# So the Power Feats Got Nerfed!



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Long time ago I identified the 5 strongest feats in 5E imho. They were. 

Sharpshooter
Great Weapon Master
Healer
Warcaster
Resilient: constitution

 The first two are obvious, healer broke the early game and the 6-8 encounters thing and the last two trivialize concentration checks which were supposed to balance out magic. 

 Several other feats eg PAM and XBE are really good but not broken by themselves but combo a bit to well with other things such as the -5/+20 feats or spells. 

 That was then (2014/15) this is now. I also identified bless and guidance very early on. Of course a few people thought 5E was perfect and had no flaws which tends to happen early on in an edition cycle. 

 Since then we've learnt that most games are level 1-7, 10% hit level 10/11 and only 1% hit epic levels. 

 And most people don't seem to follow the 6-8 encounters thing either.

 So was  Zardy right or wrong?


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 6, 2022)

I'm with you on Sharpshooter and GWM, but I'm having trouble following you on the rest.

How does the Healer feat "break the early game" as you say?  It lets you use a healer's kit to revive a dying creature, and lets you use a healer's kit to cure 1d6+4+Hit Dice to a creature once per long or short rest.  That seems very underwhelming to me for a feat...most folks would choose Magic Initiate, Cleric, _spare the dying + cure wounds._

The Concentration mechanic is balanced out by _itself, _not by combat damage.  Only being able to concentrate on one thing at a time is a huge bottleneck to certain spellcasters and spell effects.  And even if that weren't the case, War Caster merely grants Advantage on the roll--it doesn't prevent it from happening.  (And not to belabor the point, but there are plenty of non-damaging ways to break someone's concentration, that War Caster won't prevent--_sleep _is the classic, but there are others.  And for everything else, there's _dispel magic._

I don't see how Resilient (Constitution) trivializes anything.  You get proficiency with Constitution saving throws and a +1 to the stat.  That's hardly a win-button against spell interruptions.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I'm with you on Sharpshooter and GWM, but I'm having trouble following you on the rest.
> 
> How does the Healer feat "break the early game" as you say?  It lets you use a healer's kit to revive a dying creature, and lets you use a healer's kit to cure 1d6+4+Hit Dice to a creature once per long or short rest.  That seems very underwhelming to me for a feat...most folks would choose Magic Initiate, Cleric, _spare the dying + cure wounds._
> 
> ...




 Healer is per person per short rest. Plus unlimited 1hp restoration. 

 Even at level 9 it essentially a mass heal out of combat. 

 At low levels by itself it's equivalent to all the hit dice plus all the magical healing togather. 

 5 member party 2 short rests it's 15d6+60 points of healing.

 And not having concentration broken is crazy good I've seen characters soak CR 13-14 dragon breath level 7/8 and not have concentration broken due to those feats. Clerics using spiritual guardians and putting rogues to shame damage wise is also a thing.


----------



## CleverNickName (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Healer is per person per short rest. Plus unlimited 1hp restoration.
> 
> Even at level 9 it essentially a mass heal out of combat.
> 
> ...




Well I mean, it's limited by the number of times you fall unconscious--you only get the +1 hit point when you stabilize a dying creature, not every time you use a healing kit.  But yeah, healing is incredibly easy in this edition.  Between Hit Dice and everything replenishing on a long rest, regardless of character class or magical ability...hit points are hardly a rare resource.  Players are far more likely to spam Short Rests and Hit Dice than healer's kits, in my experience, because it doesn't cost a feat.   I can agree that the Healer feat is a problem from that point of view (albeit just one part of a bigger problem.)

But I'm getting into the weeds here.  You wanted to discuss the feats getting nerfed, not the Concentration mechanic itself, and I worry I'm gonna derail the thread.  I'll wrap up my final thoughts in a Spoiler tag.



Spoiler: Off-topic banter about Concentration



Not sure what to say about the dragon not being able to break a spellcaster's concentration; usually the spellcaster runs out of hit points from the focused claw, bite, and tail attacks.  But like I said: damage is just one way to break a caster's concentration or end a spell.  One of my favorite moments was when a succubus _commanded_ our cleric (who was concentrating on a different spell) to cast _bless _on them.  "Bless me, priest," the demon purred, and the cleric failed his save throw.

I have no problem with _spirit guardians _doing more damage than the rogue, either.  Usually when our cleric casts that spell, the monsters flee the area and won't return when they see the spell end.  What other choice do the monsters have?  It doesn't make sense that they would just stand there and helplessly take damage (well, unless they're mindless or controlled, I guess.)  I always thought that _spirit guardian _and spells like it were intended to give the caster breathing room, not wipe the battlefield.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 6, 2022)

Weird thread, but you did ask, so: 8 years into 5e, player consensus would be you were mostly wrong. 

Sharpshooter: legit top tier feat, top five debatable.

Great Weapon Master: Same

Healer: not sure if serious. Using an action on healing in combat is already a terrible choice. Just use Healing Word from 60 feat away. A few extra hit points doesn't matter compared to the far superior range and action economy. Never seen anyone take this feat.

Warcaster: Good feat. Solid choice. Not top five.

Resilient: Constitution: also not sure if serious. Toughness probably gets taken ten times for every time this is chosen, and Toughness is not top 5 either.

Few, if any, would hold all of those up as the 5 strongest feats in 5e.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> Weird thread, but you did ask, so: 8 years into 5e, player consensus would be you were mostly wrong.
> 
> Sharpshooter: legit top tier feat, top five debatable.
> 
> ...




 You need to see healer in action to see how good it is. 

 Note that it's been nerfed.


----------



## Clint_L (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> You need to see healer in action to see how good it is.
> 
> Note that it's been nerfed.



And I never will because no one ever takes it.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> You need to see healer in action to see how good it is.
> 
> Note that it's been nerfed.



It has been nerfed because WotC conjured up an idea of "1st level feat" ad those feats must be weaker than other for some unknown reason.
Healer was put in those categories in hope that someone would finally take that feat.

I have never seen in 8 years that someone took that feat.

If it were half feat with current rules maybe.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 6, 2022)

I’ve seen old Healer in action, gotta agree that it’s a fantastic feat. Helps conserve so much spell slots that would otherwise get wasted on healing. Loses a bit of steam beyond level 8 or so.

GWM and SS were obviously high power choices.

Resilient (Con) is golden merely because of how dangerous effects that target Con can be. If you’re also a spellcaster, it kinda becomes an auto pick.

Warcaster wasn’t as powerful overall compared to the others, IMO. Unless you built something cool around the spell opportunity attack.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 6, 2022)

I am fine with all those 5 original PHB feats, although I think I would have been fine also with the newer versions.

