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.
You're not being asked to provide feedback for classes that haven't been updated yet; feats need to be balanced when compared to other feats, feedback on classes can be given once those classes are updated, and that will include how they interact with any feats have already been updated, and the relevant feats will presumably be re-released as part of the relevant UA (i.e- all Warrior group feats should appear in any Warrior group UA).
All that matters right now is how strong the feats are compared with each other, and with the classes that have been updated so far. While that's a little tricky when the only one with multiple attacks (the Ranger) has limited access to fighting styles (which I wish they had lifted, and I said so in my feedback) we can still evaluate how balanced the feats are compared to other options for those same classes, as all should be equally viable for a build.
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.
No, the problem is that these feats were so much stronger than the other options that do exist but which optimisers will not use. There are a loads of feats, but there only a handful of optimal feats, and that's precisely the problem; refusing to acknowledge it doesn't make it magically not so.
If you consider the classes unplayable without those feats, then the problem is with the class, not access to the feats (which has been optional for as long as 5e has existed).
I'm going to assume that you do want feats to be balanced, but you seem to be having trouble with accepting that balancing is easiest with fewer changes made; rebalancing everything else would be the worst possible option, because it all but guarantees new problems are created.
Martials should be at that power level, if not higher.
Martials should be at a comparable power level without feats, that was always the problem in 5th edition because feats were supposed to be optional, a build should never have required them in order to compete.
Now that feats are going to be a core part of the game it is critical that they be balanced. Do I really need to keep repeating the same basic points? None of this should be controversial yet you seem to just keep refusing everything?
Either the updated martials will be balanced compared to other classes, or they won't be, but we won't know their updates are released.
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.
Except that it's not a flat nerf, it brings them closer to other feats; again, feats should be balanced against each other, the classes themselves are irrelevant to that equation. Now whether or not the martial classes themselves will be made more competitive is an open and valid question, but it's one we won't have an answer to until that content is released.
You're not being asked to give feedback on things that haven't been released yet, you're being asked to give feedback on what has been released. If you have concerns about what the feat might be like with an updated martial class then you need to wait for that class because right now you simply do not have any basis on which to evaluate it.
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.
It's not a nerf to martials because feats in 5e are optional, what you are seeing is that martial classes themselves in 5e were never well balanced, and people were relying on features they shouldn't have needed to in order to compete.
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.
We're not talking about taking dump stats here; if we assume a martial manages to start out with say 16 (+3) in STR and CON, then that's still a minimum of two ASIs each to boost both of those to +5's, at which point you're only looking for a third stat to boost, DEX being a good one for added defence and useful skills even without light armour.
Even when you get into "secondary" stats, Charisma is good for Intimidation and the social pillar in general, Wisdom is good for the exploration/survival pillar though it's arguably underused (because it's also woefully underdeveloped, which is what needs to change). Only really Intelligence is an obvious dump stat, and even that's not true for an Eldritch Knight. And all three will boost saves that martials are usually most vulnerable too.
While the Resilient feat is better for the saves case specifically (though arguably only most so when you already have an odd score, thanks to the silly way that scores and modifiers work), that's more of a general problem with many skills being undervalued by the game (really everything that isn't combat is undervalued by the 5e rules, something they really need to do something about); but in a group that uses skills better, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are valuable on any character because they cover the greatest number of skills. It would be nice though if martials gained more proficiencies to reflect the fact that they can't rely on spells as a replacement.
the reverse can also be said where resoures are meaningless if you don't have anything to spend it on.
Except that that doesn't work the same; a caster that specialises in only one thing will still excel at that one thing, including outperforming martials in combat if they focus on that pillar, but how long they can do so will never not be dependent upon their resources and how those resources scale.
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.
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.
The quality of the versatility also matters. Full casters get better spells overall, and get them at a faster rate than half-casters like rangers. Among the half-casters, paladins and artificers make up for the slower spell progression and quality with having other useful features like infusions, Lay on Hands, Aura of Protection, Flash of Genius, and Divine Smite. And with artificers specifically, their subclasses (barring maybe Alchemist) have some pretty good features to add on top of the base class features.
In other words, it's complicated.
Of course a martial can't have as good spells as a full caster, otherwise what's the point of having different classes? A martial by definition is better at weapon combat and dealing and taking damage and less good at utility and AoE than a full caster. That's what makes them a martial and not a full caster. If you want to have the abilities of a full caster but use a weapon to "do" the spells then just play a full caster and hold a weapon in your hands and flavour your spells as you using the weapon to cause the spell effect.
Artificer popularity baffles me, because they do not get good features (Alchemist is utter garbage, and Armourer and Battlesmith are mediocre). They are essentially a worse bard, with some tanking abilities with the only thing going for them that they are very SAD. Unless your DM utterly starves the party of magic items, artificers are a pretty weak class.
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.
You're not being asked to provide feedback for classes that haven't been updated yet; feats need to be balanced when compared to other feats, feedback on classes can be given once those classes are updated, and that will include how they interact with any feats have already been updated, and the relevant feats will presumably be re-released as part of the relevant UA (i.e- all Warrior group feats should appear in any Warrior group UA).
All that matters right now is how strong the feats are compared with each other, and with the classes that have been updated so far. While that's a little tricky when the only one with multiple attacks (the Ranger) has limited access to fighting styles (which I wish they had lifted, and I said so in my feedback) we can still evaluate how balanced the feats are compared to other options for those same classes, as all should be equally viable for a build.
I find looking at feats purely in a vacuum to be flawed. There are going to be feats that will have synergy with different classes, there is going to be no avoiding that. For certain classes, certain feats will be more valuable. The whole picture should always be kept in mind.
No, the problem is that these feats were so much stronger than the other options that do exist but which optimisers will not use. There are a loads of feats, but there only a handful of optimal feats, and that's precisely the problem; refusing to acknowledge it doesn't make it magically not so.
If you consider the classes unplayable without those feats, then the problem is with the class, not access to the feats (which has been optional for as long as 5e has existed).
I'm going to assume that you do want feats to be balanced, but you seem to be having trouble with accepting that balancing is easiest with fewer changes made; rebalancing everything else would be the worst possible option, because it all but guarantees new problems are created.
