# Here Are The Most Popular D&D Feats (War Caster Leads The Pack!)



## chunkosauruswrex (Feb 21, 2019)

I'm surprised sharpshooter is so popular for the rogue. I would figure with one attack it is far too risky to use half the feat. 

I do think the prevalence of warcaster shows just how important whether good or bad that keeping concentration is for casters. 

Also surprised to not see healer for the Rogue.

Everything else was fairly predictable


----------



## lyracian (Feb 21, 2019)

Interesting to see the Bard is the only Full Caster without War Caster as the top feat (Druid does have it as joint first)


----------



## chunkosauruswrex (Feb 21, 2019)

lyracian said:


> Interesting to see the Bard is the only Full Caster without War Caster as the top feat (Druid does have it as joint first)




FTFY


----------



## lowkey13 (Feb 21, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## S'mon (Feb 21, 2019)

Not enough people seem to realise the awesome power of Polearm Master!


----------



## Ganders (Feb 21, 2019)

A few of the numbers surprised me.  But the biggest surprise isn't even about feats:

Only 4% of characters are variant human!  Since we know from a previous reveal that over 25% of characters are humans, that makes variant-human much less popular than I expected.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Feb 21, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Not enough people seem to realise the awesome power of Polearm Master!




No kidding, especially in combination with Great Weapon Master!


----------



## S'mon (Feb 21, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> No kidding, especially in combination with Great Weapon Master!




And Barbarian Reckless Attack!


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Feb 21, 2019)

S'mon said:


> And Barbarian Reckless Attack!




I'm playing a Variant Human with Polearm Master in a campaign that just started. We're only level 2, but the plan is Level 3 Samurai and Level 4 Great Weapon Master. Let the pain begin!


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 21, 2019)

I wonder what Firearm Specialist is; I can't find that feat in D&D Beyond at all.


----------



## MonkeezOnFire (Feb 21, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> No kidding, especially in combination with Great Weapon Master!




I suspect that the reason Polearm Master doesn't make it into the top 3 of Fighters and Barbarians is that the characters that took it also take Great Weapon Master. But because Great Weapon Master is also viable on weapons that are not polearms it eclipses it in popularity here. 

My best guess for why it appears in the Paladin's top 3 is that since Paladin is a bit MAD with wanting both charisma and constitution after their primary stat that they don't typically get a chance to pick up both Polearm Master and Great Weapon Master.


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 21, 2019)

I'm surprised by Dual Wielder's popularity.

I kept not taking it everytime I had a chance with my dual wielding fighter, everytime asking myself "why wouldn't I just bump my Dex instead?" before taking some other, even weaker feat like Martial Adept.

Okay, maybe I shouldn't be surprised that my preference for fun feats isn't shared by the majority of users of DDB.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 21, 2019)

Ganders said:


> A few of the numbers surprised me.  But the biggest surprise isn't even about feats:
> 
> Only 4% of characters are variant human!  Since we know from a previous reveal that over 25% of characters are humans, that makes variant-human much less popular than I expected.




25% of all characters across all levels are Humans: might be lower among level 1-3 characters. We know fro ma previous bit of numbers from D&DB that a little less than half of that 25% is variant rather than standard Humans.

Considering the preponderance of lower level play, this chart does suggest why WotC has been slow to add more feats.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Feb 21, 2019)




----------



## Satyrn (Feb 21, 2019)

I notice that Grappler isn't mentioned anywhere.

That means that these stats really are based on characters paying customers are making, right? I've been wondering about the preponderance of Champion fighters, Life clerics and other basic rules contents from the previous stat dumps.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 21, 2019)

I am surprised at the popularity of Observant. I think it's a good feat myself and am considering it for my Fighter character, but I didn't think my appreciation for it was a common belief.


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 21, 2019)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I'm surprised sharpshooter is so popular for the rogue. I would figure with one attack it is far too risky to use half the feat.
> 
> I do think the prevalence of warcaster shows just how important whether good or bad that keeping concentration is for casters.
> 
> ...




For some reason, people on message boards always forget that *2/3rds* of Sharpshooter is dedicated to boosting accuracy. Despite the accuracy boost being the most powerful and impactful part of the feat (which makes it head and shoulders more powerful than it's cousin, GWM), the -5/+10 mod is all people talk about. It really shows you that people only pay attention to big numbers, despite the little ones adding up to more.

Likewise, Warcaster does a lot more than just boost concentration, it also lets you ignore the drawbacks of Somatic components to spells (which are a huge headache, especially if you want to use a shield), and it lets you use cantrips (or even more powerful spells) as an Opportunity Attack (which hearkens back to 4e, and also allows for huge nova potential)




Ganders said:


> A few of the numbers surprised me.  But the biggest surprise isn't even about feats:
> 
> Only 4% of characters are variant human!  Since we know from a previous reveal that over 25% of characters are humans, that makes variant-human much less popular than I expected.




11% of the characters are Variant human. However, only 4% of level 1-3 characters are variant humans.

Me personally, I ban variant humans, but not feats. Because a feats at level 1 are crazy powerful. If someone wanted to create a level 4+ variant human, I would be more inclined to let them get away with it. 

The big surprises for me? Tough: +2 hp per level is significant (much less so on the Fighters and Barbarians that have it for some reason), but absolutely boring. Also, Firearm Specialist is not only a 3rd-party feat, but also one that boosts Guns! It being just out of the top ten despite of those knocks against it is astounding.


----------



## MarkB (Feb 21, 2019)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I'm surprised sharpshooter is so popular for the rogue.




I'm surprised it's not more popular with Fighters. I've been having a great time playing a ranged Battlemaster.


----------



## Psyzhran2357 (Feb 21, 2019)

TwoSix said:


> I wonder what Firearm Specialist is; I can't find that feat in D&D Beyond at all.




https://www.dndbeyond.com/characters/feats/firearm-specialist

Looks like its from Critical Role.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2019)

I’m puzzled that feats are less popular with the highest level characters than with characters in the 2nd highest level range.


