They should just take the hit penalty = damage bonus part of GWM and SS and roll them into the basic rules as a “called shot” with an Attack penalty = PB, and a damage bonus = 2×PB. That way one wouldn’t need a feat for that and it would open things up for more interesting builds.
Yeah I'm good with this. As long as it's available to everyone, doesn't take a feat, and scales better than the current version, it's an improvement. It shouldn't be a tax. Or a must take ability. Or preclude other build options. Or make average damage so drastically different between classes and even individual builds that you can't balance encounters. So in that regard, I like your proposal far more than the current feats.
I think it is interesting that there isn't much discussion of Cleric or the Life Domain for the most part. Nor is anyone talking about Dragonborn.
Changes to two spells and Ardlings have dominated the UA forums.
There has been some talk of them; my impression is that people are mostly positive about the Cleric changes, but maybe want more than three holy orders, and the Life domain hasn't really changed all that much except to clarify things that confused people about the 5e version. My personal preference would be to expand out the holy orders to roughly cover the basic domains, and have sub-classes focused on how it changes the class, i.e- decouple your deity from your choice of holy order/sub-class, and leave it up to you how you represent them with the options available.
I'm a bit so-so about the Dragonborn changes; they've gained darkvision which a lot of people have asked for, but they're also gaining flight which IMO feels like too much, plus there are so many flying races now already, personally I'd rather see them get something different like a limited use blindsight, e.g- 1/day for a minute or something. Either that or a choice of secondary features; this is basically what my groups did when the Fizban's dragonborn dropped as we wanted to be able to mix and match the ancestries and secondary features.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Those combos are what were letting martials keep up with casters to begin with
Martials keeping up with casters should not require taking specific feats nor using specific combos. I expect based on what WotC has said that they are taking the wise action of nerfing options and raising the base damage of martials. This has a huge number of benefits over just adding more and more powerful combos: 1) the gap between a newbie's character and a min-maxer's character shrinks so when you have a mixed party the min-maxer doesn't have to self-censor and build a deliberately bad character to avoid overshadowing the newbie. 2) opens up way more options without adding a ton of possibly stackable mega powerful options that could result in more broken combos that aren't caught during testing. It is far easier to make many low-power or niche options than many totally game changing universal options. 3) allows old "weak" content to be reused and be valid with only minor changes. 4) avoids utterly imbalancing the game based on when certain abilities come on line - SS/GWM taken at 1st level is much much more powerful than the same feats at 17th level simply because the various to hit bonuses are flat across levels but a PC's overall attack bonus increases, so bless at level 1 increases your average to hit modifier by ~50% but at level 9 it only increases your average to hit mod by ~20%
Honestly a ton of the "martial weak / casters strong" complains could be eliminated by simply having weapon damage dice scale in a very similar way cantrips do as characters progress: Level 5 - extra attack, Level 11 - double the weapon dice, Level 17 and another weapon die.
While spiritual weapon probably is now more in line with other similar spells was it really broken before?
Yup! Any 1st/2nd level spell that is routinely used at the go-to-default option at level 10+ is broken. Lower level spells should not be more powerful than higher level ones.
While spiritual weapon probably is now more in line with other similar spells was it really broken before?
Yup! Any 1st/2nd level spell that is routinely used at the go-to-default option at level 10+ is broken. Lower level spells should not be more powerful than higher level ones.
What I'm personally hoping for is, with this rebalance, they'll take another look at spells like flame blade and Mordenkainen's sword.
While spiritual weapon probably is now more in line with other similar spells was it really broken before?
Yup! Any 1st/2nd level spell that is routinely used at the go-to-default option at level 10+ is broken. Lower level spells should not be more powerful than higher level ones.
I don't know about that. If it was a level 2 spell that was your primary damage dealer sure there may be a problem. But its cast at higher levels just because they have nothing else to do with their bonus action so they minds as well eke out a small amount more damage per round.
I'm not too bothered with the change as it does fall in line with similar spells, but I'm not sure it was really necessary either. A lot of those other spells rarely get cast even when they are new.
But some spells and powers are just going to be broken. Maybe not this one, but they do exist. You can't buff everyone else to match a broken feature. You have to fix it. And fixing a few broken things is so much better than just upgrading everything to match them.
There are certain things that do need a 'buff.' And there are things that need fixed too, even if it feels like a 'nerf.' It’s just my opinion obviously, but I don't want every class to get progressively stronger and more broken just to try to match the few things that are already broken.
But I have a feeling that most people are going to complain if any ability they like to use gets fixed, because they'll think their favorite is getting 'nerfed.' Lore Bard losing that Magical Secrets might not be a good decision. Or it might end up being great for balance and fixing a problem that would occur in the context of the new classes and spell selection rules.
I complained that Thieves should still get to Use an Object with Cunning Action. I think it was a mistake taking their coolest feature. But I understand why they did it. It was broken because it wasn't clear. I would prefer it come back, just with more limitations and cleary defined uses. It will still be a nerf, but it will be a good fix of a broken ability.
Taking away the +10 damage option from Sharpshooter and GWM bothered a lot of people that depended on it for their builds. But WotC had good reasons to 'nerf' it. And I agree with them. It was broken. Not just meaning it was too strong. It was broken because it was mathematically almost always the optimal choice. Which means it wasn't really much of a choice. And they recognized that. Spiritual Weapon is in that same realm of broken. I don't know that this is the right fix without testing it yet. But it does need a fix.
I honestly haven't really found a spell that was outright broken and I never found Spiritual Weapon to be in any realm of broken. I also believe the Sharpshooter and GWM nerf was also wrong as it severely nerfed martials. If the issue was because it was always the optimal choice, then the solution is not to nerf it but to buff other things to add more choices.
What exactly could be buffed to be as good of a choice as "Get +10 to your damage with no limitations on how many times you can do it"?
How about getting additional options that allow for more crowd control for one. Cleaving attacks to hit multiple enemies with a single attack. Maybe stances that offer various bonuses, like maybe something that offered both to hit and damage, but smaller numbers obviously. Maybe a War Cry that gives a small boost to the party, sacrificing your personal DPS for party DPS. Plenty of ways to to around it, especially when the +10 to damage comes with a -5 to hit.
I still don't understand why increasing the power of everything else is a better answer than just fixing a few broken abilities. And just for clarity, when I say broken I don't mean just 'OP.' I mean broken in the sense that they constantly skew gameplay in one direction, or cause some spells or feats to be used all the time, or make encounter balance more difficult, or trip up new players and DMs. Dnd 5e is a really good system. You can count the broken parts on a few hands. It's so much better to just fix those parts.
We're probably just going to disagree on this, and that's fine. This is totally just my personal option obviously.
But if WotC decides to fix every problem by just power creeping every spell, feat, and class to meet the worst offenders, then it would be a massive turn off for me. That would probably make me check out. Fortunately they don't seem to have that in mind. They appear to see many of the real problems and are focusing on addressing them individually. The question is whether we, in the surveys, will let them do it. Or will enough people hate anything they see as a 'nerf' that nothing gets fixed? We'll probably know when the results of the Experts package come back. Worst case scenario, those handful of broken spells, feats, etc just stay broken. I can house rule fixes myself. It would be a big missed opportunity, but there's nothing I can do except voice my opinions too.