Feats being stronger than other option does not mean that the feats need to be nerfed if the stronger feats are at the appropriate power level. Also, lets be real, feats are only optional in name only; plus the optionality of feats in 5E is also a complete non-factor at this point anyway; there is no reason to bring it up. When looking at balancing, I don't look at just feats, I look at the whole picture.
Also, I am not refusing to acknowledge that there are fewer optimal feats. However, I am constantly looking at the whole picture when it comes to balancing.
Martials should be at a comparable power level without feats, that was always the problem in 5th edition because feats were supposed to be optional, a build should never have required them in order to compete.
Now that feats are going to be a core part of the game it is critical that they be balanced. Do I really need to keep repeating the same basic points? None of this should be controversial yet you seem to just keep refusing everything?
Either the updated martials will be balanced compared to other classes, or they won't be, but we won't know their updates are released.
You can't look at feats in a vacuum if you want them to be balanced. No matter what, there is going to be synergy which will drive some feats up in higher value for certain classes. Everything in a build is interconnected. I regularly min/max and synergy is the main thing I look for. How feats interact with various class features affects the balancing massively. The fact that feats are officially becoming a core part is all the more reason that we need to consider it in conjunction with classes.
Martials should be at that power level, if not higher.
Martials should be at a comparable power level without feats, that was always the problem in 5th edition because feats were supposed to be optional, a build should never have required them in order to compete.
Now that feats are going to be a core part of the game it is critical that they be balanced. Do I really need to keep repeating the same basic points? None of this should be controversial yet you seem to just keep refusing everything?
Either the updated martials will be balanced compared to other classes, or they won't be, but we won't know their updates are released.
I find balancing classes and feats in a vacuum apart from one another to be severely flawed. No matter what, classes and feats will have synergy which will drive certain feats higher in value for certain classes. There is no avoiding that. Classes matter in feat balancing and feats matter in class balancing, especially with feats becoming mandatory. Though let's be real, feats were never really optional; the prevalence effectively made them a core part of the game, same with magic items.
Except that it's not a flat nerf, it brings them closer to other feats; again, feats should be balanced against each other, the classes themselves are irrelevant to that equation. Now whether or not the martial classes themselves will be made more competitive is an open and valid question, but it's one we won't have an answer to until that content is released.
You're not being asked to give feedback on things that haven't been released yet, you're being asked to give feedback on what has been released. If you have concerns about what the feat might be like with an updated martial class then you need to wait for that class because right now you simply do not have any basis on which to evaluate it.
Class balance matters in feat balance and feat balance will matter in class balance. Everything on a character is interwoven and connected, there is no escaping that. Class features and feat will interact with one another, forming combos. The nerfs to feats like SS and GWM should have occurred with the changes to martials. When play testing you are going to end up using those feats on martial classes. The feeling of those feats will be affected by the current power level of the martial classes. If they are trying to move the power of the feats into the classes, that's fine, but they should have only changed the feats when they released the changes for the classes, because that actually does matter a lot. Right now, the martial feats just feels bad to use because all you feel is the lost power. Furthermore, we have to be sure that they do buff martials to compensate for these feats being nerfed because there is a chance that they don't buff martials accordingly. The feats being nerfed shouldn't have came this early if they are indeed planning to buff martials.
We're not talking about taking dump stats here; if we assume a martial manages to start out with say 16 (+3) in STR and CON, then that's still a minimum of two ASIs each to boost both of those to +5's, at which point you're only looking for a third stat to boost, DEX being a good one for added defence and useful skills even without light armour.
Even when you get into "secondary" stats, Charisma is good for Intimidation and the social pillar in general, Wisdom is good for the exploration/survival pillar though it's arguably underused (because it's also woefully underdeveloped, which is what needs to change). Only really Intelligence is an obvious dump stat, and even that's not true for an Eldritch Knight. And all three will boost saves that martials are usually most vulnerable too.
While the Resilient feat is better for the saves case specifically (though arguably only most so when you already have an odd score, thanks to the silly way that scores and modifiers work), that's more of a general problem with many skills being undervalued by the game (really everything that isn't combat is undervalued by the 5e rules, something they really need to do something about); but in a group that uses skills better, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are valuable on any character because they cover the greatest number of skills. It would be nice though if martials gained more proficiencies to reflect the fact that they can't rely on spells as a replacement.
The comparison you quoted didn't even involve dump stats. It compared +2 Wisdom to non-wisdom classes getting +2 to their primary stat. +1 to a few skills doesn't come anywhere near what +2 to a primary stat does. Even more Dex is not going to do much if the character is focused on Strength and wears heavy armor. Sure it offers Dex Saves, Initiative, as well as bonuses to several skills; but a synergistic feat is going to outperform it. The fact is that just getting +1's to a few skills isn't really that great. Gaining +1 to intimidation isn't going to do much if you don't have proficiency in it. Those +1's tend to matter more when the number is already high.
Except that that doesn't work the same; a caster that specialises in only one thing will still excel at that one thing, including outperforming martials in combat if they focus on that pillar, but how long they can do so will never not be dependent upon their resources and how those resources scale.
It really does though. Combat is where martials and casters are close to on par with each other, in particular the damage department. However casters simply have better mobility and crowd control, meaning even in combat they just have better options. I've had games where when playing as a caster, I was scrapping the bottom of the barrel in resources while the martial characters were fine due to plentiful short rests and how their resources work, but I was still able to make bigger impacts because even when being conservative with my spells, I was able to pull out a key spell in critical situations because I essentially had a spell for just about any situation.
Extra versatility will go a very long way in closing the caster martial divide.
Of course a martial can't have as good spells as a full caster, otherwise what's the point of having different classes? A martial by definition is better at weapon combat and dealing and taking damage and less good at utility and AoE than a full caster. That's what makes them a martial and not a full caster. If you want to have the abilities of a full caster but use a weapon to "do" the spells then just play a full caster and hold a weapon in your hands and flavour your spells as you using the weapon to cause the spell effect.