----------



## icedrake (Feb 21, 2019)

I wonder how many of these characters are used in play, or are thought experiments people do as a form of solo play to build a theoretical character.


----------



## Jester David (Feb 21, 2019)

I love how Actor is more popular than Polearm mastery


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 21, 2019)

icedrake said:


> I wonder how many of these characters are used in play, or are thought experiments people do as a form of solo play to build a theoretical character.




Worth covering again: these numbers are only for characters who have been filtered to reflect those in actual use. Not perfect, but they have methods to eliminate test PCs from the demographics.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 21, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Levels 12-16: 58% use feats.
> Levels 17-20: 57% use feats.
> 
> So what we are saying is that ... Tier IV characters have been .... defeated.
> ...




I am thinking based off the previous slides where they pointed out that character play after level 10 drops off, that is simply a result of campaigns restarting at lower level. Not 1% is not much of a variation (especially since these seem to be rounded % so it could be as low as .5%) so I imagine if they are polling only active characters it will fall below and rise above the 12-16 level usage as characters go inactive. This is just where we are right now.

I get that your joking because we have talked quite a bit over the years, this counter point is more for those who are taking your post too seriously in the defense of not using feats. I know your not a fan but there is a majority that does by a 14% gap 57 vs 43. I am actually surprised its as close as it is. Though I am reasonably sure the lead is based more on the joy of customization than on the believe that feats are need for optimization. That's pretty clear to me by the fact they are at 34% at level 4 when even characters that rolled a perfect 18 primary stat would get more out of a +2 to that stat than any feat (we use point by so unlucky players aren't horrible every game, which caps them at 16-17 making that more true).


----------



## Staffan (Feb 21, 2019)

I wonder how many of the Actor bards or Observant monks/clerics/druids, or Keen mind wizards are variant humans who took the feat for the stat bonus.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 21, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Not enough people seem to realise the awesome power of Polearm Master!




Magical polearmns are rare in WoTC adventures. omes down to DM may I, so GWM+ somethign else might be beter.

 Babarian raging dual wielding longswords might be another example of doing something similar to PAM bu with more common magical variants. 

Sharpshooter+ warcaster are top 5 feats material. So is healer IMHO but its boring and power doesn't always represent popularity.

 Every caster seems to know warcaster is good, figured that out in 2014.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 21, 2019)

MarkB said:


> I'm surprised [Sharpshooter's] not more popular with Fighters. I've been having a great time playing a ranged Battlemaster.




Probably because most people playing fighters would rather mix it up in melee. I mean, ranged fighters are perfectly viable, but it's not the common way to play the class.

That's one of the things I sort of liked about 4e, by the way. It specifically had fighters as being melee-focused. You want to play a dude who shoots people? That's the ranger.


----------



## iserith (Feb 21, 2019)

Leatherhead said:


> For some reason, people on message boards always forget that *2/3rds* of Sharpshooter is dedicated to boosting accuracy. Despite the accuracy boost being the most powerful and impactful part of the feat (which makes it head and shoulders more powerful than it's cousin, GWM), the -5/+10 mod is all people talk about. It really shows you that people only pay attention to big numbers, despite the little ones adding up to more.




In my experience, most DMs don't really make a big deal about cover, so I bet many people don't see that as the best benefit since cover doesn't come up as much as perhaps it should. (With all the usual caveats about how a game "should" be.)


----------



## S'mon (Feb 21, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> Magical polearmns are rare in WoTC adventures. omes down to DM may I, so GWM+ somethign else might be beter.




Never occurred to me to worry about having a magic weapon when my non magical one is doing 60-80 damage a round at level 5. 

The great thing about polearm master is how it stacks with greatweapon master and barbarian reckless attack. I get 3 attacks with advantage at -5/+10 from 10' away (2 d10s and if neither killed foe a bonus 1 d4, plus Rage & STR added to all, x2 Rage if GM allows Slayer Barbarian from Primeval Thule), then step back and get a fourth attack as a reaction when enemy enters my reach.

Barb-5 STR 16 human barbarian with gw & pm has 2 points of Rage & is hitting for (3x advtg & -5 reckless gwm) d10+15, d10+15, d4+15, and a reaction (standard bonus) for d10+5.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 21, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Never occurred to me to worry about having a magic weapon when my non magical one is doing 60-80 damage a round at level 5.
> 
> The great thing about polearm master is how it stacks with greatweapon master and barbarian reckless attack. I get 3 attacks with advantage at -5/+10 from 10' away (2 d10s and if neither killed foe a bonus 1 d4, plus Rage & STR added to all, x2 Rage if GM allows Slayer Barbarian from Primeval Thule), then step back and get a fourth attack as a reaction when enemy enters my reach.
> 
> Barb-5 STR 16 human barbarian with gw & pm has 2 points of Rage & is hitting for (3x advtg & -5 reckless gwm) d10+15, d10+15, d4+15, and a reaction (standard bonus) for d10+5.




 And then you come across somehtign requiring a magic weapon and the magic longsword or great sword (that are more common) deal more than you.

 But yeah I would put PAM in the top 5 feats along with warcaster, healer, sharpshoter and GWM. CBE is good but really needs sharpshooter to shine, all those 5 feats I listed are great all by themselves though warcaster might get competition from resilient: con


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 21, 2019)

I looked over this and thought nothing surprising here.... until I saw "Warcaster" as the #1 feat for paladin....Am I missing something? Why would Warcaster be a priority on class known for focusing their spell slots on smite damage? I know they have some concentration spells (Shield of Faith being a big one maybe the biggest) but when I see paladins in combat tanking hits in the thick of melee and not using the opportunity attack spell and when they cast the are usually out of combat when sheathing or setting down their weapon making the casting somatic components while holding a weapon not so useful. I don't see many paladins trading a concentration spell for 2 chances for mighty smiting. Polearm master for a third smite and heavy weapon master for better tanking make perfect since. It just makes me scratch my head a little.