First, these nerfs just makes these spells feel bad to use. Banishment is just straight up not worth using and Spiritual Weapon will probably not be looked at once Spirit Guardians is available.
Also, it is a lot more than a few "offenders." Feats like GWM, SS, PAM, etc. were what were letting martials keep up to begin with. Without them, you are going to have to hit so many more spells, essentially nerfing magic to the ground completely.
Casters are strong because of their versatility. Martials were keeping up because things like GWM and SS let them keep up DPS wise while casters handled crowd control. Casters have a huge amount of options even after losing spells like Banishment and Spiritual Weapons; nothing is being solved at the moment, just options being taken away.
We've seen all of three UA's that cover 4 classes out of 12, with 4 Subclasses out of 48, and some background/species stuff. And just a handful of spells. We have no idea what the warrior group will have that JC says will have them "dishing out the damage" even with the "nerfs" to GWM/SS/PAM or Aid/Banishment etc.
I do think that we will see some scaling down of spells power, but the options will still be there. True Strike is considered, by some, the worst cantrip (possibly even the worst spell period) in the game. But if it works like 1D&D Guidance and Resistance and as a reaction gave a d4 to hit bonus when you or an ally misses an attack roll, then it might be something to take. Another option! I think it's too soon to react like the sky is falling or options are being taken away. About 90% of the game (1D&D) hasn't been released yet. Not all the classes, not all the subclasses, not all the spells and feats, not the DMG, not the MM. There's a long way to go, so we shall see.
A thing to remember about balancing: you usually want to minimize the number of touches you make; it's a lot easier to nerf a half dozen spells than to buff a hundred.
The general goal is that there should be no universally 'right' answer to what you prepare; it shouldn't feel bad to prep spiritual weapon, nor should it feel bad to not do so. By that standard, both spiritual weapon and spirit guardians are overperforming.
I had a quick look on Archives of Nethys and I saw the level 1 Fighter Feat 'Combat Assessment' (it happens to be the first feat I looked at), which, translated to 5e term, lets you do a Knowledge check about a creature if you hit it (I'm not entirely sure whether you do this in addition to damage or in place of it). And I instantly dislike this, because the fact that this is a feat implies that you can't do it without having that feat.
That's why they got rid of background traits in 1DnD.
Perhaps the nerf to spiritual weapon is intended as a Paladin buff since they are missing out on the martial goodies. Less things competing for concentration, only one extra attack, scales with levels...
Those combos are what were letting martials keep up with casters to begin with
Martials keeping up with casters should not require taking specific feats nor using specific combos. I expect based on what WotC has said that they are taking the wise action of nerfing options and raising the base damage of martials. This has a huge number of benefits over just adding more and more powerful combos: 1) the gap between a newbie's character and a min-maxer's character shrinks so when you have a mixed party the min-maxer doesn't have to self-censor and build a deliberately bad character to avoid overshadowing the newbie. 2) opens up way more options without adding a ton of possibly stackable mega powerful options that could result in more broken combos that aren't caught during testing. It is far easier to make many low-power or niche options than many totally game changing universal options. 3) allows old "weak" content to be reused and be valid with only minor changes. 4) avoids utterly imbalancing the game based on when certain abilities come on line - SS/GWM taken at 1st level is much much more powerful than the same feats at 17th level simply because the various to hit bonuses are flat across levels but a PC's overall attack bonus increases, so bless at level 1 increases your average to hit modifier by ~50% but at level 9 it only increases your average to hit mod by ~20%
Honestly a ton of the "martial weak / casters strong" complains could be eliminated by simply having weapon damage dice scale in a very similar way cantrips do as characters progress: Level 5 - extra attack, Level 11 - double the weapon dice, Level 17 and another weapon die.
If there are a large variety of viable options/combos, the gap between a newbie's character and min/maxed character wouldn't increase. The issue right now is that martials were pidgeoned holed into specific combos, but if a large variety of combos existed then that forced combo wouldn't be there because martials would have plenty of options.
Powerful combos can occur regardless of the targeted power level. Nerfing does not change that.
"Weak" content should be buffed to match strong content.
The first level SS/GWM being strong is already solved with how 1st level feats are set up and is also solved if other options are equally as powerful.
Casters' main strength are their versatility. It isn't just a few outlier spells that are causing this divide, but the very nature of magic itself and the versatility it gives caster with how they can interact with all three pillars of play.
We've seen all of three UA's that cover 4 classes out of 12, with 4 Subclasses out of 48, and some background/species stuff. And just a handful of spells. We have no idea what the warrior group will have that JC says will have them "dishing out the damage" even with the "nerfs" to GWM/SS/PAM or Aid/Banishment etc.
I do think that we will see some scaling down of spells power, but the options will still be there. True Strike is considered, by some, the worst cantrip (possibly even the worst spell period) in the game. But if it works like 1D&D Guidance and Resistance and as a reaction gave a d4 to hit bonus when you or an ally misses an attack roll, then it might be something to take. Another option! I think it's too soon to react like the sky is falling or options are being taken away. About 90% of the game (1D&D) hasn't been released yet. Not all the classes, not all the subclasses, not all the spells and feats, not the DMG, not the MM. There's a long way to go, so we shall see.
I am of the opinion if they release the UA, we should be reviewing it with what is available combined with what we have with the current version of 5E. There really isn't any reason to release the UA in such piecemeal states if they weren't looking in how they interacted with the 5E.
Like I said, these fixes for Banishment and Spiritual Weapon might not be the right choices. I don't even think they are the best fixes. But I do want to be open to fixes in general.
Martials might currently be using GWM and Sharpshooter to keep up with casters, but it's at the expense of actually using any other options. And we have no idea what the new Martial abilities are going to be. They might get all kinds of cool new abilities and weapon options. Something like GWM might even be built into the Heavy weapon property. They might not need these old feats at all going forward. Which would be a great thing to give those characters more freedom of builds.
That is one of the problems with the way they are rolling out the UAs, which I've also said before. We only have part of the picture. They're showing us a change and asking what we think, but we don't know how to answer. So people get all worried that they won't get to do big damage anymore because we won't get the Warriors UA for months, and they react to that alone. Everything that feels like a nerf gets canned.
But if they're going to fix the perceived martial/caster problem, and make a better game for new players and DMs, and build a CR system that works, they have to change things. And part of that change will mean scaling damage better, or changing spells, etc. They just need to be better at presenting it in a way that tells us where it's all headed.
If the designers at WotC are worth their salt, they should be able to take into account the fact that we don't have the whole picture and should be able to temper feedback with that fact in mind. For all we know, they may be curious as to how some of these changes work with the current version of 5E to test backwards compatibility. So we should be fine to be as harsh as possible and not hold back because of a potential future change. We should just review things as they are right now and give feedback accordingly based on that. We can only review what we have.
Also with regards to GWM and SS letting martials "keep up" with casters, Jeremy specifically pointed to major changes in how martials and the weapons they use will play out.
So it is way too early to start lamenting about how those feats are nerfed because they helped martials "keep up" .