Artificer popularity baffles me, because they do not get good features (Alchemist is utter garbage, and Armourer and Battlesmith are mediocre). They are essentially a worse bard, with some tanking abilities with the only thing going for them that they are very SAD. Unless your DM utterly starves the party of magic items, artificers are a pretty weak class.
Flash of Genius is incredibly powerful; adding your intelligence modifier to ability checks and saving throws as a reaction is huge and amazing. Being able to guarantee certain magic items also goes a long way. Spell storing item lets you store a variety of useful spells that you may otherwise not want to spend spell slots on. Enhance Ability for example is an amazing pick for the Spell Storing item. They also maintain the concentration for the spell if they cast it through your spell storing item, which is pretty huge.
Also, remember that Artificers can attune to more than 3 magic items. At 10th level, they become able to attune to 4 items, 5 items at 14th (while also ignoring class, race, spell, and level requirements), and 6 items if you manage to reach 18th level. In my current campaign where we have reached 20th level (it was a 1-20 campaign), my artificer lowest saving throw is a +10 Charisma Save and she has 8 Charisma; her highest save is +22 intelligence, followed by +20 Constitution, and +18 Wisdom as I am able to stack a variety of magic items that boost my saving throws: Staff of Power, Robe of Stars, Cloak of Protection, and Ring of Protection. I also have a good AC of 23, without using a shield, and can be boosted by the shield spell to a 28. If I used a shield, I would easily break 30 AC when used with the Shield Spell.
Being SAD is also a massive boon; never underestimate the benefits of being SAD; it's what made Hexblade so popular with Paladins. Once I got my Int to 20, I was free to just take feats that synergized with my character.
Spell storing item lets you store a variety of useful spells that you may otherwise not want to spend spell slots on. Enhance Ability for example is an amazing pick for the Spell Storing item. They also maintain the concentration for the spell if they cast it through your spell storing item, which is pretty huge.
I was tempted to mention Spell Storing Item, because it is a very powerful feature, but I decided against it because it comes online very late (or not at all) in most campaigns.
Spell storing item lets you store a variety of useful spells that you may otherwise not want to spend spell slots on. Enhance Ability for example is an amazing pick for the Spell Storing item. They also maintain the concentration for the spell if they cast it through your spell storing item, which is pretty huge.
I was tempted to mention Spell Storing Item, because it is a very powerful feature, but I decided against it because it comes online very late (or not at all) in most campaigns.
Spell storing item lets you store a variety of useful spells that you may otherwise not want to spend spell slots on. Enhance Ability for example is an amazing pick for the Spell Storing item. They also maintain the concentration for the spell if they cast it through your spell storing item, which is pretty huge.
I was tempted to mention Spell Storing Item, because it is a very powerful feature, but I decided against it because it comes online very late (or not at all) in most campaigns.
That isn't what anyone said. The user of the ring concentrates on the spell, not the caster that put the spell in there.
Also, the Spell Storing item is not the Ring of Spell Storing, nor is it even a magic item. It's an artificer class feature, so no attunement needed to cast the spells inside the spell storing item. How it stores spells is different as well.
I find looking at feats purely in a vacuum to be flawed. There are going to be feats that will have synergy with different classes, there is going to be no avoiding that. For certain classes, certain feats will be more valuable. The whole picture should always be kept in mind.
I'm running out of ways to point out that the updated martial classes have not been released yet, do you seriously not recognise that?
This is not a complete finished pre-release ruleset, they're very specifically releasing it in pieces so they can balance and get feedback on individual pieces semi-separately. "Synergy" is only relevant at this stage for the classes that have already been updated, alongside the content that has been released with them (most of which has been released that way because some or all of those classes can take it). The balance of unreleased classes is not, should not, and cannot be considered until all of those pieces have been released, because until they have all you're doing is venting about a problem that may or may not exist (and certainly doesn't exist yet).
But it does not change the fact that feats must be balanced against one another, otherwise there will continue to be feats basically everybody takes or nobody takes; it doesn't matter how well a feat synergises with a particular class, they should all be at least somewhat viable so that players have as many choices as possible for the sake of the variety you say you want. A Barbarian should not feel required to take Great Weapon Master to make their character worth playing, they should be able to take any other feat and still feel like they've made a valid choice that isn't crippling their character. But we have no idea at this stage what boosts WotC has planned for the Barbarian class, but it'd be silly to assume there will be none.
No feat should be obviously stronger than another feat for any reason, because if it is then it will never be balanced; there will certainly be feats that make more sense on a particular build, some that are more or less combat focused etc., but they should all be equally valuable, otherwise they are not viable as options, meaning there is less versatility in the game.
The simple fact is that certain feats are currently stronger compared to others, especially on certain classes, but they shouldn't be. The -5 to hit for +10 damage trade off is a classic example of an easily exploited mechanic, because people realised early on that advantage is roughly equivalent to +5 to hit so will cancel that out, giving you roughly the same hit chance as anyone else but with +10 damage per hit, which is only made worse when the build can make a high number of attacks.
And it's not nerfing classes that haven't been updated yet, because they haven't been updated yet; if you are play-testing one of those classes then you are doing so in spite of the multiple warnings that doing so may not work as intended. Until you understand this, it's really not possible to discuss any further.
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.
No feat should be obviously stronger than another feat for any reason, because if it is then it will never be balanced; there will certainly be feats that make more sense on a particular build, some that are more or less combat focused etc., but they should all be equally valuable, otherwise they are not viable as options, meaning there is less versatility in the game (you know that thing you argue is crucial to casters but don't seem to recognise in any other case).
Kind of an aside but this is the reason I'm furious they didn't nerf Polearm Master. It's still the case that any STR-based melee character is going to be more powerful with a polearm + PAM than any other build, which is so disappointing when they fixed so many of the other problems.
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.
Well, (a) they don't, and (b) the community doesn't hate them, it just thinks they aren't very good. Probably because versatility implies being actually good at multiple pillars.
Kind of an aside but this is the reason I'm furious they didn't nerf Polearm Master. It's still the case that any STR-based melee character is going to be more powerful with a polearm + PAM than any other build, which is so disappointing when they fixed so many of the other problems.