In general, I only think Sharpshooter is a bit too much but not because of itself, rather because it's part of a large number of rules and options which make ranged combat potentially too convenient, unless you take great measures as a DM to have melee monsters exploit full cover and concealment.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> I’ve seen old Healer in action, gotta agree that it’s a fantastic feat. Helps conserve so much spell slots that would otherwise get wasted on healing. Loses a bit of steam beyond level 8 or so.
> 
> GWM and SS were obviously high power choices.
> 
> ...




 Primary use for warcaster/resilient is maintaining concentration. 

 I've seen healer in action as well not since 2019 though. Also seen it in action on a thief bonus action short range healing word. 

 Mostly healer is used outside combat though.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> I also identified bless and guidance very early on.



Not to derail your thread, but with Guidance I agree with you. Together with Druid's armor restrictions, it is literally the only bit of 5e I regret it made to the PHB. I always had to overuse my DM's rule 0 a bit in order to prevent abuse with Guidance. Sadly, the new proposed version is much worse, and would be even harder for me to prevent its abuse.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> It has been nerfed because WotC conjured up an idea of "1st level feat" ad those feats must be weaker than other for some unknown reason.
> Healer was put in those categories in hope that someone would finally take that feat.
> 
> I have never seen in 8 years that someone took that feat.
> ...




 The reason they're weaker is because they're free feats. Everyone gets one and you can kinda build your own race based on your training vs biology.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> Not to derail your thread, but with Guidance I agree with you. Together with Druid's armor restrictions, it is literally the only bit of 5e I regret it made to the PHB. I always had to overuse my DM's rule 0 a bit in order to prevent abuse with Guidance. Sadly, the new proposed version is much worse, and would be even harder for me to prevent its abuse.




How to build a skill monkey. Be a cleric or druid take guidance. Standard array 16 wisdom 14 dex/con use medium armor.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 6, 2022)

I remember you identifying these as the 5 best feats, along with Bless and Guidance being abusable, pretty shortly after the final playtest packet. My opinion has not changed since then: Yes, you are correct that these are the best Feats, and that Bless and Guidance have the potential to break bounded accuracy, but I think you overstate the impact they have. Are they First Order Optimal Strategies? Yes. Is that a significant problem? I don’t really think so. Maybe starting with 3.5 just set the bar too high for me, but no amount of character optimization possible in 5e really feels game breaking. The difference between a fully optimized character and a totally unoptimized one is not so great that the gameplay experience would be ruined should both be in the same party. But again, maybe my broke-o-meter is calibrated wrong after having experienced CoDZilla.

Regardless, I imagine seeing the feats you identified as most problematic before the game had even officially released finally get hit with the nerf bat must feel pretty vindicating.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> I remember you identifying these as the 5 best feats, along with Bless and Guidance being abusable, pretty shortly after the final playtest packet. My opinion has not changed since then: Yes, you are correct that these are the best Feats, and that Bless and Guidance have the potential to break bounded accuracy, but I think you overstate the impact they have. Are they First Order Optimal Strategies? Yes. Is that a significant problem? I don’t really think so. Maybe starting with 3.5 just set the bar too high for me, but no amount of character optimization possible in 5e really feels game breaking. The difference between a fully optimized character and a totally unoptimized one is not so great that the gameplay experience would be ruined should both be in the same party. But again, maybe my broke-o-meter is calibrated wrong after having experienced CoDZilla.
> 
> Regardless, I imagine seeing the feats you identified as most problematic before the game had even officially released finally get hit with the nerf bat must feel pretty vindicating.




 Not really as I said I saw them get abused very early on just after the phb got released. 

 We did kinda miss spirit guardians. We knew it was good but missed how good it was.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Regardless, I imagine seeing the feats you identified as most problematic before the game had even officially released finally get hit with the nerf bat must feel pretty vindicating.



Unless I’m missing something, resilient remained the same, and warcaster was actually buffed considerably by becoming an half feat (except for the lost interaction with polearm master, but that was niche).


Zardnaar said:


> Primary use for warcaster/resilient is maintaining concentration.



Resilient (Con), specifically, yeah, although as I said before there are many dangerous Con saves around the game. I’ve seen non-arcane rogues take it.
Then there’s Resilient (Wis), which is also a common pick in my experience, because Wis saves are abundant and it usually sucks to fail them.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> The reason they're weaker is because they're free feats. Everyone gets one and you can kinda build your own race based on your training vs biology.



everyone should get a normal feat at 1st level. not this watered down version.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> everyone should get a normal feat at 1st level. not this watered down version.




 It makes certain builds to power and combo enabling. 


 This is how we got SS+20 dex by level 6 or CBE+SS and 18 dex by level 6, 20 dex by lvl 8.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 6, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> Unless I’m missing something, resilient remained the same, and warcaster was actually buffed considerably by becoming an half feat (except for the lost interaction with polearm master, but that was niche).



Oh, yeah, good call.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Oh, yeah, good call.




 All feats got buffed so it's still really good. 
It lost it's hands free thing which was useful for some builds.


----------



## Olrox17 (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> All feats got buffed so it's still really good.
> It lost it's hands free thing which was useful for some builds.



It still has it, it’s on the next page.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Olrox17 said:


> It still has it, it’s on the next page.




 Ah my bad derp.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> It makes certain builds to power and combo enabling.
> 
> 
> This is how we got SS+20 dex by level 6 or CBE+SS and 18 dex by level 6, 20 dex by lvl 8.



If 20 is the problem and all feats are made with +1 ASI then on 1st level you can just take a feat without ASI or better yet, 2 feats without ASI


----------



## MarkB (Oct 6, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> Not to derail your thread, but with Guidance I agree with you. Together with Druid's armor restrictions, it is literally the only bit of 5e I regret it made to the PHB. I always had to overuse my DM's rule 0 a bit in order to prevent abuse with Guidance. Sadly, the new proposed version is much worse, and would be even harder for me to prevent its abuse.



What's wrong with the new version? It's +1d4 to a failed check, once per target per day, so for the average party a maximum of 4-5 uses per day rather than the original's constant spamming - and that's only if they're 'lucky' enough to have a check fail by only a narrow margin.


----------



## Shiroiken (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Long time ago I identified the 5 strongest feats in 5E imho. They were.
> 
> Sharpshooter
> Great Weapon Master
> ...



Sorry Zard, but you only got 2 of the top tier feats on here. SS and GWM are definitely in the top 5, along with GWM, with the rest being debated (I personally go with Lucky and Inspiring Leader). An argument can be made for Healer, but my group did it once and felt the results were underwhelming compared to IL.