I disagree with feedback being too early. Letting them know that just nerfing those feats without any additional compensation is something that should be done, so they know for sure to not just nerf the feats. Something has to be given back in place for them and if we don't have that thing, we can only review it as if the nerfs were the only thing coming.
If there are a large variety of viable options/combos, the gap between a newbie's character and min/maxed character wouldn't increase. The issue right now is that martials were pidgeoned holed into specific combos, but if a large variety of combos existed then that forced combo wouldn't be there because martials would have plenty of options.
Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter should never have been a requirement to compete, especially since feats were always an optional rule; to properly fix it the martial classes themselves need to be made stronger because they're the part that's too weak, while those feats were arguably too strong compared to other feats that should have been equally viable, so it makes more sense to balance the outlying feats to match.
Great Weapon Master and Polearm Expert should be roughly balanced with Dual Wielder, Shield Master and other pure combat feats, but the GWM and SS are definitely outliers, especially on any class that can get advantage reasonably easily. GWM is basically a core feature of a Barbarian when you look at recommended builds.
Powerful combos can occur regardless of the targeted power level. Nerfing does not change that.
Nerfing absolutely does change that, it's part of what it's for; if certain features are too strong, they'll be combined with others that are also too strong, that's what min-maxing is, but if they're not too strong then it ceases to be a broken combo and just a legitimate choice.
While other broken combos will require rewording of rules to close loopholes, these are no mutually exclusive fixes; you choose the right fix for the right situation, and we've seen with several OneD&D playtest updates attempt to do that too, like Life Cleric's boost only working on the same turn.
"Weak" content should be buffed to match strong content.
Why? In the case of feats the overly strong ones are definitely in the minority, so it makes a lot more sense to weaken those to match the rest rather than having to do extra work and risk introducing more new problems.
However, they have also been strengthening weaker feats at the same time (there have been updated feats in every single OneD&D playtest so far, and most of them are stronger, just not GWM/SS strong).
As others have already pointed out we don't actually know what the plan is for the martial classes themselves, but the obvious solution is to strengthen those while balancing the feats so that every option becomes viable, which should include taking no feats at all (or rather, only the ability score increase feat) which should be a valid choice as well.
Casters' main strength are their versatility. It isn't just a few outlier spells that are causing this divide, but the very nature of magic itself and the versatility it gives caster with how they can interact with all three pillars of play.
It's not necessarily just the versatility; a big part of why casters out-compete martials over time is that the caster's main limitation is spell slots, but as they level up that limitation rapidly disappears. Early on they get an average of two more slots per level; one on even levels, and three (including two at a new slot level) on odd levels. This is even true of half and third casters, they just get theirs less frequently, but they can still end up with enough slots that they're no longer so restricted in their casting.
So while a 1st-level caster is pretty much entirely dependent on cantrips, at higher levels they have so many spell slots they can cast a spell most rounds and as long as they don't get too crazy they're unlikely to run out, even over a longer adventuring day.
This means that one of the initial advantages of many martial classes, namely having fewer resource requirements, rapidly disappears, and many martial classes don't really get anything that meaningfully replaces it. Barbarians and Monks both start strong, but have some really lacklustre higher level features that mean they both plateau without taking the no-brainer feats to compensate. Fighter and Rogue are a bit less problematic as a Rogue's sneak attack constantly scales, and Fighters do get more attacks and eventually an extra Action Surge.
Basically the implied contract of "you can do more stuff, but only while you have slots remaining" kind of disappears.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
If there are a large variety of viable options/combos, the gap between a newbie's character and min/maxed character wouldn't increase. The issue right now is that martials were pidgeoned holed into specific combos, but if a large variety of combos existed then that forced combo wouldn't be there because martials would have plenty of options.
Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter should never have been a requirement to compete, especially since feats were always an optional rule; to properly fix it the martial classes themselves need to be made stronger because they're the part that's too weak, while those feats were arguably too strong compared to other feats that should have been equally viable, so it makes more sense to balance the outlying feats to match.
Great Weapon Master and Polearm Expert should be roughly balanced with Dual Wielder, Shield Master and other pure combat feats, but the GWM and SS are definitely outliers, especially on any class that can get advantage reasonably easily. GWM is basically a core feature of a Barbarian when you look at recommended builds.
Feats are no longer an optional rule however in One D&D; so adjustments via feats is a valid thing now. Also, lets be honest, they were only optional rules in name; the vast majority of tables used feats. Also, it felt really good to get that +10 damage and achieving those larger numbers. Buffing other options can keep how good it felt to use SS/GWM and apply that seem feeling to other feats. Furthermore, you can't just look at the feats alone but you also have to consider the power level of casters.
Powerful combos can occur regardless of the targeted power level. Nerfing does not change that.
Nerfing absolutely does change that, it's part of what it's for; if certain features are too strong, they'll be combined with others that are also too strong, that's what min-maxing is, but if they're not too strong then it ceases to be a broken combo and just a legitimate choice.
While other broken combos will require rewording of rules to close loopholes, these are no mutually exclusive fixes; you choose the right fix for the right situation, and we've seen with several OneD&D playtest updates attempt to do that too, like Life Cleric's boost only working on the same turn.
No, nerfing doesn't necessary change it. Powerful combos come from the synergy of the different pieces. Nerfing can reduce some of the potency, but doesn't necessary change the synergistic nature of it. Yes, a nerf can change the synergistic nature, I probably should have worded it better, but nerfing does not inherently mean the combos will stop. Furthermore, I'd say combos are a good thing and a combo is only broken if its power level is out of line with other options. So by buffing other options, you can create the proper relative power level while maintaining the fun from the original combos rather than just neutering them and making them feel bad to use in comparison.
Why? In the case of feats the overly strong ones are definitely in the minority, so it makes a lot more sense to weaken those to match the rest rather than having to do extra work and risk introducing more new problems.
However, they have also been strengthening weaker feats at the same time (there have been updated feats in every single OneD&D playtest so far, and most of them are stronger, just not GWM/SS strong).
As others have already pointed out we don't actually know what the plan is for the martial classes themselves, but the obvious solution is to strengthen those while balancing the feats so that every option becomes viable, which should include taking no feats at all (or rather, only the ability score increase feat) which should be a valid choice as well.
Because you can't look at just feats. You have to look at the power level across the entire system. Feats may be in the minority, but if you are just looking at the power gap across the entire system, magic in general is part of that upper level of power. If you want to reduce the gap between the power floor and ceiling, nerfing feats like SS and GWM isn't going to solve it when you add the entirety of spellcasting into the mix.
Also, considering that you can only take a stat up to 20, it is impossible to make a character that takes only ability score increases be equal in power to a character that takes feats. Ability Score Increases past your primary stat will never be as strong as taking a synergistic feat; that's the reality of things. Unless you make feats truly insignificant and pointless, taking only ability score increases isn't going to be on par with taking feats.
Casters' main strength are their versatility. It isn't just a few outlier spells that are causing this divide, but the very nature of magic itself and the versatility it gives caster with how they can interact with all three pillars of play.