Are Oath of Devotion's Beacon of Hope spell is good but doesn't seem enough to justify it alone. Oath of Vengeance's Hold Person/Monster combine with could make the a popular choice for them I guess and being the second most common subclass selection. Perhaps the Paladin muti-classes with Warlock, Sorcerer, and Bard to a lesser extent are raising this?

... *but if your only using it for concentrations saves why not Resilient (CON)?* Paladins are not proficient with con saves if concentration is your only goal then this is more effective and has broader useful implications. Its kind of surprising to me to see a half caster melee class with a priority of burning spell slots by not casting spells focusing on a feat that allows for combat cast and spell reaction attacks.


Are Paladin using "Thunderous smite" and/or "Blinding smite" spells as opportunity attacks enough to justify this feat?

Note: I have yet to play a paladin in 5e so I may very well be missing something. Just curious.


----------



## S'mon (Feb 21, 2019)

Zardnaar said:


> And then you come across somehtign requiring a magic weapon and the magic longsword or great sword (that are more common) deal more than you.




Never seen this come up; admittedly I've never played at high level. But I'd think my approach still does well vs critters with Resistance, though a backup +1 greatsword might be handy.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 21, 2019)

Staffan said:


> I wonder how many of the Actor bards or Observant monks/clerics/druids, or Keen mind wizards are variant humans who took the feat for the stat bonus.




In the right hands, a bard with the Actor feat can be devastating. The bard in our party has that feat, as his only feat, and he's worked wonders with it. 

It's also, however, how he ended up impregnating a succubus. So there's that.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 21, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> I looked over this and thought nothing surprising here.... until I saw "Warcaster" as the #1 feat for paladin....Am I missing something? Why would Warcaster be a priority on class known for focusing their spell slots on smite damage? I know they have some concentration spells (Shield of Faith being a big one maybe the biggest) but when I see paladins in combat tanking hits in the thick of melee and not using the opportunity attack spell and when they cast the are usually out of combat when sheathing or setting down their weapon making the casting somatic components while holding a weapon not so useful. I don't see many paladins trading a concentration spell for 2 chances for mighty smiting. Polearm master for a third smite and heavy weapon master for better tanking make perfect since. It just makes me scratch my head a little.
> 
> Are Oath of Devotion's Beacon of Hope spell is good but doesn't seem enough to justify it alone. Oath of Vengeance's Hold Person/Monster combine with could make the a popular choice for them I guess and being the second most common subclass selection. Perhaps the Paladin muti-classes with Warlock, Sorcerer, and Bard to a lesser extent are raising this?
> 
> ...




Paladin multiclass with bard/sorcerer is fairly common. Maybe the multiclass characters coupled with guides always recommending high concentration saves are enough to put it at 1.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 21, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Paladin multiclass with bard/sorcerer is fairly common. Maybe the multiclass characters coupled with guides always recommending high concentration saves are enough to put it at 1.




It still seems like Paladin/X would favor Resilient CON over Warcaster but then its possible this metric includes X/Paladin and if your primarily a warlock, bard, or sorcerer you might have taken for that then taken 2 level of paladin for armor proficiency and smite incase of melee engagement. It that case It would make more since.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 21, 2019)

I wonder if the change that allows the Spear to use PAM will change the frequency of choice?


----------



## guachi (Feb 21, 2019)

Jester David said:


> I love how Actor is more popular than Polearm mastery




An overabundance of Charisma based character classes who might take advantage of such a feat. Combine that with martial feats that are equal to PAM in usefulness.


----------



## Zardnaar (Feb 21, 2019)

guachi said:


> An overabundance of Charisma based character classes who might take advantage of such a feat. Combine that with martial feats that are equal to PAM is usefulness.




 And those chasima based classes are also very powerful as well (Paladin, Warlock DPR, Lore Bards).

 And Sorcerers are a lot better than they get credit for. Sorcerer+ warcaster means you flunk very few con saves short of somethign like Dragon breath. Its 1 in 400 except vs uber damage to get the DC higher than 10. Best buffer in the game and you can be something like the divine soul and pick up spirit guardians mixed with green flame blade and do alright in melee as well. Mountain Dwarf for example with rolled stats of cha 16+.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 22, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> I looked over this and thought nothing surprising here.... until I saw "Warcaster" as the #1 feat for paladin....Am I missing something? Why would Warcaster be a priority on class known for focusing their spell slots on smite damage? I know they have some concentration spells (Shield of Faith being a big one maybe the biggest) but when I see paladins in combat tanking hits in the thick of melee and not using the opportunity attack spell and when they cast the are usually out of combat when sheathing or setting down their weapon making the casting somatic components while holding a weapon not so useful. I don't see many paladins trading a concentration spell for 2 chances for mighty smiting. Polearm master for a third smite and heavy weapon master for better tanking make perfect since. It just makes me scratch my head a little.
> 
> Are Oath of Devotion's Beacon of Hope spell is good but doesn't seem enough to justify it alone. Oath of Vengeance's Hold Person/Monster combine with could make the a popular choice for them I guess and being the second most common subclass selection. Perhaps the Paladin muti-classes with Warlock, Sorcerer, and Bard to a lesser extent are raising this?
> 
> ...




D&DB statistics on have demonstrated that people aren't really optimizing (a minority of Warlocks take Eldritch Blast as a spell, for example). Is War Caster ideal for a Paladin? Nope. But if someone likes the flavor, they'll take it.


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 22, 2019)

uhh there may be some aggregation skew going on.

Resilient and Spell Sniper include their sub-type. 

Unless its covered in the video then based on how DDB presentes them, that means that the feats represented with choices are being counted as different feats.

So, Ritual Caster may be overall very popular, as might Magic initiate, or resilient - but not be counted in the tops because they are sub-divided. Same for the elemental one and some others. 

That may explain the lack of ritual and initiate anywhere on the charts.


----------



## Gladius Legis (Feb 22, 2019)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I'm surprised sharpshooter is so popular for the rogue. I would figure with one attack it is far too risky to use half the feat.



