They have a choice between waiting another year (or whatever) to have a draft out and then asking people to comment on a gigantic document, or release in small pieces that may lose important context. Neither is a perfect option, they chose the second.
Crawford has explicitly said that Warrior classes "will be able to do things with weapons nobody's ever been able to in 5e before."
Give it a bit. Power Attack was a bad unpleasant feat tax and everybody knows it. Getting rid of it to enable baseline improvements is a good thing. Wait to see, and judge this document on its own merits.
That's just really terrible play test design. Its not really a play test at this point.
They have a choice between waiting another year (or whatever) to have a draft out and then asking people to comment on a gigantic document, or release in small pieces that may lose important context. Neither is a perfect option, they chose the second.
They could have released like level 1 which would be more than 3 pages but not exactly a gigantic document. As is its terrible design as you have no frame of reference for many of these changes, and you can't accurately judge them in a vacuum.
Twelve classes at level 1 would have omitted just as much context as three classes to level 20.
Remember - this is the first pass. There's going to be more passes. Every document in this playtest is likely to get at least two runs, and I'd be disappointed if they started the second run before finishing the first. Next month* we get the next three classes, and so on from there. This isn't the only chance people will get.
I would disagagee about intend. I really don't see the intention being very clear what is presented so far in ONE did not really rebalance the most powerful imbalances. GWM, PAM and Sentinel all got a boost, while Rogues got nerfed. That actually makes the game more imbalanced IMO.
I woudl disagree with your assessment of PAM/Sentinel. The PAM-Sentinel combo is actually stronger than it was before, having the same abilities plus each of the two feats being +1 ASI boost in addition. The only thing it nerfed is you can no longer use spears and quarterstaffs with PAM, but anything you could do with a Glaive or Halberd with PAM and Sentinel you can still do and you get the ability score boost in addition.
How in the world can anyone say that GWM got boosted? Yes, now it's a 1/2 feat the but extra damage is effectively cut in half or more (from +10 to +PB) and can only occur on one hit per turn. So potentially +50 damage in a turn (4 attacks + bonus attack) to +6 total. That is a HUGE nerf and not ANYWHERE near made up for by a +1 STR. For the record though, I do support a NERF to GWF, SS, and XBOX Master feats as they needed to be brought in-line with other fighting styles for balance sake. I'm not sure it needed to be this extreme though. Will have to play to see just how strong/weak it feels compared to TWF now that TWF has also been buffed. Also GWM no longer applies to attacks not on your turn...so even less potential damage per round than current.
PAM also got a nerf in that Reactive Strike no longer counts as an Opportunity Attack. So 10' Reach PAM+Sentinel no longer potentially stops a creature outside of their melee range. The loss of use of Spear/Staff+Shield+PAM is also a non-insignificant nerf as spear fighters were already sub-par otherwise. The +1 STR helps offset those losses; everyone will have their own opinion on whether it's a fair trade though.
Sentinel is the only one of these that did effectively get a buff on it's own; but overall looses a little bit of shine when taking away it's synergy with the other feats.
As I said before, I'm fine and agree that GWM, and SS needed nerfs. Static +10 damage to every hit was just TOO powerful overall and were far and away the ONLY options for people going for optimal DPR numbers. XBOW Master was only a problem when combined with the SS +10 damage, so with SS changed it no longer is an issue (same with the PAM Bonus Action and GWM symmetry).
I can say that because the math shows damage output with GWM is actually increased in the new playtest feat. The PB bonus to damage once a turn with a half ASI is worth more damage than +10 damage with a -5 attack penalty. Here are some average (mean) damage comparisons old GWM/PAM/Sentinel vs new GWM/PAM/Sentinel on a Fighter with a halberd and point buy vs AC15:
Level 4
17Str old GWM - 6.12DPR
18Str new GWM - 7.95DPR
Level 5
17Str Old GWM - 14.16DPR
18Str New GWM - 15.86DPR
Level 6
17Str Old GWM/PAM - 19.05DPR
19Str New GWM/PAM - 20.12DPR
Level 8
17Str Old GWM/PAM/Sentinel - 19.05DPR
20Str New GWM/PAM/Sentinel - 23.54DPR
Those numbers include crits as well as the extra bonus action attack you get for critting at level 4 and 5. They also use the -5/+10 for the old GWM. They do not include reaction attacks from PAM or Sentinel, but including those will only increase the gap further.