It's not necessarily just the versatility; a big part of why casters out-compete martials over time is that the caster's main limitation is spell slots, but as they level up that limitation rapidly disappears. Early on they get an average of two more slots per level; one on even levels, and three (including two at a new slot level) on odd levels. This is even true of half and third casters, they just get theirs less frequently, but they can still end up with enough slots that they're no longer so restricted in their casting.
So while a 1st-level caster is pretty much entirely dependent on cantrips, at higher levels they have so many spell slots they can cast a spell most rounds and as long as they don't get too crazy they're unlikely to run out, even over a longer adventuring day.
This means that one of the initial advantages of many martial classes, namely having fewer resource requirements, rapidly disappears, and many martial classes don't really get anything that meaningfully replaces it. Barbarians and Monks both start strong, but have some really lacklustre higher level features that mean they both plateau without taking the no-brainer feats to compensate. Fighter and Rogue are a bit less problematic as a Rogue's sneak attack constantly scales, and Fighters do get more attacks and eventually an extra Action Surge.
Basically the implied contract of "you can do more stuff, but only while you have slots remaining" kind of disappears.
No, it very much is the versatility. Casters have spells that can simply let them interact directly with the various pillars. Need a safe place to rest? Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Magnificent Mansion, etc. Charm spells for social interaction. Blasting and CC spells for combat. Teleportation spells, fly, invisibility, etc. for exploring. Magic offers so much versatility that lets it solve a variety of problems. Martials often have to rely on skill/ability checks to get things done. Where as a martial character may have to hunt or forage for food, a Druid could just cast goodberry or a cleric cast create food and water. Even martials have some limited resources that they can only use a limited number of times at first with that limit being lifted as they level up, a barbarian gets more uses of rage for example. However, those martial features generally only interact with the combat pillar of play.
Unless they really buff the base versions of martials, which we have yet to see and thus cannot base our feedback on, that caster martial power gap is going to stay and currently in One D&D it is bigger than ever. If they really wanted to nerf feats like SS/GWM they should have waited until after they fully buffed martials if that is their intention. Otherwise, they are only just making the power gap even bigger in the current play test version.
So by buffing other options, you can create the proper relative power level while maintaining the fun from the original combos rather than just neutering them and making them feel bad to use in comparison.
It is not possible to do this with the -5/+10 feats because those feats are so swingy because of combos. The power of SS/GWM can be 50% different between two parties with identical composition depending on the choices they make in combat. It simply isn't possible to balance other feat to these two options because if you balance other feat to the maximum potency of SS/GWM -> i.e. assuming the martial is always attacking with advantage and Bless - then the other feats will be extremely overtuned since they won't rely on advantage / Bless and have the same damage output. But if balance other feats to the average potency of SS/GWM with a flat roll and no extra buffs then the feats will be too weak by comparison since they don't have the same synergy and optimizers will still always stick to SS/GWM. The new GWM is just way way better for the game.
So by buffing other options, you can create the proper relative power level while maintaining the fun from the original combos rather than just neutering them and making them feel bad to use in comparison.
It is not possible to do this with the -5/+10 feats because those feats are so swingy because of combos. The power of SS/GWM can be 50% different between two parties with identical composition depending on the choices they make in combat. It simply isn't possible to balance other feat to these two options because if you balance other feat to the maximum potency of SS/GWM -> i.e. assuming the martial is always attacking with advantage and Bless - then the other feats will be extremely overtuned since they won't rely on advantage / Bless and have the same damage output. But if balance other feats to the average potency of SS/GWM with a flat roll and no extra buffs then the feats will be too weak by comparison since they don't have the same synergy and optimizers will still always stick to SS/GWM. The new GWM is just way way better for the game.
It is possible, none of what you said makes it impossible. Other options can have their own combos and synergy and aim for aspects other than damage. Crowd Control options for example. The combos with SS and GWM were not even broken to begin with when you added in the power level of casters into the mix. The only issue was that they were the only option for martials to keep up.
It is possible, none of what you said makes it impossible. Other options can have their own combos and synergy and aim for aspects other than damage. Crowd Control options for example. The combos with SS and GWM were not even broken to begin with when you added in the power level of casters into the mix. The only issue was that they were the only option for martials to keep up.
They were clearly overperforming, in that they were clearly better than other available options for martials. If martials need Moar Damage to keep up (I don't think that's the key weakness of martials), better to do it with class features.
Feats are no longer an optional rule however in One D&D; so adjustments via feats is a valid thing now.
Which is precisely why they need to be balanced properly!
No, nerfing doesn't necessary change it. Powerful combos come from the synergy of the different pieces. Nerfing can reduce some of the potency, but doesn't necessary change the synergistic nature of it. Yes, a nerf can change the synergistic nature, I probably should have worded it better, but nerfing does not inherently mean the combos will stop. Furthermore, I'd say combos are a good thing and a combo is only broken if its power level is out of line with other options. So by buffing other options, you can create the proper relative power level while maintaining the fun from the original combos rather than just neutering them and making them feel bad to use in comparison.
Nerfing can absolutely solve the problem if the problem is that overly strong components are being combined; as I've already said there are other ways to solve similar problems (combos that only become truly broken in combination) but nerfing is one of those options and absolutely the correct one in this case. And these feats aren't being "neutered", they're still perfectly good feats, they're just not as (overly) strong as they used to be, which is something you should be applauding if you actually care about balance.
The reason everyone takes one or both of Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master on a Barbarian is because either one of those is a significant boost to a Barbarian, so much so that they are no-brainers, as excluding very specific cases it's hard to argue that any feat will give you more of a boost than either of these two. Same is true of Sharpshooter on an archer; it's not simply a good feat for an archer with other valid options out there, it is hands down the best, so much so that not taking it is choosing to hold yourself back. And the -5 to hit trade off is simply not the balancing factor that Wizards originally envisioned it would be when there are so many ways to mitigate it and effectively just gain +10 damage per hit.
Because you can't look at just feats. You have to look at the power level across the entire system. Feats may be in the minority, but if you are just looking at the power gap across the entire system, magic in general is part of that upper level of power. If you want to reduce the gap between the power floor and ceiling, nerfing feats like SS and GWM isn't going to solve it when you add the entirety of spellcasting into the mix.
I literally said this same thing already, but feats are not there to fix class imbalances; feats are supposed to be balanced against increasing your ability scores by two points, any feat that is so obviously more powerful than doing so is overpowered. Feats must be roughly balanced against one another, otherwise it makes the job of balancing anything else even harder.
And if overly strong feats are in the minority, then reducing them is far more logical than trying to increase the strength of every other feat (especially when that will only make ASIs even less valuable). Boosting everything else will create more work, and introduce more opportunities to create new problems down the line. It's a matter of surgically changing only what you need to (or only making small tweaks) versus nuking and potentially breaking everything.
Also as I and others have now said repeatedly to you, we do not yet know what changes are coming for martial classes; we have hints from Crawford but very little in the way of specific details, but scaling up the weaker classes makes a lot more sense than trying to nerf the spellcasting classes (as in the classes themselves) which broadly play just fine. Martials in this case are the minority, so it's again the obvious place to solve the problem rather than making sweeping changes to spellcasters and potentially breaking everything.