The -5/+10 part isn't what's appealing to the Rogue. Removing disadvantage for long range and thus allowing long-range Sneak Attacks is what's appealing. Ignoring cover is really good too.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Not enough people seem to realise the awesome power of Polearm Master!




People probably choose feats more on theme and character personality.



Ganders said:


> A few of the numbers surprised me.  But the biggest surprise isn't even about feats:
> 
> Only 4% of characters are variant human!  Since we know from a previous reveal that over 25% of characters are humans, that makes variant-human much less popular than I expected.




From previous DDB data we know 11% are variant human (and 11.5% standard). So that's funny.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> D&DB statistics on have demonstrated that people aren't really optimizing (a minority of Warlocks take Eldritch Blast as a spell, for example). Is War Caster ideal for a Paladin? Nope. But if someone likes the flavor, they'll take it.




I would argue that EB is not necessary to optimize. It's just a d10 cantrip and invocations are precious.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 22, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> I would argue that EB is not necessary to optimize. It's just a d10 cantrip and invocations are precious.




Probably not, but the CharOp consensus is bullish on EB. Which is the point, most people are not plugged into that.


----------



## Dr. Bull (Feb 22, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> I am surprised at the popularity of Observant. I think it's a good feat myself and am considering it for my Fighter character, but I didn't think my appreciation for it was a common belief.




In D&D and in the real world, getting surprised by an enemy is one of the worst things that can happen.  Imagine the difference between getting caught asleep in your bedroll vs. having your shield up and your weapon drawn...    As a regular practice, all of my characters have proficiency in perception.  Observant is a great feat to enhance it.

In my opinion, adding perception to the fighter's proficiency list was a great improvement in 5e.  It is one of the most important aspects of being a soldier.  Previous editions of D&D ignored the fact that guards (also known as soldiers, fighters, security forces, city watchmen/women, etc.) are the only class who *are regularly assigned "guard duty"* or who serve as "sentries".  It's part of the job description!  If the castle guards aren't paying attention...  Who IS?

Getting caught with your pants down =  Devastating!
Getting caught with your pants up = Life Saving!

- Dr. Bull


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

I don't understand why dual wielder is popular on barbarian.  

Normal sequence 
Round 1:  Draw First Weapon + Attack + Bonus action rage.  
Round 2:  Draw 2nd Weapon + Attack + Bonus action attack.

What the heck does dual wielder add?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

Dr. Bull said:


> In D&D and in the real world, getting surprised by an enemy is one of the worst things that can happen.  Imagine the difference between getting caught asleep in your bedroll vs. having your shield up and your weapon drawn...    As a regular practice, all of my characters have proficiency in perception.  Observant is a great feat to enhance it.
> 
> In my opinion, adding perception to the fighter's proficiency list was a great improvement in 5e.  It is one of the most important aspects of being a soldier.  Previous editions of D&D ignored the fact that guards (also known as soldiers, fighters, security forces, city watchmen/women, etc.) are the only class who *are regularly assigned "guard duty"* or who serve as "sentries".  It's part of the job description!  If the castle guards aren't paying attention...  Who IS?
> 
> ...




Maybe.  But you're not typically the only one looking for danger.  When the whole party is doing a task it diminishes the need for any single party member to be proficient in it.  Don't get me wrong, someone should be proficient in it, but in my experience nearly everyone in the party takes it and at that point not taking it and taking anything else instead feels more useful.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 22, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> D&DB statistics on have demonstrated that people aren't really optimizing (a minority of Warlocks take Eldritch Blast as a spell, for example). Is War Caster ideal for a Paladin? Nope. But if someone likes the flavor, they'll take it.




Sure, but that's not really what I am asking. What I am asking is, "Why?" Warcaster is not really a flavor feat its more of a function feat. Taking tavern brawler because you want to fist fight the party monk, actor to pretend to be the captain of the guard, skilled to fill out  a story concept roll, or even Mage Slayer because a sorcerer kill your paw... sure. I understand those. Warcaster isn't a strong flavor options for building a character concept and its not very functional for Paladins. So my question is *what are people taking it for?* They are not taking Resilient (CON) for the same function so I already figured they are not looking for better concentration saves. I am just trying to figure out what draws paladin player to pick this to such an extent that its the #1 picked paladin feat. I am not say they are wrong. I am just curious what the thought pattern is because I don't see it.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 22, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I don't understand why dual wielder is popular on barbarian.
> 
> Normal sequence
> Round 1:  Draw First Weapon + Attack + Bonus action rage.
> ...




2 longsword for style is what I am thinking. It seems like they are taking it for the removal of the finesse requirement for duel wielding and the +1 to AC which doesn't require armor.


----------



## Kurotowa (Feb 22, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Probably not, but the CharOp consensus is bullish on EB. Which is the point, most people are not plugged into that.




I haven't seen the stats but I'd put my bet on it being due to high representation from Blade Pact Warlocks. Gish are always a popular choice and Hexblade makes Blade Pact Warlocks a viable build. And if you're Blade Pact you're almost certainly not investing in EB, to the point where taking it at all is pretty optional. A straight EB spam Tomelock might be effective, but it's competing for space with archery focused Rogues and Rangers.

I mean, look at the feat selection data in this thread alone. Sharpshooter is at 30% for Rangers and 13% for Rogues, the number one pick for both and a sure indication of an archery focused character. Meanwhile look at the ranking of War Caster and Spell Sniper for Warlocks. The former indicates a high chance of a melee Blade Pact character, the latter almost guaranties an EB sniper. War Caster is in first place with 17% representation and Spell Sniper is in third at 7%.

If that doesn't indicate that people who want a ranged attack spam character are going with Ranger and Rogue archers over EB spam Warlocks, I don't know what would.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> 2 longsword for style is what I am thinking. It seems like they are taking it for the removal of the finesse requirement for duel wielding and the +1 to AC which doesn't require armor.