Warcaster and Resilient (Con) are common choices for spellcasters, not because they're top tier, but because they are of the few useful feats for casters. Concentration spells are powerful, and obviously casters want to protect them when they take damage. Melee casters also gain the added benefit of being able to use a shield and use a spell for Opportunity Attacks with Warcaster.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> everyone should get a normal feat at 1st level. not this watered down version.



Why?


----------



## Horwath (Oct 6, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Why?



because why not?


more seriously;
feats come too late and too few for character customization.

for many character ideas you need 3 featw. that's 12th level.
Oh wait, there is no 12th level, campaign ended 2 or 3 levels ago.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> because why not?
> 
> 
> more seriously;
> ...




I have not needed more than one feat for any character concept...
can you give an example?


----------



## Horwath (Oct 6, 2022)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I have not needed more than one feat for any character concept...
> can you give an example?



GWM+PAM+SENT+HAM combo


Assassin:
Elven accuracy or gunner + sharpshooter + piercer

half orc barbarian;
orcish fury + tanarukk blood + GWM

wannabe caster:
Magic initiate + telekinetic + telepathic + fey or shadow touched(or both)

leader/healing support

Inspiring leader + healer + chef(maybe)


not to mention if you want to take some feat that is not optimal for build... 0 room for that.

or just ban few feats from being 1st level:
GWM, PAM, HAM, SS, CE

rest are not really any problem.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> GWM+PAM+SENT+HAM combo
> 
> 
> Assassin:
> ...




Thanks for the elaboration. 

Now I know what the difference between your assessment and mine is:
I don't consider half of those character concepts but specific builds.
The first one for example works fine at level 1 and becomes more powerful with each feat. The concept is realized at level 4 when you got polearm mastery or sentinel.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Long time ago I identified the 5 strongest feats in 5E imho. They were.
> 
> Sharpshooter
> Great Weapon Master
> ...





Zardnaar said:


> So was  Zardy right or wrong?



OK

_No one_ takes Healer. It's not broken - just situationally powerful but you scale out of it, like Heavy Armour Master. And rather than getting nerfed it got buffed _in its common casual use case_. People who are healers now get some benefit from it.
Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are, like XBE and PAM situationally powerful with the right combinations. It's just that their situations (accuracy buffs) are more common than XBE and PAM's (damage buffs); the Archery fighting style gives an accuracy buff as does the Barbarian's reckless attack or other sources of Advantage.
GWM possibly even got buffed overall and especially if you're discounting combos; +1 strength is a lot and 1/turn prof bonus damage is pretty good. Warcaster certainly did. (Meanwhile Resilient: Constitution remained unchanged)
Where's Lucky?
But ultimately it didn't take much insight to see that the overwhelming majority of feats simply did not meet the bar. What's changed in the playtest packet is that feats that no one took, like Charger, got buffed.

The thing I'm finding interesting is just how few feats there are for casters. It looks as if Martials are supposed to take combat feats and (beyond Warcaster or Spell Sniper for warlocks) casters are meant to take utility feats like the revamped Keen Mind and the barely changed Actor.


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 6, 2022)

MarkB said:


> What's wrong with the new version? It's +1d4 to a failed check, once per target per day, so for the average party a maximum of 4-5 uses per day rather than the original's constant spamming - and that's only if they're 'lucky' enough to have a check fail by only a narrow margin.



Ah, I didn't notice the daily limit and thought it was at will


----------



## MarkB (Oct 6, 2022)

Li Shenron said:


> Ah, I didn't notice the daily limit and thought it was at will



Yeah, with that limit it's thoroughly reined in, but I'm not sure I'd actually choose it as a cantrip now.


----------



## Amrûnril (Oct 6, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I'm with you on Sharpshooter and GWM, but I'm having trouble following you on the rest.
> 
> How does the Healer feat "break the early game" as you say?  It lets you use a healer's kit to revive a dying creature, and lets you use a healer's kit to cure 1d6+4+Hit Dice to a creature once per long or short rest.  That seems very underwhelming to me for a feat...most folks would choose Magic Initiate, Cleric, _spare the dying + cure wounds._
> 
> ...



Definitely agree with regard to Healer and Resilient. As for War Caster, advantage on concentration checks isn't overpowered on its own, but combined with opening up a hand for a shield or two-weapon fighting and expanding opportunity attack options, it feels like a borderline feat-tax for a lot of character concepts.



Horwath said:


> It has been nerfed because WotC conjured up an idea of "1st level feat" ad those feats must be weaker than other for some unknown reason.
> Healer was put in those categories in hope that someone would finally take that feat.



Looking at the two lists, I honestly can't tell whether or not the developers intended the level 1 and level 4 feats to have a power difference (aside from the ASIs, of course). If the lists remain as is, re-combining them is going to be an immediate house rule in my games.



Neonchameleon said:


> _No one_ takes Healer. It's not broken - just situationally powerful but you scale out of it, like Heavy Armour Master. And rather than getting nerfed it got buffed _in its common casual use case_. People who are healers now get some benefit from it.



I really don't understand the argument that characters with existing healing powers don't benefit from the 2014 Healer feat. Having multiple resource pools for healing and being able to strategically choose between them is a perfectly reasonable benefit to invest a feat in. And requiring hit dice expenditure is a massive nerf to the feat, regardless of who takes it.


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> because why not?



Some people don't like feats ( not me).?

My questions was really why full feats as opposed to the lesser "1st level" feats proposed. Not why or why not feats. I realize that was not clear.


Horwath said:


> more seriously;
> feats come too late and too few for character customization.
> 
> for many character ideas you need 3 featw. that's 12th level.
> Oh wait, there is no 12th level, campaign ended 2 or 3 levels ago.



But some people don't want a full fledge character a creation. In fact, when we start we don't even use classes. We start at level 0 with just a background.  So if you need more feats start at 4th level.  You get a background feat + 1 more and you have your archtype too!


----------



## Horwath (Oct 6, 2022)

dave2008 said:


> Some people don't like feats ( not me).?
> 
> My questions was really why full feats as opposed to the lesser "1st level" feats proposed. Not why or why not feats. I realize that was not clear.
> 
> But some people don't want a full fledge character a creation. In fact, when we start we don't even use classes. We start at level 0 with just a background.  So if you need more feats start at 4th level.  You get a background feat + 1 more and you have your archtype too!



an idea for sure.

if subclasses are moved to 1st level, then a place opens for an extra feat at 3rd level for every class.