Yeah I found that a bit surprising too; I've always found the bonus action attack a bit weird as the small damage dice only makes a tiny difference to the added damage in practice, especially when a lot of builds that will take it won't have a lot of competition for the bonus action, and the reaction attack is pretty easy to exploit.
I'm currently playing in a campaign with our group's standard start of 3rd-level with a free feat, and the DM asked us to go hard with the builds (rather than our usual self-moderation) so I opted for a Swarmkeeper Ranger with Polearm Expert and it's pretty nuts; thanks to Gathered Swarm he can pretty much guarantee a reaction attack every round, so he effectively has three attacks at 3rd-level, often with hunter's mark active as well.
It becoming a 4th-level only feat will reduce that kind of rapid escalation, but it definitely needs looking at as well or it'll be the mandatory feat as even (or especially) on a class that doesn't get extra attack it can be a big boost.
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.
Yeah I found that a bit surprising too; I've always found the bonus action attack a bit weird as the small damage dice only makes a tiny difference to the added damage in practice, especially when a lot of builds that will take it won't have a lot of competition for the bonus action, and the reaction attack is pretty easy to exploit.
Tossing the bonus action attack so it's only the reaction attack would still be a reasonably good feat.
Flash of Genius is incredibly powerful; adding your intelligence modifier to ability checks and saving throws as a reaction is huge and amazing.
Flash of Genius is roughly the same numerical bonus as Bardic Inspiration only it can only be used once per round [no handing out BI to the entire party before you go fight the dragon] and is long-rest recharge not short-rest recharge.
Being able to guarantee certain magic items also goes a long way.
Have you looked at that list of items? There's like 2 that are worthwhile. Almost every artificer I've seen played takes no more than one "create magic item" infusion, 99% of the time infusions are used to boost attacks and armour of the artificer themselves.
Spell storing item lets you store a variety of useful spells that you may otherwise not want to spend spell slots on. Enhance Ability for example is an amazing pick for the Spell Storing item. They also maintain the concentration for the spell if they cast it through your spell storing item, which is pretty huge.
Spell storing item is decent, but because of the limitations to only 1 spell that is 1 action to cast it's not actually that useful - generally about equivalent to 1x 5th level spell. Enhance Ability is only good if your DM doesn't allow the Help action.
my artificer lowest saving throw is a +10 Charisma Save and she has 8 Charisma; her highest save is +22 intelligence, followed by +20 Constitution, and +18 Wisdom as I am able to stack a variety of magic items that boost my saving throws: Staff of Power, Robe of Stars, Cloak of Protection, and Ring of Protection. I also have a good AC of 23, without using a shield, and can be boosted by the shield spell to a 28. If I used a shield, I would easily break 30 AC when used with the Shield Spell.
That's not that special for a 20th level character though. Paladins provide a +5 bonus to all saving throws by everyone in the party at level 18, and monks get proficiency in all saving throws at level 14. And you're dealing way way way less damage than a level 20 paladin, I'd wager less damage than a level 20 monk even (assuming similar availability of magic items).
Yeah I found that a bit surprising too; I've always found the bonus action attack a bit weird as the small damage dice only makes a tiny difference to the added damage in practice, especially when a lot of builds that will take it won't have a lot of competition for the bonus action, and the reaction attack is pretty easy to exploit.
Tossing the bonus action attack so it's only the reaction attack would still be a reasonably good feat.
Yes! I understand that thematically the reaction attack really should stay, but the BA attack does not make any sense (ever tried to spin around a 13 ft long stick with a hunk of metal on one end while still trying to keep your guard up to defend against enemy attacks - good luck!) and has always made it a must-take.
Yes! I understand that thematically the reaction attack really should stay, but the BA attack does not make any sense (ever tried to spin around a 13 ft long stick with a hunk of metal on one end while still trying to keep your guard up to defend against enemy attacks - good luck!) and has always made it a must-take.
I think they were trying to emulate the quarterstaff being a double weapon in 3.5e (note that it's on the list of weapons in the 5e version of the feat) as well as the way reach weapons gave you opportunity attacks, and for some reason combined them into a single feat.
No feat should be obviously stronger than another feat for any reason, because if it is then it will never be balanced; there will certainly be feats that make more sense on a particular build, some that are more or less combat focused etc., but they should all be equally valuable, otherwise they are not viable as options, meaning there is less versatility in the game (you know that thing you argue is crucial to casters but don't seem to recognise in any other case).
Kind of an aside but this is the reason I'm furious they didn't nerf Polearm Master. It's still the case that any STR-based melee character is going to be more powerful with a polearm + PAM than any other build, which is so disappointing when they fixed so many of the other problems.
We've already seen a UA make one change and in the next make yet another change to the same thing, so no saying that PAM will stay as is. It could still be nerfed but hasn't yet. Unless you consider the lack of Quarterstaff and Spear being able to use it as a nerf, then it did receive a nerf, but not quite as hard as you would have liked. I don't do maths usually, so I don't know how Polearm + PAM stands up with changes to the Light Weapon Property + Dual Wielder feat (say, Longsword/Shortsword combo)
We've already seen a UA make one change and in the next make yet another change to the same thing, so no saying that PAM will stay as is. It could still be nerfed but hasn't yet. Unless you consider the lack of Quarterstaff and Spear being able to use it as a nerf, then it did receive a nerf, but not quite as hard as you would have liked. I don't do maths usually, so I don't know how Polearm + PAM stands up with changes to the Light Weapon Property + Dual Wielder feat (say, Longsword/Shortsword combo)
The changes to light definitely help a lot with two-weapon fighting and dual wielder, and actually make it viable on builds that have a lot of other competition for the bonus action (including Monk, assuming they keep the core Ki abilities on the bonus action).
Personally I'd still like to see them drop the off-hand attack not adding the modifier to damage and balance it some other way; it's something I've seen a lot of players (including myself) forget about, and most digital tools don't handle it all that well. It pretty much makes it so that the Two-Weapon Fighting Style isn't necessary because it's good but because it's a huge pain in the ass to not have it.