I guess a lot of people choose more based on aesthetics than anything.  Interesting.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

Kurotowa said:


> I haven't seen the stats but I'd put my bet on it being due to high representation from Blade Pact Warlocks. Gish are always a popular choice and Hexblade makes Blade Pact Warlocks a viable build. And if you're Blade Pact you're almost certainly not investing in EB, to the point where taking it at all is pretty optional. A straight EB spam Tomelock might be effective, but it's competing for space with archery focused Rogues and Rangers.
> 
> I mean, look at the feat selection data in this thread alone. Sharpshooter is at 30% for Rangers and 13% for Rogues, the number one pick for both and a sure indication of an archery focused character. Meanwhile look at the ranking of War Caster and Spell Sniper for Warlocks. The former indicates a high chance of a melee Blade Pact character, the latter almost guaranties an EB sniper. War Caster is in first place with 17% representation and Spell Sniper is in third at 7%.
> 
> If that doesn't indicate that people who want a ranged attack spam character are going with Ranger and Rogue archers over EB spam Warlocks, I don't know what would.




1.  Different classes take any feat vs don't take a feat at different rates
2.  Sharp Shooter is hands down a feat that benefits any archer greatly.  Even then only 30% of rangers had it.  Surely the remaining 70% aren't melee rangers?  That presumably leaves a lot of rangers with bows not using it
3.  Spell Sniper doesn't have near the impact that SS does.  Presumably that means even more EB Warlocks would skip taking it than Rangers that skipped Sharp Shooter.  
4.  Kind of redundant but the point is that Archery or EB focused characters don't have to take archery or EB related feats.
5.  Warcaster is also useful to keep concentration saves up on an eb warlock

There's simply too many jumps from the data presented to your conclusions.  You simply don't have the data needed to draw the conclusions you are drawing.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I'm surprised sharpshooter is so popular for the rogue. I would figure with one attack it is far too risky to use half the feat.
> 
> I do think the prevalence of warcaster shows just how important whether good or bad that keeping concentration is for casters.
> 
> ...




Not everyone shares the interpretation of healers feat and thief rogues that makes it good.


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2019)

Kurotowa said:


> If that doesn't indicate that people who want a ranged attack spam character are going with Ranger and Rogue archers over EB spam Warlocks, I don't know what would.




I think story decisions far out way combat mechanic decisions.

I bet few people think 'I want to play a ranged attacking character, what class and feats do I choose for that'. Rather they look at the theme of classes, backgrounds, races, and choose ones and create a character who they think would be fun to play as. Once they decide on their class, then they look at what sorts of weapons, spells, and such that character would use.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 22, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> Sure, but that's not really what I am asking. What I am asking is, "Why?" Warcaster is not really a flavor feat its more of a function feat. Taking tavern brawler because you want to fist fight the party monk, actor to pretend to be the captain of the guard, skilled to fill out  a story concept roll, or even Mage Slayer because a sorcerer kill your paw... sure. I understand those. Warcaster isn't a strong flavor options for building a character concept and its not very functional for Paladins. So my question is *what are people taking it for?* They are not taking Resilient (CON) for the same function so I already figured they are not looking for better concentration saves. I am just trying to figure out what draws paladin player to pick this to such an extent that its the #1 picked paladin feat. I am not say they are wrong. I am just curious what the thought pattern is because I don't see it.




It's pretty straightforward: Paladins are casters who have weapons and shields. War caster makes it easier to cast while holding a weapon and a shield.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 22, 2019)

chunkosauruswrex said:


> I'm surprised sharpshooter is so popular for the rogue. I would figure with one attack it is far too risky to use half the feat.




I don't know why people take Sharpshooter, but if I took it, it would be because of the other benefits which almost read as "ignore range and cover". I'd keep the damage tradeoff as a fancy extra for occasional experiments. 



lowkey13 said:


> Levels 12-16: 58% use feats.
> Levels 17-20: 57% use feats.
> 
> So what we are saying is that ... Tier IV characters have been .... defeated.




My guess is that lv17-20 characters in D&D are older, and perhaps many players start looking into feats only at their second or further character of the same kind, to differentiate from the previous.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 22, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> It's pretty straightforward: Paladins are casters who have weapons and shields. War caster makes it easier to cast while holding a weapon and a shield.




You can drop your weapon as a free action and pick it up as part of an attack...per RAW. So there is no mechanical impact... Are you saying Paladins are taking Warcasters so they don't have to explain that to their GM each round? Sounds like a strange meta reason for taking an unnessicary mechanical feature and which provides nothing in story or flavor. I was assuming its from one of the other features like a spell opportunity attack.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 22, 2019)

Li Shenron said:


> I don't know why people take Sharpshooter, but if I took it, it would be because of the other benefits which almost read as "ignore range and cover". I'd keep the damage tradeoff as a fancy extra for occasional experiments.
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that lv17-20 characters in D&D are older, and perhaps many players start looking into feats only at their second or further character of the same kind, to differentiate from the previous.




Most likely explanation is that the people who use Feats and people who play past level 10 or so have a high overlap on the Venn diagram: a fraction of games get to Tier 3, let alone Tier 4.


----------



## Kurotowa (Feb 22, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> There's simply too many jumps from the data presented to your conclusions.  You simply don't have the data needed to draw the conclusions you are drawing.




Pelor's Nipples, I'm not trying to prove a detailed scientific case, I'm pointing at obvious broad trends. Sharpshooter is the most popular feat for Rangers and Rogues. More Warlocks take War Caster than Spell Sniper. Those aren't "conclusions" that's just the data itself. I don't know what you think you're showing but you didn't do anything to re-contextualize it or disprove a single thing I said.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 22, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> You can drop your weapon as a free action and pick it up as part of an attack...per RAW. So there is no mechanical impact... Are you saying Paladins are taking Warcasters so they don't have to explain that to their GM each round? Sounds like a strange meta reason for taking an unnessicary mechanical feature and which provides nothing in story or flavor. I was assuming its from one of the other features like a spell opportunity attack.




It's probably a combination of all of the features, or different emphasises for different players: but if somebody plans to cast spells while in melee, the Frat is very attractive. Even if Smite is a better use of spell slots resources.