----------



## Bill Zebub (Oct 6, 2022)

(Edited for excessive snark.  Which leaves....nothing.)


----------



## dave2008 (Oct 6, 2022)

Horwath said:


> an idea for sure.
> 
> if subclasses are moved to 1st level, then a place opens for an extra feat at 3rd level for every class.



my preference would be:

level 1: background (with half feat)
level 2: class
level 3: subclass
level 4: feat
level 5: class feature

It let's you build you character through first 5 levels.  So it you want all that from the get-go you just start at level 5. Then your likely to finish at level 15!

Alternately these could be levels 0, 1, 2, 3, & 4 respectively.


----------



## Krachek (Oct 6, 2022)

Take your win, but we are at early stage of the playtest, -5/+10 may strike back!


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Long time ago I identified the 5 strongest feats in 5E imho. They were.
> Sharpshooter
> Great Weapon Master
> Healer
> ...



"strongest" is one of those things that, IMO, requires a lot of caveats and explanations. Let's instead talk about strong and then circle back to strongest. 

Sharpshooter and GWM are strong regardless of the value of the -5/+10 component -- ignoring cover and letting hand crossbows and the like be useful past 30' is a big deal. An extra attack after you drop a foe is also strong* . Adding in the -5/+10s, well, mathematically I think people have worked it out and it isn't as big a bonus as it seems. Even when you stack archery style and magic weapons and _bless _and such, you still miss on 25% of the attack rolls when you otherwise would have hit**, so the total average damage ends up being kinda on par with putting the ASI into the combat stat (so unless you are banking on gauntlets/belts/Etc. to boost your Str/Dex, probably wait until you've maxed out if this was the only reason you were taking the feat. Any side benefit you gain from the stat will overwhelm the damage difference).*note: there are optional "Cleaving through a creature" rules in the DMG which approximate this effect, but I don't know many people who use it or even know it exists. **unless your unmodified attack would hit on a 1 or less, in which case why not take a to-hit penalty?
Healer is really good at what it tries to do -- allow a non-healer to (or already-healer to do without spending that other resource) do non-focused healing (fixed amount for everyone per short rest). If you have that one character (maybe the shieldless frontline barbarian who keeps reckless attacking with 2-handed weapons to try for the -5/+10 damage) that needs lots of healing and everyone else maybe needs none at all, someone with healing spells works better. If your group rarely runs out of hp or hp+hd by the time to long rest (which I supposedly happens for a lot of people who don't modify the recharge frequency rules), it may well be excessive as well. That said, if you need what it wants, it does it quite well. I suppose it has diminished since 2014 because the number of alternatives has expanded.
Resilient:<stat> in general is a strong feat, especially for the saves that occur the most (Con, Dex, and Wis). Con has the added benefit of helping anyone who needs to concentrate on spells. I think exactly how strong that is depends on what you want to do with yourself. Cleric who wades into the frontline with Spirit Guardians or Paladin who casts bless before diving into combat head first (or arcane gish who uses shadow blade, and so on) probably want as many concentration boosters as they can. Side note: if you are a moon druid* or other caster who spends a lot of combat not using their casting stat for to-hits or save DCs, you almost may as well pick up resilient and war caster because why not? *worth noting: wild shape also specifies that "you retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so," so feats like resilient:con and war caster will be retained. Casters changing shape via polymorph do not share this benefit and lose both these feats in their new form.
War Caster as well is great on a frontline caster-- and, as others have mentioned, if you want a weapon and shield in hand while also casting (and aren't a swords bard, certain warlocks, cleric with holy symbol on shield-and all spells desired have material components*), it jumps all the way up to build-necessary (which I've never quite decided where such things stand on strength scales). _*if your DM enforces the full spellcasting focus rules._
You mentioned PAM and CBE as being highly powerful but not as powerful as these. I think the 2014 versions of these are at least as powerful as GWM and SS... provided you have additional sources of damage which are per-attack and are in a campaign where preemptively selecting your weapons down to a specific subset isn't a problem. An 11th level paladin where the magic halberds (or quarterstaves, glad this is going away) have the same pluses as the greatswords or other options -- they are going to love another +1d4+1d8+stat+magic attack (and smite opportunity). 



Zardnaar said:


> Ah my bad derp.



I missed that initially too. I imagine that page layout isn't the highest priority for a playtest document. Certainly wouldn't want the same setup on a finalized product.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 6, 2022)

I wonder if -5/+10 will return as a general rule, tbh. Only weapon attacks or unarmed strikes.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I wonder if -5/+10 will return as a general rule, tbh. Only weapon attacks or unarmed strikes.




 The only version of "power attack" that's not broken is the 4E one (-2/+3) or maybe 3.0 (-1/+1).


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> "strongest" is one of those things that, IMO, requires a lot of caveats and explanations. Let's instead talk about strong and then circle back to strongest.
> 
> Sharpshooter and GWM are strong regardless of the value of the -5/+10 component -- ignoring cover and letting hand crossbows and the like be useful past 30' is a big deal. An extra attack after you drop a foe is also strong* . Adding in the -5/+10s, well, mathematically I think people have worked it out and it isn't as big a bonus as it seems. Even when you stack archery style and magic weapons and _bless _and such, you still miss on 25% of the attack rolls when you otherwise would have hit**, so the total average damage ends up being kinda on par with putting the ASI into the combat stat (so unless you are banking on gauntlets/belts/Etc. to boost your Str/Dex, probably wait until you've maxed out if this was the only reason you were taking the feat. Any side benefit you gain from the stat will overwhelm the damage difference).*note: there are optional "Cleaving through a creature" rules in the DMG which approximate this effect, but I don't know many people who use it or even know it exists. **unless your unmodified attack would hit on a 1 or less, in which case why not take a to-hit penalty?
> Healer is really good at what it tries to do -- allow a non-healer to (or already-healer to do without spending that other resource) do non-focused healing (fixed amount for everyone per short rest). If you have that one character (maybe the shieldless frontline barbarian who keeps reckless attacking with 2-handed weapons to try for the -5/+10 damage) that needs lots of healing and everyone else maybe needs none at all, someone with healing spells works better. If your group rarely runs out of hp or hp+hd by the time to long rest (which I supposedly happens for a lot of people who don't modify the recharge frequency rules), it may well be excessive as well. That said, if you need what it wants, it does it quite well. I suppose it has diminished since 2014 because the number of alternatives has expanded.
> ...




 Didn't matter if you miss 25% of the time. 

 One build we had if you missed 50% of the time you were still better off soaking up the -5 you still came out ahead in damage. And that assumes all 4 attacks hit. 