Also, considering that you can only take a stat up to 20, it is impossible to make a character that takes only ability score increases be equal in power to a character that takes feats. Ability Score Increases past your primary stat will never be as strong as taking a synergistic feat; that's the reality of things. Unless you make feats truly insignificant and pointless, taking only ability score increases isn't going to be on par with taking feats.
No class is actually single attribute dependent, as every class can benefit from boosting Constitution, or boosting Dexterity and/or Wisdom to improve those saves, boost the related skills etc. are all valid options as well. Refusing to see options isn't the same as there not being any, as being more well rounded is as valid a choice as over-specialising.
No, it very much is the versatility. Casters have spells that can simply let them interact directly with the various pillars. Need a safe place to rest? Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Magnificent Mansion, etc. Charm spells for social interaction. Blasting and CC spells for combat. Teleportation spells, fly, invisibility, etc. for exploring.
Are you physically incapable of agreeing with something? 😝
I didn't say versatility doesn't factor at all, but versatility doesn't count for shit if you can't use it, so the number of available spell-slots is absolutely, objectively, unambiguously relevant, especially when a major factor in balance in D&D is how something scales across multiple levels.
Martials are arguably the strongest of the early level characters as they have more hit-points, are less dependent on having one high stat, and fewer resource requirements, but that scale tips quickly as casters level up and rapidly again access to more spell slots (which they do a lot more quickly than most gain access to spells, so scale absolutely outpaces versatility).
More versatility on martials would certainly be nice but it won't solve the scaling problem that they all have to some degree, because that early to mid rapid scaling of resources is a major (arguably the most major) thing they are competing with. Again, the biggest limitation of casters is their spell slots, but that limitation rapidly diminishes, that is what martials are competing against because none of them (except the part-casters) scale in the same way. Monk kind of does but it's far too vulnerable to short rest frequency and is capable of spending resources a lot faster than most casters can (e.g- Flurry of Blows with all four as Stunning Strikes).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Feats are no longer an optional rule however in One D&D; so adjustments via feats is a valid thing now.
Which is precisely why they need to be balanced properly!
Balancing properly does not necessary require flat out nerfing; and right now they aren't balanced properly as we have not received proper buffs to martials to compensate for the nerfs. Because we don't have those, we cannot include their possibility in our feedback.
Nerfing can absolutely solve the problem if the problem is that overly strong components are being combined; as I've already said there are other ways to solve similar problems (combos that only become truly broken in combination) but nerfing is one of those options and absolutely the correct one in this case. And these feats aren't being "neutered", they're still perfectly good feats, they're just not as (overly) strong as they used to be, which is something you should be applauding if you actually care about balance.
The reason everyone takes one or both of Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master on a Barbarian is because either one of those is a significant boost to a Barbarian, so much so that they are no-brainers, as excluding very specific cases it's hard to argue that any feat will give you more of a boost than either of these two. Same is true of Sharpshooter on an archer; it's not simply a good feat for an archer with other valid options out there, it is hands down the best, so much so that not taking it is choosing to hold yourself back. And the -5 to hit trade off is simply not the balancing factor that Wizards originally envisioned it would be when there are so many ways to mitigate it and effectively just gain +10 damage per hit.
Nerfing should be done if there is an issue with the power level; but there was no issue with the power level The problem was the lack of options at that power level. Martials should be at that power level, if not higher. If we had a number of options resulting in the same power level, SS/GWM would not be an issue. Buffing options to match SS/GWM would solve the lack of options issue. Right now, martials got a severe power level decrease and we can't guarantee any compensation for that nerf.
They should not be rolling out nerfs without the proper martial buffs to compensate if they don't want people to be worried about it being a flat nerf.
I cannot applaud this nerf because it is a straight nerf to martials without any known compensation when the overall power level of martials is not an issue.
Also, feats can be there to fix class imbalances as they are adding requirements like you must be of one of the warrior classes or be of priest classes.
Also, considering that you can only take a stat up to 20, it is impossible to make a character that takes only ability score increases be equal in power to a character that takes feats. Ability Score Increases past your primary stat will never be as strong as taking a synergistic feat; that's the reality of things. Unless you make feats truly insignificant and pointless, taking only ability score increases isn't going to be on par with taking feats.
No class is actually single attribute dependent, as every class can benefit from boosting Constitution, or boosting Dexterity and/or Wisdom to improve those saves, boost the related skills etc. are all valid options as well. Refusing to see options isn't the same as there not being any, as being more well rounded is as valid a choice as over-specialising.
It has been proven that not every stat is equal epecially not for every class. 2 points in Wisdom does not mean as much as 2 points in Str or Dex for a Fighter or 2 points in Int for a wizard. 2 points in Charisma is going to be worth far more than 2 points in Str for a bard. Resilient to boost Wisdom from 13 to 14 is worth many times as much as boosting Wisdom by 2 points in that situation. +2 in Con is not going to be as valuable as resilient or warcaster for a caster.
Non-variant human gaining +1 to every stat is often seen as bad as not every class values every stat.
A character with just ASI's will not be as strong as a character that takes feats with ASI's to their primary stat. It is impossible to do that. The fact that not all ASI's are equal makes this impossible. The fact that dump stats are a thing further supports this.
An ASI increase to the primary stat should be on par with feats, but an ASI increase to a secondary or teritary stat will never be on par with a feat without making the feat mechanically worthless.
Are you physically incapable of agreeing with something? 😝
I didn't say versatility doesn't factor at all, but versatility doesn't count for shit if you can't use it, so the number of available spell-slots is absolutely, objectively, unambiguously relevant, especially when a major factor in balance in D&D is how something scales across multiple levels.
Martials are arguably the strongest of the early level characters as they have more hit-points, are less dependent on having one high stat, and fewer resource requirements, but that scale tips quickly as casters level up and rapidly again access to more spell slots (which they do a lot more quickly than most gain access to spells, so scale absolutely outpaces versatility).
More versatility on martials would certainly be nice but it won't solve the scaling problem that they all have to some degree, because that early to mid rapid scaling of resources is a major (arguably the most major) thing they are competing with. Again, the biggest limitation of casters is their spell slots, but that limitation rapidly diminishes, that is what martials are competing against because none of them (except the part-casters) scale in the same way. Monk kind of does but it's far too vulnerable to short rest frequency and is capable of spending resources a lot faster than most casters can (e.g- Flurry of Blows with all four as Stunning Strikes).
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I can't agree with something. I will however only agree with something if I believe it to be correct. I am not going to agree with something just for the sake of agreeing with something.
I have played games where short rests were plentiful, helping with resource issues of martials like fighters and monks. However, even then casters tend to outstrip them. Versatility is the main thing. Yes, you can say versatility means nothing if you don't have the resources, but the reverse can also be said where resoures are meaningless if you don't have anything to spend it on.
And I find myself running into resource issues with casters at all tiers of play than I do with martials. In my current campaign as an artificer, I have to carefully manage my spellslots and magic item uses; another artificer in the group is always running out of slots; same with the cleric. The soul knife rogue on the otherhand has psychic dice for days. However, I have something to contribute much more often because my spells and infusions give me an insane level of versatility. In past campaigns, I often find myself having to be careful with my resources as a caster throughout all tiers of play while being able to offer an insane level of versatility.