----------



## barasawa (Feb 22, 2019)

With the clear favor given to Warcaster it seems likely that one of two things are happening. 
Either it is a very powerful and desirable feat. 
Or else it mitigates a very strong deficit in those characters.
(Possibly even both.) 

I won't state my opinion on which as I'm more interested in what others think.


----------



## Kurotowa (Feb 22, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> I bet few people think 'I want to play a ranged attacking character, what class and feats do I choose for that'. Rather they look at the theme of classes, backgrounds, races, and choose ones and create a character who they think would be fun to play as. Once they decide on their class, then they look at what sorts of weapons, spells, and such that character would use.




You'd be surprised, every group has its own dynamic.

In my current group we've got a guy who's not big on mechanics. He went to one of those historic recreation towns on his last vacation and got to shoot a crossbow. The experience impressed him so much he decided his next character would be a crossbow user, and the group put our heads together to help him pick the right class for it. Other times we've had someone decide they wanted to play the front line anchor and then shop around for which class offered the style they wanted.

So yes, some people look through the book and pick an option they think looks fun. That's how I usually do it, actually. But there are other people who get their inspiration from outside sources as to the concept or style they want to go with and then shop around for what suits it best. And I've done that too, sometimes. With my latest character I had the concept of "A tiefling healer with holy powers" first and then went looking for how to realize it. I came up with three options, even! Light Cleric, Celestial Warlock, and Divine Soul Sorcerer all delivered on the initial concept while developing it in different directions.

There are a lot of people playing D&D and nearly every one of them has a slightly unique spin on how they do it. Don't underestimate that.


----------



## Kurotowa (Feb 22, 2019)

barasawa said:


> With the clear favor given to Warcaster it seems likely that one of two things are happening.
> Either it is a very powerful and desirable feat.
> Or else it mitigates a very strong deficit in those characters.




I'd vote for mitigation. Once again I'll emphasize the popularity of gish style melee casters. War Caster alleviates two important limitations on gishes. One is that by strict RAW you can't cast spells while holding a weapon and shield, or two weapons, without either a class feature or this feat. The other is that it's a gamble trying to use Concentration spells while you're in melee range and there are a lot of good self buffs that require Concentration that a gish will want to use. Being able to use a scaling Cantrip for your Opportunity Attack is powerful when it comes up but so narrowly situational that it's much more of a side benefit.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 22, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> Most likely explanation is that the people who use Feats and people who play past level 10 or so have a high overlap on the Venn diagram: a fraction of games get to Tier 3, let alone Tier 4.




Ok but the question was why the % of feat-users in Tier 4 is actually slightly lower than that in Tier 3...


----------



## ad_hoc (Feb 22, 2019)

Kurotowa said:


> But there are other people who get their inspiration from outside sources as to the concept or style they want to go with and then shop around for what suits it best.




I'm not saying 0 people do that.

I'm just saying that of the 15+ million 5e players, those who do are in a distinct minority.

This is not to say it's wrong, but it is relevant to talk about when we're talking about statistics and why people are doing what they're doing.

I think so many Rangers and Rogues have Sharpshooter because the players want their characters to be sharpshooters. I think the same is true of War Caster. Their characters are 'war casters' so they take the War Caster feat. As for mechanics, I bet not wanting to play the weapon juggling game of dropping and picking it back up again is a big selling point because that isn't heroic.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

Kurotowa said:


> Pelor's Nipples, I'm not trying to prove a detailed scientific case, I'm pointing at obvious broad trends. Sharpshooter is the most popular feat for Rangers and Rogues. More Warlocks take War Caster than Spell Sniper. Those aren't "conclusions" that's just the data itself. I don't know what you think you're showing but you didn't do anything to re-contextualize it or disprove a single thing I said.




You’re claiming based on feat popularatiy on a by class basis that players who want to use a ranged attack character go toward ranger and rogue. I give you a bunch of reasons that you can’t conclude from the data presented that ranged attack players choose ranger or rogue over warlock and you come back with this?  pelor’s Nipples indeed. 

I happen to think players do choose ranger and rogue more than warlock for ranged which is why I’m not arguing that they don’t. But the data provided offers 0 support for that belief.

To summarize:  my primary issue is with your data misuse.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 22, 2019)

Li Shenron said:


> Ok but the question was why the % of feat-users in Tier 4 is actually slightly lower than that in Tier 3...




That I'm counting down to statistical noise: it's not that different.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 22, 2019)

ad_hoc said:


> I'm not saying 0 people do that.
> 
> I'm just saying that of the 15+ million 5e players, those who do are in a distinct minority.
> 
> ...




Yeah, it's pretty commonsensical.


----------



## Jay Verkuilen (Feb 22, 2019)

Ganders said:


> A few of the numbers surprised me.  But the biggest surprise isn't even about feats:
> 
> Only 4% of characters are variant human!  Since we know from a previous reveal that over 25% of characters are humans, that makes variant-human much less popular than I expected.




I'm not entirely convinced they did the various subsetting properly, or else it means something slightly different than we think. 

I don't know for sure but I know that things like this are rather challenging to manage given the nature of the data. In particular, the fact that everybody's account has customizable resources means that a Basic (i.e., free) account has very different access that someone with the PHB and Xanathar's purchased. I'm not saying this is the issue, but I do know that analyzing user data or administrative data more broadly runs into the serious problem of generating comparable cases.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 22, 2019)

Li Shenron said:


> Ok but the question was why the % of feat-users in Tier 4 is actually slightly lower than that in Tier 3...




I'm reading it this way:

Of all the PCs who are currently an active Tier 3 character in DDB, 58% have feats.
Of all the PCs who are currently an active Tier 4 character in DDB, 57% have feats.

So there's no overlap in the groups as the PCs are only counted in the category that they are in right now.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 22, 2019)

Parmandur said:


> It's pretty straightforward: Paladins are casters who have weapons and shields. War caster makes it easier to cast while holding a weapon and a shield.