 4 attacks a round 1d6+5 damage. Potential damage 34

4 attacks a round 50% hit rate. 1d6+15 damage. 37 actual damage. 

  That was level 11 XBE+SS or level 5+ with haste. Or using action surge with 5/7 attacks. 

 Average AC in the MM is 14.5 apparently they also counted the most common saves and resistances. Poison damage is the weakest then fire.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 6, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> Adding in the -5/+10s, well, mathematically I think people have worked it out and it isn't as big a bonus as it seems. Even when you stack archery style and magic weapons and _bless _and such, you still miss on 25% of the attack rolls when you otherwise would have hit**, so the total average damage ends up being kinda on par with putting the ASI into the combat stat



That’s if you assume you use the -5/+10 on every attack. But since you choose whether to use it or not, you can only use it when doing so is to your advantage. There’s a simple formula to figure out if -5/+10 is a net increase to your expected damage value depending on your attack bonus and the target’s AC. But even if you don’t know the target’s AC (since a lot of DMs won’t give that information out for free), you can still get great use out of it with simple estimation. Is the enemy heavily armored or has thick scales or carapace? Probably don’t use the -5/+10, unless you have advantage. Is the enemy likely at low enough HP that you’ll kill it without the +10? Don’t bother. Otherwise, it’s safe to use most of the time.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s if you assume you use the -5/+10 on every attack. But since you choose whether to use it or not, you can only use it when doing so is to your advantage. There’s a simple formula to figure out if -5/+10 is a net increase to your expected damage value depending on your attack bonus and the target’s AC. But even if you don’t know the target’s AC (since a lot of DMs won’t give that information out for free), you can still get great use out of it with simple estimation. Is the enemy heavily armored or has thick scales or carapace? Probably don’t use the -5/+10, unless you have advantage. Is the enemy likely at low enough HP that you’ll kill it without the +10? Don’t bother. Otherwise, it’s safe to use most of the time.




 Or using the shield spell. 

  No set AC for me but something's like a dragon, chainmail or better+shield or the shield spell. 

 My friends AC number was 20 unless it was over that he would always use the -5 part. He and something like +14 to hit.

(4 or 5 proficiency, magic weapon, archery style, +5 dex).

If blessed or advantage he always used the -5 regardless.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Didn't matter if you miss 25% of the time.



It matters to the math calculations. Average damage times change of hit is average damage per attack. 


Zardnaar said:


> One build we had if you missed 50% of the time you were still better off soaking up the -5 you still came out ahead in damage. And that assumes all 4 attacks hit.



Unless the damage varies between attacks (say halberd with PAM or 2wf), you can calculate it per-attack. 


Zardnaar said:


> 4 attacks a round 1d6+5 damage. Potential damage 34
> 4 attacks a round 50% hit rate. 1d6+15 damage. 37 actual damage.
> Average AC in the MM is 14.5



Okay. If you have a 50% hit rate with -5/+10, you have a 75% change without. Average damage on 1d6+5 is 8.5. Without -5/+10 average DPS is 8.5 x .75 (+.05x3.5 for crit chance) = 6.6, with -5/+10 it is 9.4. You are correct, with damage at that point, SS/GWM nets you almost 3 damage (of course if you spent the same ASI on +2 Str/Dex, the it becomes 9.5 x0.8+.05x3.5= 7.8, so again unless the only thing you do with that stat is fight, the side benefits will likely override the 1.7 dmg difference). The issue becomes every time the base damage increases (magic pluses, sneak attack, flaming sword, rage, etc.), the relative value of the 10 extra damage compared to risk of missing with the primary damage goes down. Keeping the hit chances equal but now the attack is with a flaming greatsword (4d6+5, and extra 4d6 on a crit) and it becomes GWM for 29*.5+.05(14) =15.2 against 19x0.75+.05(14) = 15 (or 16 if you put it into str/dex, making it actually detrimental to do until after you've maxed out your combat stat). 



Zardnaar said:


> apparently they also counted the most common saves and resistances. Poison damage is the weakest then fire.



I don't follow. Was this in relation to something I stated?


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> Or using the shield spell.
> 
> No set AC for me but something's like a dragon, chainmail or better+shield or the shield spell.
> 
> My friends AC number was 20 unless it was over that he would always use the -5 part. He and something like +13 or 14 to hit.



Yeah, though personally I find it harder to guess if an opponent has shield prepared than it is to guess if they have high AC. Obviously if you see them use shield, don’t keep using -5/+10 because they effectively have high-AC.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> That’s if you assume you use the -5/+10 on every attack. But since you choose whether to use it or not, you can only use it when doing so is to your advantage. There’s a simple formula to figure out if -5/+10 is a net increase to your expected damage value depending on your attack bonus and the target’s AC. But even if you don’t know the target’s AC (since a lot of DMs won’t give that information out for free), you can still get great use out of it with simple estimation. Is the enemy heavily armored or has thick scales or carapace? Probably don’t use the -5/+10, unless you have advantage. Is the enemy likely at low enough HP that you’ll kill it without the +10? Don’t bother. Otherwise, it’s safe to use most of the time.



Yes, there is a math to it, and it will all depend on both the chance to hit (advantage also changes the math), and how much damage you do without the extra 10 damage. It also depends on if you have something else positive to do with the ASI (such as contributing the the attack stat).


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> It matters to the math calculations. Average damage times change of hit is average damage per attack.
> 
> Unless the damage varies between attacks (say halberd with PAM or 2wf), you can calculate it per-attack.
> 
> ...




  I can't verify the 14.5 average AC in the MM but the source also gave the most common residences and saves. 

 All I know is ACs are generally low resistance to fire and poison is good and poison is fairly useless (most common save and resisted).

 You're not gonna find a flaming greatsword in my games. Longswords sure or some love to spears for monks or whatever. 

 Same thing with ranged weapons at best you get a +1 and that's unlikely.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Yeah, though personally I find it harder to guess if an opponent has shield prepared than it is to guess if they have high AC. Obviously if you see them use shield, don’t keep using -5/+10 because they effectively have high-AC.




Well you do if it's a MM npc spellcaster with mage armor. AC 18 only matters at low level. 

 DM specials eg Gish types using shield kinda shut it down but also punishes everyone else dealing with AC 21+. 
 Ironically making bless and spiritual guardians even better.

 Main point is even if you miss 25% of the time big whoop.


----------



## Charlaquin (Oct 6, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> Yes, there is a math to it, and it will all depend on both the chance to hit (advantage also changes the math), and how much damage you do without the extra 10 damage. It also depends on if you have something else positive to do with the ASI (such as contributing the the attack stat).