That versatility is what pushes casters. Giving martials more versatility, more options and interaction with all the pillars of play will go a longer way towards better balance the nerfs that have been happening lately.
It is possible, none of what you said makes it impossible. Other options can have their own combos and synergy and aim for aspects other than damage. Crowd Control options for example. The combos with SS and GWM were not even broken to begin with when you added in the power level of casters into the mix. The only issue was that they were the only option for martials to keep up.
They were clearly overperforming, in that they were clearly better than other available options for martials. If martials need Moar Damage to keep up (I don't think that's the key weakness of martials), better to do it with class features.
Overperformance doesn't mean you can't make other options match them. Also, I wouldn't say they were overpeforming when you looked at the caster/martial gap. Rather, I would say the other options were underperforming.
That versatility is what pushes casters. Giving martials more versatility, more options and interaction with all the pillars of play will go a longer way towards better balance the nerfs that have been happening lately.
People say that all the time, but honestly, I think it is not true. Because monks and rangers have that versatility in 5e and the community absolutely hates them.
Sure casters have way more versatility but that comes at a trade-off, spells either do battlefield control or they do utility or they do damage. They don't do all three at the same time, and the resources available to spend on them is limited. Such choices already exist for martials: instead of dealing damage, a martial can grapple and shove an enemy prone which is similar to imposing the "restrained" condition by a caster but generally has a higher chance of success than a spell that gives the enemies a save to escape. But the "give martials versatility" folks hate grappling because they have to give up dealing damage to do it. Shadow monks get unlimited bonus action teleportation, and the power to stun enemies but the "give martials versatility" folks hate it because they have to sacrifice some damage to do it. Rangers get all kinds of battlefield control spells and out of combat exploration stuff, but people don't care they only care that a fighter can deal more DPR than a ranger therefore Rangers are bad.
Yeah I'm good with this. As long as it's available to everyone, doesn't take a feat, and scales better than the current version, it's an improvement. It shouldn't be a tax. Or a must take ability. Or preclude other build options. Or make average damage so drastically different between classes and even individual builds that you can't balance encounters. So in that regard, I like your proposal far more than the current feats.
I think it is interesting that there isn't much discussion of Cleric or the Life Domain for the most part. Nor is anyone talking about Dragonborn.
Changes to two spells and Ardlings have dominated the UA forums.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There has been some talk of them; my impression is that people are mostly positive about the Cleric changes, but maybe want more than three holy orders, and the Life domain hasn't really changed all that much except to clarify things that confused people about the 5e version. My personal preference would be to expand out the holy orders to roughly cover the basic domains, and have sub-classes focused on how it changes the class, i.e- decouple your deity from your choice of holy order/sub-class, and leave it up to you how you represent them with the options available.
I'm a bit so-so about the Dragonborn changes; they've gained darkvision which a lot of people have asked for, but they're also gaining flight which IMO feels like too much, plus there are so many flying races now already, personally I'd rather see them get something different like a limited use blindsight, e.g- 1/day for a minute or something. Either that or a choice of secondary features; this is basically what my groups did when the Fizban's dragonborn dropped as we wanted to be able to mix and match the ancestries and secondary features.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Martials keeping up with casters should not require taking specific feats nor using specific combos. I expect based on what WotC has said that they are taking the wise action of nerfing options and raising the base damage of martials. This has a huge number of benefits over just adding more and more powerful combos:
1) the gap between a newbie's character and a min-maxer's character shrinks so when you have a mixed party the min-maxer doesn't have to self-censor and build a deliberately bad character to avoid overshadowing the newbie.
2) opens up way more options without adding a ton of possibly stackable mega powerful options that could result in more broken combos that aren't caught during testing. It is far easier to make many low-power or niche options than many totally game changing universal options.
3) allows old "weak" content to be reused and be valid with only minor changes.
4) avoids utterly imbalancing the game based on when certain abilities come on line - SS/GWM taken at 1st level is much much more powerful than the same feats at 17th level simply because the various to hit bonuses are flat across levels but a PC's overall attack bonus increases, so bless at level 1 increases your average to hit modifier by ~50% but at level 9 it only increases your average to hit mod by ~20%
Honestly a ton of the "martial weak / casters strong" complains could be eliminated by simply having weapon damage dice scale in a very similar way cantrips do as characters progress: Level 5 - extra attack, Level 11 - double the weapon dice, Level 17 and another weapon die.
Yup! Any 1st/2nd level spell that is routinely used at the go-to-default option at level 10+ is broken. Lower level spells should not be more powerful than higher level ones.
What I'm personally hoping for is, with this rebalance, they'll take another look at spells like flame blade and Mordenkainen's sword.
I don't know about that. If it was a level 2 spell that was your primary damage dealer sure there may be a problem. But its cast at higher levels just because they have nothing else to do with their bonus action so they minds as well eke out a small amount more damage per round.
I'm not too bothered with the change as it does fall in line with similar spells, but I'm not sure it was really necessary either. A lot of those other spells rarely get cast even when they are new.
We've seen all of three UA's that cover 4 classes out of 12, with 4 Subclasses out of 48, and some background/species stuff. And just a handful of spells. We have no idea what the warrior group will have that JC says will have them "dishing out the damage" even with the "nerfs" to GWM/SS/PAM or Aid/Banishment etc.
I do think that we will see some scaling down of spells power, but the options will still be there. True Strike is considered, by some, the worst cantrip (possibly even the worst spell period) in the game. But if it works like 1D&D Guidance and Resistance and as a reaction gave a d4 to hit bonus when you or an ally misses an attack roll, then it might be something to take. Another option! I think it's too soon to react like the sky is falling or options are being taken away. About 90% of the game (1D&D) hasn't been released yet. Not all the classes, not all the subclasses, not all the spells and feats, not the DMG, not the MM. There's a long way to go, so we shall see.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
A thing to remember about balancing: you usually want to minimize the number of touches you make; it's a lot easier to nerf a half dozen spells than to buff a hundred.
The general goal is that there should be no universally 'right' answer to what you prepare; it shouldn't feel bad to prep spiritual weapon, nor should it feel bad to not do so. By that standard, both spiritual weapon and spirit guardians are overperforming.
That's why they got rid of background traits in 1DnD.
Perhaps the nerf to spiritual weapon is intended as a Paladin buff since they are missing out on the martial goodies. Less things competing for concentration, only one extra attack, scales with levels...
If there are a large variety of viable options/combos, the gap between a newbie's character and min/maxed character wouldn't increase. The issue right now is that martials were pidgeoned holed into specific combos, but if a large variety of combos existed then that forced combo wouldn't be there because martials would have plenty of options.
Powerful combos can occur regardless of the targeted power level. Nerfing does not change that.
"Weak" content should be buffed to match strong content.
The first level SS/GWM being strong is already solved with how 1st level feats are set up and is also solved if other options are equally as powerful.
Casters' main strength are their versatility. It isn't just a few outlier spells that are causing this divide, but the very nature of magic itself and the versatility it gives caster with how they can interact with all three pillars of play.