Not sure how to balance it better, but I do wonder if it might make sense for them to limit more of the per hit damage damage boosts such as hex, hunter's mark etc. and have them do more damage but only once per turn, or once per action or such, to limit the amplification effect of throwing more attacks at them? This would have the same consequence of making hex more viable on warlocks that want to focus on something other than eldritch blast.
Basically the idea would be to limit the number of effects that have any kind of unbounded bonus, because that's where a number of balance issues creep in when players start thinking "well if it works for one attack, it'll work even better for 5+ attacks in a single round!"
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.
Lets make some simplifying assumptions: No fighting style STR mod = 5 PAM increases chance of reaction attack to 75% vs 25% without equal attack bonuses 2 attacks / action
And this is before considering that one magical halberd applies its magical bonuses to all 4 attacks, whereas a magical longsword applies the magical bonus to 3 of the possible attacks.
Lets make some simplifying assumptions: No fighting style STR mod = 5 PAM increases chance of reaction attack to 75% vs 25% without equal attack bonuses 2 attacks / action
And this is before considering that one magical halberd applies its magical bonuses to all 4 attacks, whereas a magical longsword applies the magical bonus to 3 of the possible attacks.
It looks like most of the difference in DPR comes from the Reaction attack. Unfortunately that's very dependant on the way the DM runs monsters, so the chance of using it will vary a lot from table to table. The polearm fighter is giving up their bonus action while the two weapon fighter is not. Though the characters using a polearm normally might not have much use for the bonus action anyway.
I find looking at feats purely in a vacuum to be flawed. There are going to be feats that will have synergy with different classes, there is going to be no avoiding that. For certain classes, certain feats will be more valuable. The whole picture should always be kept in mind.
I'm running out of ways to point out that the updated martial classes have not been released yet, do you seriously not recognise that?
This is not a complete finished pre-release ruleset, they're very specifically releasing it in pieces so they can balance and get feedback on individual pieces semi-separately. "Synergy" is only relevant at this stage for the classes that have already been updated, alongside the content that has been released with them (most of which has been released that way because some or all of those classes can take it). The balance of unreleased classes is not, should not, and cannot be considered until all of those pieces have been released, because until they have all you're doing is venting about a problem that may or may not exist (and certainly doesn't exist yet).
But it does not change the fact that feats must be balanced against one another, otherwise there will continue to be feats basically everybody takes or nobody takes; it doesn't matter how well a feat synergises with a particular class, they should all be at least somewhat viable so that players have as many choices as possible for the sake of the variety you say you want. A Barbarian should not feel required to take Great Weapon Master to make their character worth playing, they should be able to take any other feat and still feel like they've made a valid choice that isn't crippling their character. But we have no idea at this stage what boosts WotC has planned for the Barbarian class, but it'd be silly to assume there will be none.
No feat should be obviously stronger than another feat for any reason, because if it is then it will never be balanced; there will certainly be feats that make more sense on a particular build, some that are more or less combat focused etc., but they should all be equally valuable, otherwise they are not viable as options, meaning there is less versatility in the game.
The simple fact is that certain feats are currently stronger compared to others, especially on certain classes, but they shouldn't be. The -5 to hit for +10 damage trade off is a classic example of an easily exploited mechanic, because people realised early on that advantage is roughly equivalent to +5 to hit so will cancel that out, giving you roughly the same hit chance as anyone else but with +10 damage per hit, which is only made worse when the build can make a high number of attacks.
And it's not nerfing classes that haven't been updated yet, because they haven't been updated yet; if you are play-testing one of those classes then you are doing so in spite of the multiple warnings that doing so may not work as intended. Until you understand this, it's really not possible to discuss any further.
I do not believe that feats can be balanced against one another without considering classes as well. They are too intertwined. I realize that updated martial classes are not out yet, which is why I can only give feedback under the worse case scenario of martials not getting the neccessary buffs to compensate. You can't properly test out the feats without those classes. Also, we do have a One D&D class that used Sharpshooter in 5E: Ranger. Even with the buff to hunters mark, rangers still saw a bit of a damage nerf due to the sharp shooter changes.
Flash of Genius is incredibly powerful; adding your intelligence modifier to ability checks and saving throws as a reaction is huge and amazing.
Flash of Genius is roughly the same numerical bonus as Bardic Inspiration only it can only be used once per round [no handing out BI to the entire party before you go fight the dragon] and is long-rest recharge not short-rest recharge.
Being able to guarantee certain magic items also goes a long way.
Have you looked at that list of items? There's like 2 that are worthwhile. Almost every artificer I've seen played takes no more than one "create magic item" infusion, 99% of the time infusions are used to boost attacks and armour of the artificer themselves.
Spell storing item lets you store a variety of useful spells that you may otherwise not want to spend spell slots on. Enhance Ability for example is an amazing pick for the Spell Storing item. They also maintain the concentration for the spell if they cast it through your spell storing item, which is pretty huge.
Spell storing item is decent, but because of the limitations to only 1 spell that is 1 action to cast it's not actually that useful - generally about equivalent to 1x 5th level spell. Enhance Ability is only good if your DM doesn't allow the Help action.
my artificer lowest saving throw is a +10 Charisma Save and she has 8 Charisma; her highest save is +22 intelligence, followed by +20 Constitution, and +18 Wisdom as I am able to stack a variety of magic items that boost my saving throws: Staff of Power, Robe of Stars, Cloak of Protection, and Ring of Protection. I also have a good AC of 23, without using a shield, and can be boosted by the shield spell to a 28. If I used a shield, I would easily break 30 AC when used with the Shield Spell.
That's not that special for a 20th level character though. Paladins provide a +5 bonus to all saving throws by everyone in the party at level 18, and monks get proficiency in all saving throws at level 14. And you're dealing way way way less damage than a level 20 paladin, I'd wager less damage than a level 20 monk even (assuming similar availability of magic items).