Right, but if you do that math, it turns out that the -5/+10 is really good most of the time. And since it comes attached to a bunch of other really strong benefits, the Feats that grant it are pretty much no-brainers if you’re looking to optimize damage output. Which is presumably part of why the -5/+10 part was removed in the 1D&D UA versions.


----------



## Zardnaar (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Right, but if you do that math, it turns out that the -5/+10 is really good most of the time. And since it comes attached to a bunch of other really strong benefits, the Feats that grant it are pretty much no-brainers if you’re looking to optimize damage output. Which is presumably part of why the -5/+10 part was removed in the 1D&D UA versions.




 Very early on in 5E I didn't combo them eg SS+CBE or GWM+PAM. 

 Mostly due to how rare feats are. 

 Then using bless became a thing. Then those combos turned up. 

 Unless an adventure contains them I don't think I've added a magic great weapon or missile weapon to the game since 2015.

 Yay for artificers.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Right, but if you do that math, it turns out that the -5/+10 is really good most of the time. And since it comes attached to a bunch of other really strong benefits, the Feats that grant it are pretty much no-brainers if you’re looking to optimize damage output. Which is presumably part of why the -5/+10 part was removed in the 1D&D UA versions.



I think I'm going to wait around until someone finds and posts the chart. I haven't seen it in a while, but my initial takeaway was that it is less than people tend to treat it as (it really comes online well when they are combined with consistent advantage and/or massively multiple to-hit adders, whose opportunity cost also need to be taken into account). Regardless to whether they are the first thing you take or whether you wait until you've maxed out your dex, we're kinda violently agreeing, they are good options (but I would place the side benefits as dominant).

As to why they were removed, I don't know what to think. Between rogues losing reaction-SAs, Boomin-Blade-SAs, getting rid of one-handed-quarterstaff-shield-PAM, and a bunch of other not-necessarily bank-breaking effects but ones that dedicated forumites know all about but casual gamers might not have caught, my takeaway is that they want to make the style of plays (and thus effectiveness thresholds, ability to balance CRs, etc.) more similar between rules minutia types and beer&pretzel players. 

Even if it is the effectiveness, I think it is the perception that matters most -- if people feel like they can't do any martial build except greatsword-GWM, halberd-PAM-GWM, longbow-SS, hand crossbow-CBE-SS, and one-handed-quarterstaff/spear-shield-PAM, then they won't pick the other concepts and the game loses out in playstyle diversity.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Oct 6, 2022)

Charlaquin said:


> Right, but if you do that math, it turns out that the -5/+10 is really good most of the time. And since it comes attached to a bunch of other really strong benefits, the Feats that grant it are pretty much no-brainers if you’re looking to optimize damage output. Which is presumably part of why the -5/+10 part was removed in the 1D&D UA versions.



If you do the math _against which baseline?_ Because it turns out that boosting your primary stat for +1 to hit and +1 damage on all attacks is also really good. It also turns out that -5/+10 is much more important on low power Dex 18 hand crossbow attacks that do an average of 7.5 damage (and therefore more than doubles their damage) than it is on Str 20 fighter with Great Weapon Fighter and a flame tongue greatsword (doing an average of 21.66 damage per attack therefore adding less than 50% of your damage per attack).

My "is this feat worth taking" benchmark is therefore not "Is it worth using" - but "is it worth taking against +2 to your primary stat?"

So how does this work out? Turns out that Great Weapon Master was actually pretty well balanced IMO. It was about worth +1 to hit and damage unless you had a major combo - so it was balanced at the right level. (On a tangent this was a problem for both sword & board and two weapon fighting; Shield Master and Dual Wielder weren't worth +1 to hit and damage). Sharpshooter on the other hand was worth more proportionally.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> You need to see healer in action to see how good it is.
> 
> Note that it's been nerfed.



Other than the Thief's Fast Hands ability interacting with the Healer Feat, it was never a powerful feat. You've always been essentially alone in arguing it was a power feat other than with that Fast Hands exception. Otherwise it was always just essentially a discount on Cure potions for a feat, which became meaningless after the first 5 levels or so.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 6, 2022)

Zardnaar said:


> And most people don't seem to follow the 6-8 encounters thing either.



Be interested to see if this guidance changes.

I mean, it should. It's doable. But will it? Most of the older WotC adventures (I haven't looked at the most recent ones) do roughly follow the 6-8 guideline, but that's not really a problem.


----------



## Horwath (Oct 7, 2022)

Mistwell said:


> Other than the Thief's Fast Hands ability interacting with the Healer Feat, it was never a powerful feat. You've always been essentially alone in arguing it was a power feat other than with that Fast Hands exception. Otherwise it was always just essentially a discount on Cure potions for a feat, which became meaningless after the first 5 levels or so.



This.

It is very expensive opportunity cost.

PHB healer should have been a half feat and 1d6+4 base replaced by:
1d6 per proficiency bonus of the user and then increased by +1 per level of the target.
That way it would scale with both user that took the feat and the target.

And short rest should be dropped and any creature can benefit from this feat a number of times equal to it's own proficiency bonus per long rest.


----------



## Staffan (Oct 7, 2022)

The existence of the Healer feat is good, but it should be stronger. Anything that makes a cleric-less party more viable is a good thing.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 7, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Be interested to see if this guidance changes.
> 
> I mean, it should. It's doable. But will it? Most of the older WotC adventures (I haven't looked at the most recent ones) do roughly follow the 6-8 guideline, but that's not really a problem.



Given that it seems doubtful that they will ever go back to the 4e AEDU model or otherwise drop a 'prep spells for the day' model, they pretty much have to use rest frequency guidance as the way to police the workday and balance classes with more and less expendable resources. 

The 2014 game DMG has in it acceptable (perhaps 'good-enough') guidelines on what to do if you can't or don't want to run 6-8 (or 3-4 more difficult) encounters per physical (in-game) day. They clearly didn't sell it (the idea, not the DMG) well enough, though, because (anecdotally) I see people ignoring or rejecting them and complaining that no one does the 6-8 encounters per day and fie on the designers for designing the game on such a framework. 