I am of the opinion if they release the UA, we should be reviewing it with what is available combined with what we have with the current version of 5E. There really isn't any reason to release the UA in such piecemeal states if they weren't looking in how they interacted with the 5E.
If the designers at WotC are worth their salt, they should be able to take into account the fact that we don't have the whole picture and should be able to temper feedback with that fact in mind. For all we know, they may be curious as to how some of these changes work with the current version of 5E to test backwards compatibility. So we should be fine to be as harsh as possible and not hold back because of a potential future change. We should just review things as they are right now and give feedback accordingly based on that. We can only review what we have.
I disagree with feedback being too early. Letting them know that just nerfing those feats without any additional compensation is something that should be done, so they know for sure to not just nerf the feats. Something has to be given back in place for them and if we don't have that thing, we can only review it as if the nerfs were the only thing coming.
Great Weapon Master/Sharpshooter should never have been a requirement to compete, especially since feats were always an optional rule; to properly fix it the martial classes themselves need to be made stronger because they're the part that's too weak, while those feats were arguably too strong compared to other feats that should have been equally viable, so it makes more sense to balance the outlying feats to match.
Great Weapon Master and Polearm Expert should be roughly balanced with Dual Wielder, Shield Master and other pure combat feats, but the GWM and SS are definitely outliers, especially on any class that can get advantage reasonably easily. GWM is basically a core feature of a Barbarian when you look at recommended builds.
Nerfing absolutely does change that, it's part of what it's for; if certain features are too strong, they'll be combined with others that are also too strong, that's what min-maxing is, but if they're not too strong then it ceases to be a broken combo and just a legitimate choice.
While other broken combos will require rewording of rules to close loopholes, these are no mutually exclusive fixes; you choose the right fix for the right situation, and we've seen with several OneD&D playtest updates attempt to do that too, like Life Cleric's boost only working on the same turn.
Why? In the case of feats the overly strong ones are definitely in the minority, so it makes a lot more sense to weaken those to match the rest rather than having to do extra work and risk introducing more new problems.
However, they have also been strengthening weaker feats at the same time (there have been updated feats in every single OneD&D playtest so far, and most of them are stronger, just not GWM/SS strong).
As others have already pointed out we don't actually know what the plan is for the martial classes themselves, but the obvious solution is to strengthen those while balancing the feats so that every option becomes viable, which should include taking no feats at all (or rather, only the ability score increase feat) which should be a valid choice as well.
It's not necessarily just the versatility; a big part of why casters out-compete martials over time is that the caster's main limitation is spell slots, but as they level up that limitation rapidly disappears. Early on they get an average of two more slots per level; one on even levels, and three (including two at a new slot level) on odd levels. This is even true of half and third casters, they just get theirs less frequently, but they can still end up with enough slots that they're no longer so restricted in their casting.
So while a 1st-level caster is pretty much entirely dependent on cantrips, at higher levels they have so many spell slots they can cast a spell most rounds and as long as they don't get too crazy they're unlikely to run out, even over a longer adventuring day.
This means that one of the initial advantages of many martial classes, namely having fewer resource requirements, rapidly disappears, and many martial classes don't really get anything that meaningfully replaces it. Barbarians and Monks both start strong, but have some really lacklustre higher level features that mean they both plateau without taking the no-brainer feats to compensate. Fighter and Rogue are a bit less problematic as a Rogue's sneak attack constantly scales, and Fighters do get more attacks and eventually an extra Action Surge.
Basically the implied contract of "you can do more stuff, but only while you have slots remaining" kind of disappears.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Feats are no longer an optional rule however in One D&D; so adjustments via feats is a valid thing now. Also, lets be honest, they were only optional rules in name; the vast majority of tables used feats. Also, it felt really good to get that +10 damage and achieving those larger numbers. Buffing other options can keep how good it felt to use SS/GWM and apply that seem feeling to other feats. Furthermore, you can't just look at the feats alone but you also have to consider the power level of casters.
No, nerfing doesn't necessary change it. Powerful combos come from the synergy of the different pieces. Nerfing can reduce some of the potency, but doesn't necessary change the synergistic nature of it. Yes, a nerf can change the synergistic nature, I probably should have worded it better, but nerfing does not inherently mean the combos will stop. Furthermore, I'd say combos are a good thing and a combo is only broken if its power level is out of line with other options. So by buffing other options, you can create the proper relative power level while maintaining the fun from the original combos rather than just neutering them and making them feel bad to use in comparison.
Because you can't look at just feats. You have to look at the power level across the entire system. Feats may be in the minority, but if you are just looking at the power gap across the entire system, magic in general is part of that upper level of power. If you want to reduce the gap between the power floor and ceiling, nerfing feats like SS and GWM isn't going to solve it when you add the entirety of spellcasting into the mix.
Also, considering that you can only take a stat up to 20, it is impossible to make a character that takes only ability score increases be equal in power to a character that takes feats. Ability Score Increases past your primary stat will never be as strong as taking a synergistic feat; that's the reality of things. Unless you make feats truly insignificant and pointless, taking only ability score increases isn't going to be on par with taking feats.
No, it very much is the versatility. Casters have spells that can simply let them interact directly with the various pillars. Need a safe place to rest? Rope Trick, Tiny Hut, Magnificent Mansion, etc. Charm spells for social interaction. Blasting and CC spells for combat. Teleportation spells, fly, invisibility, etc. for exploring. Magic offers so much versatility that lets it solve a variety of problems. Martials often have to rely on skill/ability checks to get things done. Where as a martial character may have to hunt or forage for food, a Druid could just cast goodberry or a cleric cast create food and water. Even martials have some limited resources that they can only use a limited number of times at first with that limit being lifted as they level up, a barbarian gets more uses of rage for example. However, those martial features generally only interact with the combat pillar of play.
Unless they really buff the base versions of martials, which we have yet to see and thus cannot base our feedback on, that caster martial power gap is going to stay and currently in One D&D it is bigger than ever. If they really wanted to nerf feats like SS/GWM they should have waited until after they fully buffed martials if that is their intention. Otherwise, they are only just making the power gap even bigger in the current play test version.
It is not possible to do this with the -5/+10 feats because those feats are so swingy because of combos. The power of SS/GWM can be 50% different between two parties with identical composition depending on the choices they make in combat. It simply isn't possible to balance other feat to these two options because if you balance other feat to the maximum potency of SS/GWM -> i.e. assuming the martial is always attacking with advantage and Bless - then the other feats will be extremely overtuned since they won't rely on advantage / Bless and have the same damage output. But if balance other feats to the average potency of SS/GWM with a flat roll and no extra buffs then the feats will be too weak by comparison since they don't have the same synergy and optimizers will still always stick to SS/GWM. The new GWM is just way way better for the game.
It is possible, none of what you said makes it impossible. Other options can have their own combos and synergy and aim for aspects other than damage. Crowd Control options for example. The combos with SS and GWM were not even broken to begin with when you added in the power level of casters into the mix. The only issue was that they were the only option for martials to keep up.
They were clearly overperforming, in that they were clearly better than other available options for martials. If martials need Moar Damage to keep up (I don't think that's the key weakness of martials), better to do it with class features.