Monks don't get saves this high. Proficiency generally only gets you to +11. Paladins can achieve similar results in the Saving Throw Department, but they aren't usually boosting ability checks. Bards need to use a bonus action in advance to boost an ability check, meaning you are not likely going to have it for say initiative, which is an ability check. Also, being able to do it on a reaction and guaranteeing the +5 actually helps out a lot more than you think. Plus, flash of genius stacks with bardic inspiration, and that is huge. Also, I found a number of useful infusions; enhanced weapon and defense guarantees at least a +2 weapon and armor or shield at the end of T2. You also guarantee a bag of holding by 2nd level. Expertise on all tools and an infusion for gloves of thievery will make you as good as a rogue for picking locks. If you have a rogue, you can give them the gloves of thievery instead. Yes, Artificer don't do too much damage, but they are best as a support role.
You're not being asked to provide feedback for classes that haven't been updated yet; feats need to be balanced when compared to other feats, feedback on classes can be given once those classes are updated, and that will include how they interact with any feats have already been updated, and the relevant feats will presumably be re-released as part of the relevant UA (i.e- all Warrior group feats should appear in any Warrior group UA).
All that matters right now is how strong the feats are compared with each other, and with the classes that have been updated so far. While that's a little tricky when the only one with multiple attacks (the Ranger) has limited access to fighting styles (which I wish they had lifted, and I said so in my feedback) we can still evaluate how balanced the feats are compared to other options for those same classes, as all should be equally viable for a build.
No, the problem is that these feats were so much stronger than the other options that do exist but which optimisers will not use. There are a loads of feats, but there only a handful of optimal feats, and that's precisely the problem; refusing to acknowledge it doesn't make it magically not so.
If you consider the classes unplayable without those feats, then the problem is with the class, not access to the feats (which has been optional for as long as 5e has existed).
I'm going to assume that you do want feats to be balanced, but you seem to be having trouble with accepting that balancing is easiest with fewer changes made; rebalancing everything else would be the worst possible option, because it all but guarantees new problems are created.
Martials should be at a comparable power level without feats, that was always the problem in 5th edition because feats were supposed to be optional, a build should never have required them in order to compete.
Now that feats are going to be a core part of the game it is critical that they be balanced. Do I really need to keep repeating the same basic points? None of this should be controversial yet you seem to just keep refusing everything?
Either the updated martials will be balanced compared to other classes, or they won't be, but we won't know their updates are released.
Except that it's not a flat nerf, it brings them closer to other feats; again, feats should be balanced against each other, the classes themselves are irrelevant to that equation. Now whether or not the martial classes themselves will be made more competitive is an open and valid question, but it's one we won't have an answer to until that content is released.
You're not being asked to give feedback on things that haven't been released yet, you're being asked to give feedback on what has been released. If you have concerns about what the feat might be like with an updated martial class then you need to wait for that class because right now you simply do not have any basis on which to evaluate it.
It's not a nerf to martials because feats in 5e are optional, what you are seeing is that martial classes themselves in 5e were never well balanced, and people were relying on features they shouldn't have needed to in order to compete.
We're not talking about taking dump stats here; if we assume a martial manages to start out with say 16 (+3) in STR and CON, then that's still a minimum of two ASIs each to boost both of those to +5's, at which point you're only looking for a third stat to boost, DEX being a good one for added defence and useful skills even without light armour.
Even when you get into "secondary" stats, Charisma is good for Intimidation and the social pillar in general, Wisdom is good for the exploration/survival pillar though it's arguably underused (because it's also woefully underdeveloped, which is what needs to change). Only really Intelligence is an obvious dump stat, and even that's not true for an Eldritch Knight. And all three will boost saves that martials are usually most vulnerable too.
While the Resilient feat is better for the saves case specifically (though arguably only most so when you already have an odd score, thanks to the silly way that scores and modifiers work), that's more of a general problem with many skills being undervalued by the game (really everything that isn't combat is undervalued by the 5e rules, something they really need to do something about); but in a group that uses skills better, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma are valuable on any character because they cover the greatest number of skills. It would be nice though if martials gained more proficiencies to reflect the fact that they can't rely on spells as a replacement.
Except that that doesn't work the same; a caster that specialises in only one thing will still excel at that one thing, including outperforming martials in combat if they focus on that pillar, but how long they can do so will never not be dependent upon their resources and how those resources scale.
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.
Of course a martial can't have as good spells as a full caster, otherwise what's the point of having different classes? A martial by definition is better at weapon combat and dealing and taking damage and less good at utility and AoE than a full caster. That's what makes them a martial and not a full caster. If you want to have the abilities of a full caster but use a weapon to "do" the spells then just play a full caster and hold a weapon in your hands and flavour your spells as you using the weapon to cause the spell effect.
Artificer popularity baffles me, because they do not get good features (Alchemist is utter garbage, and Armourer and Battlesmith are mediocre). They are essentially a worse bard, with some tanking abilities with the only thing going for them that they are very SAD. Unless your DM utterly starves the party of magic items, artificers are a pretty weak class.
I find looking at feats purely in a vacuum to be flawed. There are going to be feats that will have synergy with different classes, there is going to be no avoiding that. For certain classes, certain feats will be more valuable. The whole picture should always be kept in mind.
Feats being stronger than other option does not mean that the feats need to be nerfed if the stronger feats are at the appropriate power level. Also, lets be real, feats are only optional in name only; plus the optionality of feats in 5E is also a complete non-factor at this point anyway; there is no reason to bring it up. When looking at balancing, I don't look at just feats, I look at the whole picture.
Also, I am not refusing to acknowledge that there are fewer optimal feats. However, I am constantly looking at the whole picture when it comes to balancing.
You can't look at feats in a vacuum if you want them to be balanced. No matter what, there is going to be synergy which will drive some feats up in higher value for certain classes. Everything in a build is interconnected. I regularly min/max and synergy is the main thing I look for. How feats interact with various class features affects the balancing massively. The fact that feats are officially becoming a core part is all the more reason that we need to consider it in conjunction with classes.
I find balancing classes and feats in a vacuum apart from one another to be severely flawed. No matter what, classes and feats will have synergy which will drive certain feats higher in value for certain classes. There is no avoiding that. Classes matter in feat balancing and feats matter in class balancing, especially with feats becoming mandatory. Though let's be real, feats were never really optional; the prevalence effectively made them a core part of the game, same with magic items.