Except that Crawford has already established that clerics and paladins don’t need War Caster if they’ve got their holy symbol on their shield. I suppose some people might not know that, but I’m leaning more towards clerics and paladins taking the feat for its other benefits.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

pukunui said:


> Except that Crawford has already established that clerics and paladins don’t need War Caster if they’ve got their holy symbol on their shield. I suppose some people might not know that, but I’m leaning more towards clerics and paladins taking the feat for its other benefits.




I’ve got it from a good source that nearly half of d&d players don’t value anything JC says more than they value what a bum on the street says


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 22, 2019)

Ganders said:


> A few of the numbers surprised me.  But the biggest surprise isn't even about feats:
> 
> Only 4% of characters are variant human!  Since we know from a previous reveal that over 25% of characters are humans, that makes variant-human much less popular than I expected.




I'm gonna be making a new character next session, and I'm planning on playing a standard human.

My vision is "the guy with all the weapons" ( like the picture [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION] occasionally posts). I'm going Champion fighter with high Strength and Dexterity so that I can go melee or ranged equally well.

And I'm going featless (at first level at least) because lots of the feats kinda feel like they'd  lock me into a specific weapon choice/style. Sure there are feats that don't do that  (And this is why I'll be taking the Protection fighting style, too) but I'm not really inclined to go hunting for such a feat when the standard human's stat boosts are quite appealing.

Maybe others are thinking similar thoughts, and that's why there are so few variant humans.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 22, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> You can drop your weapon as a free action and pick it up as part of an attack...per RAW. So there is no mechanical impact... Are you saying Paladins are taking Warcasters so they don't have to explain that to their GM each round?




How does this work if the enemy sees you drop your cool sword and snags it for their own use? It's also a free action for them to grab it, so it seems like if you're actually doing this per RAW you'd end up with your preferred weapon being used against you an awful lot.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 22, 2019)

pukunui said:


> Except that Crawford has already established that clerics and paladins don’t need War Caster if they’ve got their holy symbol on their shield. I suppose some people might not know that, but I’m leaning more towards clerics and paladins taking the feat for its other benefits.




Actually, Crawford has established that you don't need warcaster for casting spells that do have a material component if you've got a focus on your shield, but that you DO need it for casting spells with a somatic but no material component. So Cure Wounds, Divine Favor, Heroism, Lesser Restoration, Magic Weapon, Daylight, Dispel Magic, Elemental Weapon, Remove Curse, and Holy Weapon all require you to give the opponent a chance to pick your weapon up if you want to use them. And that's only if people use that odd, non-official ruling.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 22, 2019)

pukunui said:


> Except that Crawford has already established that clerics and paladins don’t need War Caster if they’ve got their holy symbol on their shield. I suppose some people might not know that, but I’m leaning more towards clerics and paladins taking the feat for its other benefits.




How is that possible? :/ 

The holy symbol is a spellcasting focus i.e. can be used in place of material components, but doesn't remove the need for somatic components. War Caster is still needed.


----------



## Hjorimir (Feb 22, 2019)

I think the warcaster popularity has more to do with the fact that are relatively few feats that benefit pure spellcasters.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 22, 2019)

Li Shenron said:


> How is that possible? :/
> 
> The holy symbol is a spellcasting focus i.e. can be used in place of material components, but doesn't remove the need for somatic components. War Caster is still needed.



Here’s the relevant bit from the Sage Advice Compendium (OverlordOcelot is correct; I’d forgotten the second part below):



> Another example: a cleric’s holy symbol is emblazoned
> on her shield. She likes to wade into melee combat with a mace in one hand and a shield in the other. She uses the holy symbol as her spellcasting focus, so she needs to have the shield in hand when she casts a cleric spell that has a material component. If the spell, such as aid, also has a somatic component, she can perform that component with the shield hand and keep holding the mace in the other.
> 
> If the same cleric casts cure wounds, she needs to put the mace or the shield away, because that spell doesn’t have a material component but does have a somatic component. She’s going to need a free hand to make the spell’s gestures. If she had the War Caster feat, she could ignore this restriction.




So never mind, I was misremembering.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 22, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> How does this work if the enemy sees you drop your cool sword and snags it for their own use? It's also a free action for them to grab it, so it seems like if you're actually doing this per RAW you'd end up with your preferred weapon being used against you an awful lot.




Use a tether to keep your weapon from completely falling... then it's just dangling from your arm when you "drop" it.


----------



## Parmandur (Feb 22, 2019)

pukunui said:


> Except that Crawford has already established that clerics and paladins don’t need War Caster if they’ve got their holy symbol on their shield. I suppose some people might not know that, but I’m leaning more towards clerics and paladins taking the feat for its other benefits.




I would wager most people playing don't know who Jeremy Crawford is, let alone about his rulings.


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 22, 2019)

pukunui said:


> Here’s the relevant bit from the Sage Advice Compendium (OverlordOcelot is correct; I’d forgotten the second part below):
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That looks wrongly weird to me.  I don't see how he concludes that the shield hand counts as free for the somatic component in one case but not the other?


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 22, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Use a tether to keep your weapon from completely falling... then it's just dangling from your arm when you "drop" it.




This doesn't appear to stop someone from snagging the weapon and using it themselves, unless the DM gives you some kind of hilariously favorable 'tether' house rule that lets you have swords hanging off of your body 'dropped' but not easily removed from the tether by someone else, not help enemies grapple/restrain you, and not hurting you or hindering your movements when you try to move while an effective weapon is dangling loose next to your body. Also, this is not AL or RAW legal as it's not a piece of equipment listed in the PHB, it's a custom piece of equipment that you're trying to get really, really favorable rules for using. I'm thinking that if it's a weak tether then it's an easy STR check to pull a weapon free from it, and if it's a strong tether then grabbing the sword puts you into a grapple without you getting to contest, and forces you spend your next action breaking the grapple if you want to get the sword back. And this isn't a harsh ruling, this is just trying to be sensible about how having a sword dangling from a chain works.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 22, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> That looks wrongly weird to me.  I don't see how he concludes that the shield hand counts as free for the somatic component in one case but not the other?