Which is precisely why they need to be balanced properly!
Nerfing can absolutely solve the problem if the problem is that overly strong components are being combined; as I've already said there are other ways to solve similar problems (combos that only become truly broken in combination) but nerfing is one of those options and absolutely the correct one in this case. And these feats aren't being "neutered", they're still perfectly good feats, they're just not as (overly) strong as they used to be, which is something you should be applauding if you actually care about balance.
The reason everyone takes one or both of Great Weapon Master and Polearm Master on a Barbarian is because either one of those is a significant boost to a Barbarian, so much so that they are no-brainers, as excluding very specific cases it's hard to argue that any feat will give you more of a boost than either of these two. Same is true of Sharpshooter on an archer; it's not simply a good feat for an archer with other valid options out there, it is hands down the best, so much so that not taking it is choosing to hold yourself back. And the -5 to hit trade off is simply not the balancing factor that Wizards originally envisioned it would be when there are so many ways to mitigate it and effectively just gain +10 damage per hit.
I literally said this same thing already, but feats are not there to fix class imbalances; feats are supposed to be balanced against increasing your ability scores by two points, any feat that is so obviously more powerful than doing so is overpowered. Feats must be roughly balanced against one another, otherwise it makes the job of balancing anything else even harder.
And if overly strong feats are in the minority, then reducing them is far more logical than trying to increase the strength of every other feat (especially when that will only make ASIs even less valuable). Boosting everything else will create more work, and introduce more opportunities to create new problems down the line. It's a matter of surgically changing only what you need to (or only making small tweaks) versus nuking and potentially breaking everything.
Also as I and others have now said repeatedly to you, we do not yet know what changes are coming for martial classes; we have hints from Crawford but very little in the way of specific details, but scaling up the weaker classes makes a lot more sense than trying to nerf the spellcasting classes (as in the classes themselves) which broadly play just fine. Martials in this case are the minority, so it's again the obvious place to solve the problem rather than making sweeping changes to spellcasters and potentially breaking everything.
No class is actually single attribute dependent, as every class can benefit from boosting Constitution, or boosting Dexterity and/or Wisdom to improve those saves, boost the related skills etc. are all valid options as well. Refusing to see options isn't the same as there not being any, as being more well rounded is as valid a choice as over-specialising.
Are you physically incapable of agreeing with something? 😝
I didn't say versatility doesn't factor at all, but versatility doesn't count for shit if you can't use it, so the number of available spell-slots is absolutely, objectively, unambiguously relevant, especially when a major factor in balance in D&D is how something scales across multiple levels.
Martials are arguably the strongest of the early level characters as they have more hit-points, are less dependent on having one high stat, and fewer resource requirements, but that scale tips quickly as casters level up and rapidly again access to more spell slots (which they do a lot more quickly than most gain access to spells, so scale absolutely outpaces versatility).
More versatility on martials would certainly be nice but it won't solve the scaling problem that they all have to some degree, because that early to mid rapid scaling of resources is a major (arguably the most major) thing they are competing with. Again, the biggest limitation of casters is their spell slots, but that limitation rapidly diminishes, that is what martials are competing against because none of them (except the part-casters) scale in the same way. Monk kind of does but it's far too vulnerable to short rest frequency and is capable of spending resources a lot faster than most casters can (e.g- Flurry of Blows with all four as Stunning Strikes).
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Balancing properly does not necessary require flat out nerfing; and right now they aren't balanced properly as we have not received proper buffs to martials to compensate for the nerfs. Because we don't have those, we cannot include their possibility in our feedback.
Nerfing should be done if there is an issue with the power level; but there was no issue with the power level The problem was the lack of options at that power level. Martials should be at that power level, if not higher. If we had a number of options resulting in the same power level, SS/GWM would not be an issue. Buffing options to match SS/GWM would solve the lack of options issue. Right now, martials got a severe power level decrease and we can't guarantee any compensation for that nerf.
They should not be rolling out nerfs without the proper martial buffs to compensate if they don't want people to be worried about it being a flat nerf.
I cannot applaud this nerf because it is a straight nerf to martials without any known compensation when the overall power level of martials is not an issue.
Also, feats can be there to fix class imbalances as they are adding requirements like you must be of one of the warrior classes or be of priest classes.
It has been proven that not every stat is equal epecially not for every class. 2 points in Wisdom does not mean as much as 2 points in Str or Dex for a Fighter or 2 points in Int for a wizard. 2 points in Charisma is going to be worth far more than 2 points in Str for a bard. Resilient to boost Wisdom from 13 to 14 is worth many times as much as boosting Wisdom by 2 points in that situation. +2 in Con is not going to be as valuable as resilient or warcaster for a caster.
Non-variant human gaining +1 to every stat is often seen as bad as not every class values every stat.
A character with just ASI's will not be as strong as a character that takes feats with ASI's to their primary stat. It is impossible to do that. The fact that not all ASI's are equal makes this impossible. The fact that dump stats are a thing further supports this.
An ASI increase to the primary stat should be on par with feats, but an ASI increase to a secondary or teritary stat will never be on par with a feat without making the feat mechanically worthless.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I can't agree with something. I will however only agree with something if I believe it to be correct. I am not going to agree with something just for the sake of agreeing with something.
I have played games where short rests were plentiful, helping with resource issues of martials like fighters and monks. However, even then casters tend to outstrip them. Versatility is the main thing. Yes, you can say versatility means nothing if you don't have the resources, but the reverse can also be said where resoures are meaningless if you don't have anything to spend it on.
And I find myself running into resource issues with casters at all tiers of play than I do with martials. In my current campaign as an artificer, I have to carefully manage my spellslots and magic item uses; another artificer in the group is always running out of slots; same with the cleric. The soul knife rogue on the otherhand has psychic dice for days. However, I have something to contribute much more often because my spells and infusions give me an insane level of versatility. In past campaigns, I often find myself having to be careful with my resources as a caster throughout all tiers of play while being able to offer an insane level of versatility.
That versatility is what pushes casters. Giving martials more versatility, more options and interaction with all the pillars of play will go a longer way towards better balance the nerfs that have been happening lately.
Overperformance doesn't mean you can't make other options match them. Also, I wouldn't say they were overpeforming when you looked at the caster/martial gap. Rather, I would say the other options were underperforming.
People say that all the time, but honestly, I think it is not true. Because monks and rangers have that versatility in 5e and the community absolutely hates them.
Sure casters have way more versatility but that comes at a trade-off, spells either do battlefield control or they do utility or they do damage. They don't do all three at the same time, and the resources available to spend on them is limited. Such choices already exist for martials: instead of dealing damage, a martial can grapple and shove an enemy prone which is similar to imposing the "restrained" condition by a caster but generally has a higher chance of success than a spell that gives the enemies a save to escape. But the "give martials versatility" folks hate grappling because they have to give up dealing damage to do it. Shadow monks get unlimited bonus action teleportation, and the power to stun enemies but the "give martials versatility" folks hate it because they have to sacrifice some damage to do it. Rangers get all kinds of battlefield control spells and out of combat exploration stuff, but people don't care they only care that a fighter can deal more DPR than a ranger therefore Rangers are bad.