In addition to having a higher average damage, the new feat also has a smaller damage variance. This means aside from raw numbers, you will also land more damage and lose less to "overkill". Finally, not only are you doing more damage with the new feat, you have higher strength checks and higher strength saves to boot!
Say what you want about the other feats, but the math clearly shows that GWM is not nerfed in the playtest, it is buffed!
The only major issue I have is subclass progression. A new bard with an old subclass would be garbage at 10th level, and an old bard with a new subclass would get an insane power spike at level 10. Vicious mockery should also be a bard-only thing.
I do like the new ranger though. Favored enemy is much better now, less situational. Hunter’s mark not being ranger exclusive would be bad, but rangers specifically getting a specific bonus to the spell makes up for it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Eh. Sure, the actual GWM part is typically weaker, but it's also a half-feat now, and the GWM part wasn't reduced by half.
True but the GWM part is why martials did enough damage to be on par with spell casters in combat. It is interesting to me this can be taken by any class type while weapon styles are warrior only. Until they release that play test its hard to say where their head is at on this. I also am wondering if sub classes like the hexblade might get a feature that lets them take warrior feats, while eldritch knights might get access to mage feats. Wait and see i guess.
Eh. Sure, the actual GWM part is typically weaker, but it's also a half-feat now, and the GWM part wasn't reduced by half.
True but the GWM part is why martials did enough damage to be on par with spell casters in combat. It is interesting to me this can be taken by any class type while weapon styles are warrior only. Until they release that play test its hard to say where their head is at on this. I also am wondering if sub classes like the hexblade might get a feature that lets them take warrior feats, while eldritch knights might get access to mage feats. Wait and see i guess.
It’s entirely possible for eldritch knights to get mage group feats. There is precedent in the expert group ranger getting warrior group feats, namely fighting styles. Paladins are likely to do the same.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
To me I saw it as a way to be more of a up front rogue instead of the playing it as a slip in and out rogue. It gave you more options as it was a threat you can use on your enemies and force them to use their action to disengage. It gave you more freedom to play your rogue anyway you wanted. Much how you could play the arcana domain cleric as a range or up front fighter depending on how you built it, but I guess some people are stuck with the mentality that there is only one way to play as a rogue and that is to slip in and out.
DPR isn't everything and was usually considered the weakest option a full caster could do in combat. Part of that was because you knew your martial would be knocking out great DPR so you focusing on crowd control etc was just a better action for the team. But GWM etc let the martial at least have one niche, highest sustained damage in combat and even with that most still considered full casters the better classes.
And yeah sure we don't know what they will do to full casters. But all I have to playtest these changes against is the current spell casters.
The "problem" with PAM currently (if you consider it one) though isn't PAM itself, but how it interacts with GWM and Sentinel. If you look at PAM on it's own it wasn't problematic. I can agree that it didn't NEED the +1 STR added to it; but considering EVERY 4th level feat is a 1/2 feat, that means they would have needed to make it a 8th level or higher feat (assuming ALL feats aren't going to be 1/2 feats now).
Also, I don't agree that PAM+Shield+Spear+Dueling was "silly" at all. It's a VERY effective fighting style and very balanced. Makes for a great front line combat controller. When combined with Battlemaster Maneuvers and/or Paladin Smites/Improved Divine Smite features puts out consistent damage while defending the rest of the party.