Class balance matters in feat balance and feat balance will matter in class balance. Everything on a character is interwoven and connected, there is no escaping that. Class features and feat will interact with one another, forming combos. The nerfs to feats like SS and GWM should have occurred with the changes to martials. When play testing you are going to end up using those feats on martial classes. The feeling of those feats will be affected by the current power level of the martial classes. If they are trying to move the power of the feats into the classes, that's fine, but they should have only changed the feats when they released the changes for the classes, because that actually does matter a lot. Right now, the martial feats just feels bad to use because all you feel is the lost power. Furthermore, we have to be sure that they do buff martials to compensate for these feats being nerfed because there is a chance that they don't buff martials accordingly. The feats being nerfed shouldn't have came this early if they are indeed planning to buff martials.
The comparison you quoted didn't even involve dump stats. It compared +2 Wisdom to non-wisdom classes getting +2 to their primary stat. +1 to a few skills doesn't come anywhere near what +2 to a primary stat does. Even more Dex is not going to do much if the character is focused on Strength and wears heavy armor. Sure it offers Dex Saves, Initiative, as well as bonuses to several skills; but a synergistic feat is going to outperform it. The fact is that just getting +1's to a few skills isn't really that great. Gaining +1 to intimidation isn't going to do much if you don't have proficiency in it. Those +1's tend to matter more when the number is already high.
It really does though. Combat is where martials and casters are close to on par with each other, in particular the damage department. However casters simply have better mobility and crowd control, meaning even in combat they just have better options. I've had games where when playing as a caster, I was scrapping the bottom of the barrel in resources while the martial characters were fine due to plentiful short rests and how their resources work, but I was still able to make bigger impacts because even when being conservative with my spells, I was able to pull out a key spell in critical situations because I essentially had a spell for just about any situation.
Extra versatility will go a very long way in closing the caster martial divide.
Flash of Genius is incredibly powerful; adding your intelligence modifier to ability checks and saving throws as a reaction is huge and amazing. Being able to guarantee certain magic items also goes a long way. Spell storing item lets you store a variety of useful spells that you may otherwise not want to spend spell slots on. Enhance Ability for example is an amazing pick for the Spell Storing item. They also maintain the concentration for the spell if they cast it through your spell storing item, which is pretty huge.
Also, remember that Artificers can attune to more than 3 magic items. At 10th level, they become able to attune to 4 items, 5 items at 14th (while also ignoring class, race, spell, and level requirements), and 6 items if you manage to reach 18th level. In my current campaign where we have reached 20th level (it was a 1-20 campaign), my artificer lowest saving throw is a +10 Charisma Save and she has 8 Charisma; her highest save is +22 intelligence, followed by +20 Constitution, and +18 Wisdom as I am able to stack a variety of magic items that boost my saving throws: Staff of Power, Robe of Stars, Cloak of Protection, and Ring of Protection. I also have a good AC of 23, without using a shield, and can be boosted by the shield spell to a 28. If I used a shield, I would easily break 30 AC when used with the Shield Spell.
Being SAD is also a massive boon; never underestimate the benefits of being SAD; it's what made Hexblade so popular with Paladins. Once I got my Int to 20, I was free to just take feats that synergized with my character.
Since when can a ring of spell storing concentrate on a spell for you?
That isn't what anyone said. The user of the ring concentrates on the spell, not the caster that put the spell in there.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Also, the Spell Storing item is not the Ring of Spell Storing, nor is it even a magic item. It's an artificer class feature, so no attunement needed to cast the spells inside the spell storing item. How it stores spells is different as well.
I'm running out of ways to point out that the updated martial classes have not been released yet, do you seriously not recognise that?
This is not a complete finished pre-release ruleset, they're very specifically releasing it in pieces so they can balance and get feedback on individual pieces semi-separately. "Synergy" is only relevant at this stage for the classes that have already been updated, alongside the content that has been released with them (most of which has been released that way because some or all of those classes can take it). The balance of unreleased classes is not, should not, and cannot be considered until all of those pieces have been released, because until they have all you're doing is venting about a problem that may or may not exist (and certainly doesn't exist yet).
But it does not change the fact that feats must be balanced against one another, otherwise there will continue to be feats basically everybody takes or nobody takes; it doesn't matter how well a feat synergises with a particular class, they should all be at least somewhat viable so that players have as many choices as possible for the sake of the variety you say you want. A Barbarian should not feel required to take Great Weapon Master to make their character worth playing, they should be able to take any other feat and still feel like they've made a valid choice that isn't crippling their character. But we have no idea at this stage what boosts WotC has planned for the Barbarian class, but it'd be silly to assume there will be none.
No feat should be obviously stronger than another feat for any reason, because if it is then it will never be balanced; there will certainly be feats that make more sense on a particular build, some that are more or less combat focused etc., but they should all be equally valuable, otherwise they are not viable as options, meaning there is less versatility in the game.
The simple fact is that certain feats are currently stronger compared to others, especially on certain classes, but they shouldn't be. The -5 to hit for +10 damage trade off is a classic example of an easily exploited mechanic, because people realised early on that advantage is roughly equivalent to +5 to hit so will cancel that out, giving you roughly the same hit chance as anyone else but with +10 damage per hit, which is only made worse when the build can make a high number of attacks.
And it's not nerfing classes that haven't been updated yet, because they haven't been updated yet; if you are play-testing one of those classes then you are doing so in spite of the multiple warnings that doing so may not work as intended. Until you understand this, it's really not possible to discuss any further.
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.
Kind of an aside but this is the reason I'm furious they didn't nerf Polearm Master. It's still the case that any STR-based melee character is going to be more powerful with a polearm + PAM than any other build, which is so disappointing when they fixed so many of the other problems.
Well, (a) they don't, and (b) the community doesn't hate them, it just thinks they aren't very good. Probably because versatility implies being actually good at multiple pillars.
Yeah I found that a bit surprising too; I've always found the bonus action attack a bit weird as the small damage dice only makes a tiny difference to the added damage in practice, especially when a lot of builds that will take it won't have a lot of competition for the bonus action, and the reaction attack is pretty easy to exploit.