It's one of a few complaints about the game* for which I have two diverging opinions rather than ambivalence. On one hand, there's nothing wrong with a game having some default assumption but clear guidance on what to do when you don't want to follow those assumptions** (and I'm not exactly swayed by arguments that they should have set something else as the default, as why should we care?). On the other hand, when something doesn't work for you, 'but they addressed that here' is rarely helpful advice if you did see it and bounced off the advise first go-round (and clearly plenty of people bounced off gritty reset and the rest). 
*the other being that except maybe levels 1-3 it defaults to easy-mode compared to many previous editions, which they also have DMG guidance on modifying
**Traveller has it for when you want to play military vs. small time merchants making the ship's mortgage vs. explorers vs. etc.; GURPS/Hero System/the rest of the omni-setting systems pretty much are built around the idea of dialing in your preferences; 90s White Wolf was at times in conflict with their fanbase on whether they should acknowledge the superhero-with-fangs playstyle; etc.

I think the most important thing they can do with <whatever the final product gets called> is clearly communicate what they are doing, what the base assumptions were when setting some default settings, and when to and how best to adjust them if your gameplay will deviate from them.


----------



## Azzy (Oct 7, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I wonder if -5/+10 will return as a general rule, tbh. Only weapon attacks or unarmed strikes.



Could end up as a fighter maneuver or class feature.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 7, 2022)

Azzy said:


> Could end up as a fighter maneuver or class feature.



Could do, but I'd rather not have it exclusive to fighters. 

TBH this is why i wish the fighter had been built to have much bigger subclasses.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 10, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> The 2014 game DMG has in it acceptable (perhaps 'good-enough') guidelines on what to do if you can't or don't want to run 6-8 (or 3-4 more difficult) encounters per physical (in-game) day.



I mean I've read those guidelines many times and I strongly disagree that they're "acceptable" or "good-enough". They're bad.

The 6-8 thing seems more like a reaction their own design than a genuinely motivated and considered change, especially as it was last minute, and it was 3-4 somewhat harder encounters until then. It's definitely true that 5E works most reliably when you use 6-8 encounters of the recommended difficulty. I think if they'd tweaked some numbers, like having spells heal for more but maybe cost HD from the target (healing a standing target is rarely tactically a good idea in 5E, below level 9-ish anyway - the HD cost is to ensure overall daily healing isn't increased much), lowering the HP values of monsters slightly (like, 15-20%), and so on, then we could have seen 3-4 work well.


Willie the Duck said:


> (and I'm not exactly swayed by arguments that they should have set something else as the default, as why should we care?)



We should care because the maths fundamentally works best with 6-8 which is why they changed to it at the last minute, and their guidelines are not well-designed, so we're stuck with a system where 6-8 is what it works best for, and other numbers can be done but don't work great.

You mentioned White Wolf and that's a good note - the Revised version of White Wolf changed the rules to screw over anyone playing a more "heroic" version of both Vampire and Mage (I actually don't remember Werewolf Revised well enough to comment). A playstyle WW had, less than two years before Revised, been encouraging in some books (Tales of Dark Adventure for Mage 2E for example). Despite strong marketing, it didn't seem to do great for them. It doesn't matter if they gave guidelines for playing a more heroic style (I mean, they didn't, AFAIK, but w/e), because the system, especially in Mage Revised, was just fundamentally opposed to making that work.

Re: easy mode, that's a fundamental example of how the guidelines for encounters in general are not well-designed, but the system has an issue in that if you make it significantly harder, then it doesn't play as well. Let's be fair - 5E is far from the only game to have this problem! I've seen it appear in video games and board games too.

Also when you're making a game with a potentially very board audience, it's more important to consider what the audience is going to want than just what the designers think is cool, or what is the easiest to get working or whatever. 5E designed aiming for 5-10m people, 1D&D has to aim for 30m people (by WotC's own figures for people _actually playing 5E_). If you design in something that's at odds with say, 25m of the 30m, it is you who has screwed up, not them.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 10, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I wonder if -5/+10 will return as a general rule, tbh. Only weapon attacks or unarmed strikes.



I think that if something like this would return it would become -prof mod to hit +2x prof mod to damage.
As one of the problems was that there was no scaling in the -5 +10 making it very powerful on low levels if yo managed to hit.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 10, 2022)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> I think that if something like this would return it would become -prof mod to hit +2x prof mod to damage.
> As one of the problems was that there was no scaling in the -5 +10 making it very powerful on low levels if yo managed to hit.



Yeah, also fits thier increased focus on the proficiency bonus.


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 10, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I mean I've read those guidelines many times and I strongly disagree that they're "acceptable" or "good-enough". They're bad.
> 
> The 6-8 thing seems more like a reaction their own design than a genuinely motivated and considered change, especially as it was last minute, and it was 3-4 somewhat harder encounters until then. It's definitely true that 5E works most reliably when you use 6-8 encounters of the recommended difficulty. I think if they'd tweaked some numbers, like having spells heal for more but maybe cost HD from the target (healing a standing target is rarely tactically a good idea in 5E, below level 9-ish anyway - the HD cost is to ensure overall daily healing isn't increased much), lowering the HP values of monsters slightly (like, 15-20%), and so on, then we could have seen 3-4 work well.



I'm talking broad strokes of the brush. They stated that it works best under XYZ conditions, and if you don't find your game matching those expectations, here is some advice and an some example alternate rest frequencies (such as Gritty Realism rest variant) that might better match your playstyle experience. My first paragraph was my main point -- unless they want to try a significantly different resource-recharge loop (4e, something like 13 Age does, or something new entirely), or go back to establishing parameters of playstyle (renormalizing the dungeon crawl, for instance, or doom clocks, etc.), it seems the only real way they've left themselves to mitigate the  5/15-minute workday pretty is to set a standard for how many fights one is expected to get through. If they've gotten the math subtly wrong for 6-8, or if it would have been better to say 3-4 of a harder CR, that's certainly possible, just outside the point I was trying to make. 



Ruin Explorer said:


> We should care because the maths fundamentally works best with 6-8 which is why they changed to it at the last minute, and their guidelines are not well-designed, so we're stuck with a system where 6-8 is what it works best for, and other numbers can be done but don't work great.



My point is that I don't care where the 'default' is set. I stopped playing video/computer-games regularly back in the Atari/NES-era, so this might be a very out-of-date analogy. Anyways, I remember the title screen popping up with 'easy,' 'medium,' and 'hard.' There would be an arrow you could move around between the three options. I don't think that where that initial arrow shows up as default speaks all that much about the game as a whole (Qbert doesn't become easy because it has the arrow start on Easy, while Pac Man is hard because that's where it's arrow defaults), and D&D is the same. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> You mentioned White Wolf and that's a good note - the Revised version of White Wolf changed the rules to screw over anyone playing a more "heroic" version of both Vampire and Mage (I actually don't remember Werewolf Revised well enough to comment). A playstyle WW had, less than two years before Revised, been encouraging in some books (Tales of Dark Adventure for Mage 2E for example). Despite strong marketing, it didn't seem to do great for them. It doesn't matter if they gave guidelines for playing a more heroic style (I mean, they didn't, AFAIK, but w/e), because the system, especially in Mage Revised, was just fundamentally opposed to making that work.