Um... yes it was. Getting both a bonus action attack and a reaction attack, both of which add all of your damage bonuses and are quite easy to qualify for, is a huge damage increase.
My general opinion of GWM and PAM in 5e was that they were overpowered but made strength builds viable (I had more issues with SS).
Personally I think other options were doing too little. Melee it was GWm, ranged it was SS but all other options looked just bad. If they massively nerf spell casters that is an option but i don't think it will be well received. I'm okay with nerfiing them I've said they could consider going a 4e model for a lot of the spells by making them ritual only and giving everyone access to rituals, and all spells need something like a save, to hit, and HP thresholds work as well. As there are problem spells like wall of force with no save, or hyptnotic pattern with only a initial save when every other effect is a save every round. Nerf some spells, open up rituals you may be on your way to balancing classes, but I think even with that you need some oomph for martials. People seem to claim PF 2e is balanced, given the action system where 2nd hit is at -5, 3rd at -10 if they use all actions for attacks and using your shield for its AC bonus takes a action, so I am assuming martials hit for more than 1d8+5. Look to them maybe for giving martials a bit more.
It can go to far I think were sometimes all casters feel like are hirelings so the martials can do the big stuff. 4e could feel like that sometimes where you are robin handling the weaklings while the fighters are batman taking on the joker. But there is a issue currently imo, even if the dude who wants to just smash things with his barbarian is still having fun at our tables its hard not to see it.
I’m missing the nerf to spellcasters overall. I see a buff to Bard in this UA. They gain greater over all versatility at the cost of not having a high spell level versatility. So you can’t get rid of low level spells to have more high level spells. That’s not a nerf. Why are so many of you jumping to the worst possible scenario. That this is they way casting will work for all classes. We know that’s impossible because Warlock will still have Pact magic in some form. That’s confirmed by this UA. If you warlock can only prepare spells of the level of their spell slots it would be very awkward. Also Wizards have spell books. I doubt they will have all Arcane spells available to them to prepare like other casters. It will probably become a thing where Wizards who have less overall access to their spells list has the most control over what spells they prepare from their book. It will likely be the same as it is in 2014 phb or they will swap int mod with proficiency bonus to determine how many spells you can prepare. Sorcerer is the one I’m worried about because I don’t see a reason for them to have a different prepare style than what’s presented in this UA. But it’s still hard to call it a nerf on the Sorcerer. Similar to the Bard the Sorcerer would be gaining over all versatility. Druid and Cleric receiving this style of preparing spells is a nerf.
We are not seeing a nerf yet, that could be because one isn't coming or it could be because we have not seen those classes, spells yet. They have definitely nerfed martials. They can't not have been aware that people think there is a martial/caster divide with martials being on the weaker side of that divide. They are either making it worse, they have some hidden martial buff coming down the line or they are nerfing casters. A nerf is not that unlikely.
This is the thing that people have to remember. You cannot compare classes against each other at this point except for the 3 classes in this UA. Early playtesting of these UA can only be used to see how the abilities work and flow and not how they compare to what other classes can do because we don't know how those other classes are going to play. I understand the people that say they can only compare this stuff to existing 5E classes, because that's all we have to work with; and while that is technically true, it's also important to note you SHOULDNT being trying to make that comparison at all at this point, because it's an inaccurate representation.
All we can do is compare the 1DD classes against the old versions of themselves and against each other as they are released. Also anyone not familiar with game design needs to understand that "balance" is one of the last things that get modified for during the design process. It is more important to test the design, flow, and interactions of the different classes, feats, and abilities to make sure that is all working as intended and then the actual numbers can be adjusted at the end for balance purposes.
But offering your feedback on the surveys is the best way to get your opinion heard and just because we don't see something change immediately in future UA's doesn't mean that it won't be taken into consideration down the line when WOTC starts working on balancing the different aspects against each other. For all we know there could be 8th and 12th level Martial Feats in store that suddenly makes Martial characters completely outshine classes that have to more closely manage their resources over a typical 8+ encounter adventuring day.