I'm currently playing in a campaign with our group's standard start of 3rd-level with a free feat, and the DM asked us to go hard with the builds (rather than our usual self-moderation) so I opted for a Swarmkeeper Ranger with Polearm Expert and it's pretty nuts; thanks to Gathered Swarm he can pretty much guarantee a reaction attack every round, so he effectively has three attacks at 3rd-level, often with hunter's mark active as well.
It becoming a 4th-level only feat will reduce that kind of rapid escalation, but it definitely needs looking at as well or it'll be the mandatory feat as even (or especially) on a class that doesn't get extra attack it can be a big boost.
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.
Tossing the bonus action attack so it's only the reaction attack would still be a reasonably good feat.
Flash of Genius is roughly the same numerical bonus as Bardic Inspiration only it can only be used once per round [no handing out BI to the entire party before you go fight the dragon] and is long-rest recharge not short-rest recharge.
Have you looked at that list of items? There's like 2 that are worthwhile. Almost every artificer I've seen played takes no more than one "create magic item" infusion, 99% of the time infusions are used to boost attacks and armour of the artificer themselves.
Spell storing item is decent, but because of the limitations to only 1 spell that is 1 action to cast it's not actually that useful - generally about equivalent to 1x 5th level spell. Enhance Ability is only good if your DM doesn't allow the Help action.
That's not that special for a 20th level character though. Paladins provide a +5 bonus to all saving throws by everyone in the party at level 18, and monks get proficiency in all saving throws at level 14. And you're dealing way way way less damage than a level 20 paladin, I'd wager less damage than a level 20 monk even (assuming similar availability of magic items).
Yes! I understand that thematically the reaction attack really should stay, but the BA attack does not make any sense (ever tried to spin around a 13 ft long stick with a hunk of metal on one end while still trying to keep your guard up to defend against enemy attacks - good luck!) and has always made it a must-take.
I think they were trying to emulate the quarterstaff being a double weapon in 3.5e (note that it's on the list of weapons in the 5e version of the feat) as well as the way reach weapons gave you opportunity attacks, and for some reason combined them into a single feat.
We've already seen a UA make one change and in the next make yet another change to the same thing, so no saying that PAM will stay as is. It could still be nerfed but hasn't yet. Unless you consider the lack of Quarterstaff and Spear being able to use it as a nerf, then it did receive a nerf, but not quite as hard as you would have liked. I don't do maths usually, so I don't know how Polearm + PAM stands up with changes to the Light Weapon Property + Dual Wielder feat (say, Longsword/Shortsword combo)
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The changes to light definitely help a lot with two-weapon fighting and dual wielder, and actually make it viable on builds that have a lot of other competition for the bonus action (including Monk, assuming they keep the core Ki abilities on the bonus action).
Personally I'd still like to see them drop the off-hand attack not adding the modifier to damage and balance it some other way; it's something I've seen a lot of players (including myself) forget about, and most digital tools don't handle it all that well. It pretty much makes it so that the Two-Weapon Fighting Style isn't necessary because it's good but because it's a huge pain in the ass to not have it.
Not sure how to balance it better, but I do wonder if it might make sense for them to limit more of the per hit damage damage boosts such as hex, hunter's mark etc. and have them do more damage but only once per turn, or once per action or such, to limit the amplification effect of throwing more attacks at them? This would have the same consequence of making hex more viable on warlocks that want to focus on something other than eldritch blast.
Basically the idea would be to limit the number of effects that have any kind of unbounded bonus, because that's where a number of balance issues creep in when players start thinking "well if it works for one attack, it'll work even better for 5+ attacks in a single round!"
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.
Lets make some simplifying assumptions:
No fighting style
STR mod = 5
PAM increases chance of reaction attack to 75% vs 25% without
equal attack bonuses
2 attacks / action
PAM + Halberd = 2d10+1d4+15+0.75*(1d10+5) = 36.34 DPR
Dual Wielder + Longsword + shortsword = 2d8+1d6+10+0.25*(1d8+5) = 24.9 DPR
PAM build = 46% increase DPR.
Let's add fighting styles
GWF = average roll of 1d10 = 6.3, average roll of 1d4 = 3
Two Weapon Fighting = + STR to off hand attack
PAM+Halberd = 39.1 DPR
Dual Wielder + Longsword + shortsword = 29.9 DPR
PAM build = 31% increase DPR
And this is before considering that one magical halberd applies its magical bonuses to all 4 attacks, whereas a magical longsword applies the magical bonus to 3 of the possible attacks.
It looks like most of the difference in DPR comes from the Reaction attack. Unfortunately that's very dependant on the way the DM runs monsters, so the chance of using it will vary a lot from table to table. The polearm fighter is giving up their bonus action while the two weapon fighter is not. Though the characters using a polearm normally might not have much use for the bonus action anyway.
I do not believe that feats can be balanced against one another without considering classes as well. They are too intertwined. I realize that updated martial classes are not out yet, which is why I can only give feedback under the worse case scenario of martials not getting the neccessary buffs to compensate. You can't properly test out the feats without those classes. Also, we do have a One D&D class that used Sharpshooter in 5E: Ranger. Even with the buff to hunters mark, rangers still saw a bit of a damage nerf due to the sharp shooter changes.
Monks don't get saves this high. Proficiency generally only gets you to +11. Paladins can achieve similar results in the Saving Throw Department, but they aren't usually boosting ability checks. Bards need to use a bonus action in advance to boost an ability check, meaning you are not likely going to have it for say initiative, which is an ability check. Also, being able to do it on a reaction and guaranteeing the +5 actually helps out a lot more than you think. Plus, flash of genius stacks with bardic inspiration, and that is huge. Also, I found a number of useful infusions; enhanced weapon and defense guarantees at least a +2 weapon and armor or shield at the end of T2. You also guarantee a bag of holding by 2nd level. Expertise on all tools and an infusion for gloves of thievery will make you as good as a rogue for picking locks. If you have a rogue, you can give them the gloves of thievery instead. Yes, Artificer don't do too much damage, but they are best as a support role.
It's the combination of both a BA attack and increased chance of a Reaction attack. Remove either one and you're back to a very close match.