Well yes, that was an example of a game where they didn't work with players trying to dial in specific experiences. Traveller did better with specific options (military campaign, etc.), and GURPS/Hero made it a fundamental premise. 


Ruin Explorer said:


> Re: easy mode, that's a fundamental example of how the guidelines for encounters in general are not well-designed, but the system has an issue in that if you make it significantly harder, then it doesn't play as well. Let's be fair - 5E is far from the only game to have this problem! I've seen it appear in video games and board games too.
> 
> Also when you're making a game with a potentially very board audience, it's more important to consider what the audience is going to want than just what the designers think is cool, or what is the easiest to get working or whatever. 5E designed aiming for 5-10m people, 1D&D has to aim for 30m people (by WotC's own figures for people _actually playing 5E_). If you design in something that's at odds with say, 25m of the 30m, it is you who has screwed up, not them.



I agree, however, again I don't think where the default arrow rests is super important, so long as you make clear (and I think the biggest thing WotC needs to do with 2024 D&D compared to 2014 D&D is clarification of goals, reasons, process; as well as guidance on how best to change the dials and settings to curate a specific gameplay experience) how you set things to get various outcomes.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Oct 10, 2022)

Willie the Duck said:


> My point is that I don't care where the 'default' is set. I stopped playing video/computer-games regularly back in the Atari/NES-era, so this might be a very out-of-date analogy. Anyways, I remember the title screen popping up with 'easy,' 'medium,' and 'hard.' There would be an arrow you could move around between the three options. I don't think that where that initial arrow shows up as default speaks all that much about the game as a whole (Qbert doesn't become easy because it has the arrow start on Easy, while Pac Man is hard because that's where it's arrow defaults), and D&D is the same.



I get what you're saying but it's irrelevant to the issue, which isn't about what the book says, it's about what the math in the edition says.


Willie the Duck said:


> I agree, however, again I don't think where the default arrow rests is super important, so long as you make clear (and I think the biggest thing WotC needs to do with 2024 D&D compared to 2014 D&D is clarification of goals, reasons, process; as well as guidance on how best to change the dials and settings to curate a specific gameplay experience) how you set things to get various outcomes.



What you seem to be ignoring, and I think I've been fairly clear about it, is that the guidelines and "dials" and so on are sufficient to _change_ the experience in broad terms, but the experience is still _marred_ because it was designed for a specific setting, and the dials and guidelines cannot negate that in this particular game. It's not true of all games.

This is like a videogame which was designed to play absolutely great on "many encounters, easy combat", but most people want to play it on "fewer encounters, harder combat", and whilst the game will let you set it that way, it just doesn't play as well when it's set that way.


Willie the Duck said:


> If they've gotten the math subtly wrong for 6-8, or if it would have been better to say 3-4 of a harder CR, that's certainly possible, just outside the point I was trying to make.



They haven't got it wrong for 6-8. That's the thing. They've (seemingly accidentally) got it right for 6-8.

They've got it wrong for 3-4 of a harder CR, let alone lower numbers and harder still. The entire public playtest of 5E, the game worked on a 3-4/harder basis (at least as stated by WotC). At the last minute, they seemed to realize the math didn't quite work for this, and instead of changing the math, they changed the default recommendation. What they should have done is changed the math/abilities/etc.

With 1D&D, they still have a chance to at least partially fix that. Changing how healing spells work would be pretty good for it, for example. Making it so monsters in the 1D&D MM have fewer HP, and potentially errata'ing MMotM to drop the HP of those monsters too would also help. Preventing any classes from being reliant heavily on Short Rests would be very good - we haven't had a chance to see anything with that, because no Short Rest-reliant classes or subclasses have been shown (the main ones are Monk, Warlock and Fighter).

Even if they only do some of that it would be very helpful to correcting the math issue. Honestly even if they just made it so no-one relied on Short Rests and changed healing spells that'd probably be enough to make it hard to tell it wasn't intended (though the slightly-too-many-HP thing does kind of drain some of the interest from 5E).


----------



## Willie the Duck (Oct 11, 2022)

Ruin Explorer said:


> I get what you're saying but it's irrelevant to the issue, which isn't about what the book says, it's about what the math in the edition says.
> 
> What you seem to be ignoring, and I think I've been fairly clear about it, is that



No. It is neither irrelevant, nor am I ignoring anything. I am simply going off in a direction you do not wish to discuss. The two are not the same thing. Participants in a thread do not get to curate what others bring up. Rest assured, no one has missed your point. It isn't that world-shaking, and fits well in line with your existing 'the devs don't know what they are doing' positions (which, in this case, we're actually approaching common ground). 

Regardless, I think it is pertinent. Unless the game changes recharge mechanics, moves back to a form of social convention (doomclocks or 'most adventures happen in dungeons, leave to rest too frequently and the enemies will set better traps or leave with the loot' or similar) any rest frequency balanced against will be at most a polite suggestion. That's not wrong, but if it is to be the case, there ought be stronger DMG wording saying, in effect, 'yes, if you don't end up with these circumstances, you need to modify things, and here are some [preferably better designed with 8-10 years of experience of the existing structures] methods to do so.'



Ruin Explorer said:


> They haven't got it wrong for 6-8. That's the thing. They've (seemingly accidentally) got it right for 6-8.



You're correct. I miss-spoke. I don't know that it was accidental, but they definitely designed a system, found out where it worked best, and then put that as the default. I'm not convinced the numbers are too out of whack for 3-4 harder challenges, but honestly that's not the largest issue, AFAICT. From what I gather from others here, on the larger internet, and in F2F play, is that 6-8 is in the middle of the nadir of a bimodal distribution, with dungeon-crawlers oftentime exceeding that number and wilderness encounters, social encounters, and minidungeons (ex: the ruined temple with some guards out front and then the main battle inside) push the average for other activities closer to 1-2/day.


----------



## Ancalagon (Oct 11, 2022)

Clint_L said:


> And I never will because no one ever takes it.



No one _you play with_ takes it

I've seen it in a game that lasted 2 years ish.  One player said she would play a cleric _if_ other players could "chip in" with some of the healing themselves.  So one guy played a paladin, and the other a warlock with the healer feat.  The warlock did more healing than the paladin, it was quite significant.  I wouldn't say it broke the game, but it was a good feat.


----------