That's just really terrible play test design. Its not really a play test at this point.
They have a choice between waiting another year (or whatever) to have a draft out and then asking people to comment on a gigantic document, or release in small pieces that may lose important context. Neither is a perfect option, they chose the second.
Crawford has explicitly said that Warrior classes "will be able to do things with weapons nobody's ever been able to in 5e before."
Give it a bit. Power Attack was a bad unpleasant feat tax and everybody knows it. Getting rid of it to enable baseline improvements is a good thing. Wait to see, and judge this document on its own merits.
Please do not contact or message me.
They could have released like level 1 which would be more than 3 pages but not exactly a gigantic document. As is its terrible design as you have no frame of reference for many of these changes, and you can't accurately judge them in a vacuum.
Twelve classes at level 1 would have omitted just as much context as three classes to level 20.
Remember - this is the first pass. There's going to be more passes. Every document in this playtest is likely to get at least two runs, and I'd be disappointed if they started the second run before finishing the first. Next month* we get the next three classes, and so on from there. This isn't the only chance people will get.
Please do not contact or message me.
I can say that because the math shows damage output with GWM is actually increased in the new playtest feat. The PB bonus to damage once a turn with a half ASI is worth more damage than +10 damage with a -5 attack penalty. Here are some average (mean) damage comparisons old GWM/PAM/Sentinel vs new GWM/PAM/Sentinel on a Fighter with a halberd and point buy vs AC15:
Level 4
17Str old GWM - 6.12DPR
18Str new GWM - 7.95DPR
Level 5
17Str Old GWM - 14.16DPR
18Str New GWM - 15.86DPR
Level 6
17Str Old GWM/PAM - 19.05DPR
19Str New GWM/PAM - 20.12DPR
Level 8
17Str Old GWM/PAM/Sentinel - 19.05DPR
20Str New GWM/PAM/Sentinel - 23.54DPR
Those numbers include crits as well as the extra bonus action attack you get for critting at level 4 and 5. They also use the -5/+10 for the old GWM. They do not include reaction attacks from PAM or Sentinel, but including those will only increase the gap further.
In addition to having a higher average damage, the new feat also has a smaller damage variance. This means aside from raw numbers, you will also land more damage and lose less to "overkill". Finally, not only are you doing more damage with the new feat, you have higher strength checks and higher strength saves to boot!
Say what you want about the other feats, but the math clearly shows that GWM is not nerfed in the playtest, it is buffed!
1. GWM builds focus around having advantage.
2. GWM focus around the fact you can turn it off and on when needed.
It is why GWM builds usually are barbarian, SS builds are archery style focused and when they can throw in advantage as well they will.
Its nerfed.
Eh. Sure, the actual GWM part is typically weaker, but it's also a half-feat now, and the GWM part wasn't reduced by half.
The only major issue I have is subclass progression. A new bard with an old subclass would be garbage at 10th level, and an old bard with a new subclass would get an insane power spike at level 10. Vicious mockery should also be a bard-only thing.
I do like the new ranger though. Favored enemy is much better now, less situational. Hunter’s mark not being ranger exclusive would be bad, but rangers specifically getting a specific bonus to the spell makes up for it.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands
True but the GWM part is why martials did enough damage to be on par with spell casters in combat. It is interesting to me this can be taken by any class type while weapon styles are warrior only. Until they release that play test its hard to say where their head is at on this. I also am wondering if sub classes like the hexblade might get a feature that lets them take warrior feats, while eldritch knights might get access to mage feats. Wait and see i guess.
It’s entirely possible for eldritch knights to get mage group feats. There is precedent in the expert group ranger getting warrior group feats, namely fighting styles. Paladins are likely to do the same.
Royalty among the charge kingdom. All will fall before our glorious assault!
Quest offer! Enter the deep dungeon here
Ctg’s blood is on the spam filter’s hands