It just makes it so a holy symbol on a shield works the same way as every other spellcasting focus: a focus can be used in place of a material component, and if a spell has both somatic and material components, you can perform the somatic component while holding the focus.

It makes it so a holy symbol on a shield is no different to a holy symbol on an amulet. If you’re holding a shield with a holy symbol on it, then you’re considered to be holding the holy symbol.


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 22, 2019)

pukunui said:


> It just makes it so a holy symbol on a shield works the same way as every other spellcasting focus.
> 
> If you’re holding a sword in one hand and a crystal ball in the other, and you want to cast _shield_, you’d have to drop one of the things you’re holding first, since that spell has a somatic component but not a material one.




Okay. Then it's the rule itself that's weird.

Sweet. Now I can't be accused of being a WotC shill who thinks they can do no wrong.


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 22, 2019)

pukunui said:


> It just makes it so a holy symbol on a shield works the same way as every other spellcasting focus: a focus can be used in place of a material component, and if a spell has both somatic and material components, you can perform the somatic component while holding the focus.
> 
> It makes it so a holy symbol on a shield is no different to a holy symbol on an amulet. If you’re holding a shield with a holy symbol on it, then you’re considered to be holding the holy symbol.




I actually understood better before the edit. The Crystal ball comparison shows what's happening.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 22, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> This doesn't appear to stop someone from snagging the weapon and using it themselves,




They can grasp at it, but taking it away from you and using it would be impossible because it's tethered to your arm. Also, said enemy would need to have to weight whether trying to grab a dangling weapon is actually worth more than directly attacking the character (or using some other action)... 



> Also, this is not AL or RAW legal as it's not a piece of equipment listed in the PHB, it's a custom piece of equipment that you're trying to get really, really favorable rules for using.




Well, damn. By that "logic", since there's a lot of things not listed in the PHB equipment lists, I guess they don't exist in D&D-land either. LOL



> I'm thinking that if it's a weak tether then it's an easy STR check to pull a weapon free from it, and if it's a strong tether then grabbing the sword puts you into a grapple without you getting to contest,




I don't see the logic in not getting to contest, but you do you.



> and forces you spend your next action breaking the grapple if you want to get the sword back. And this isn't a harsh ruling, this is just trying to be sensible about how having a sword dangling from a chain works.




Well, if the opponent finds doing so worthwile over performing some other action... Go for it. It might just lead to a more interesting combat.


----------



## guachi (Feb 22, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Okay. Then it's the rule itself that's weird.
> 
> Sweet. Now I can't be accused of being a WotC shill who thinks they can do no wrong.




The game, of course, doesn't actually tell us what the somatic gestures are for most spells (off the top of my head I recall fireball stating you pointed and burning hands is palms facing away from you with thumb and forefinger touching thumb and forefinger of other hand). But we can imagine a spell with somatic but not material components requiring more complex hand movements or perhaps a spell like cure wounds requiring you to actually touch the target with a free hand.

At least, that's how I imagine the game works.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 22, 2019)

Azzy said:


> They can grasp at it, but taking it away from you and using it would be impossible because it's tethered to your arm. Also, said enemy would need to have to weight whether trying to grab a dangling weapon is actually worth more than directly attacking the character (or using some other action)...




No, using it would be perfectly possible, they just grab it, now they're holding it, and they swing it at you. You're stuck because you're now grappled as they have ahold of you. They wouldn't need any 'trying' to grab a dangling weapon any more than you have to, they just grab it and swing it at you using the same actions you would - only now it's putting you at a disadvantage because it's also attached to your body by this unbreakable tether.



> Well, damn. By that "logic", since there's a lot of things not listed in the PHB equipment lists, I guess they don't exist in D&D-land either. LOL




Unbreakable tethers that don't hinder your movement or use of the weapon but that prevent enemies from grabbing the weapon or using the tether to grapple you are way outside of standard rules. Getting surprised that people take a feat that allows you to cast a spell with a weapon in hand instead of relying on the DM to inventing special rules for super tethers that don't work like any real-world object and give you a way to completely bypass the drawbacks of a RAW option is just silly. The 'oh, put it on a tether' solution fails both RAW and realism analysis. 



> I don't see the logic in not getting to contest, but you do you.




Because you attached a tether with a handle on the end of it to your body. They can just grab the handle on the loose weapon with their free action, the same way you do. Since the tether is attached to you, they are now grappling you. Attaching chains with convenient gripping handles to your body is not a smart idea.


----------



## Ristamar (Feb 22, 2019)

guachi said:


> The game, of course, doesn't actually tell us what the somatic gestures are for most spells (off the top of my head I recall fireball stating you pointed and burning hands is palms facing away from you with thumb and forefinger touching thumb and forefinger of other hand). But we can imagine a spell with somatic but not material components requiring more complex hand movements or perhaps a spell like cure wounds requiring you to actually touch the target with a free hand.
> 
> At least, that's how I imagine the game works.




When casting with an engraved/emblazoned shield, I'm fairly certain that Crawford explained that presenting the holy symbol (as the material component) on the shield is the somatic component.


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 22, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Use a tether to keep your weapon from completely falling... then it's just dangling from your arm when you "drop" it.




In my game I'd require you make a check to cast a spell with a mace dangling from the hand you're using for somatics.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 22, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> In my game I'd require you make a check to cast a spell with a mace dangling from the hand you're using for somatics.




Oh yes, I hadn't even thought about the difficulty of making delicate somatic gestures with 3-4 feet of sword dangling from your arm while you do it. And is it really surprising that people are like "I'll take warcaster" instead of "I'll convince the DM that having a sword chained to my wrist is not at all hindering my movement"?


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 22, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> Oh yes, I hadn't even thought about the difficulty of making delicate somatic gestures with 3-4 feet of sword dangling from your arm while you do it. And is it really surprising that people are like "I'll take warcaster" instead of "I'll convince the DM that having a sword chained to my wrist is not at all hindering my movement"?




I mean let's say he answers the weight of the weapon isn't on that arm because the full length of the weapon is on the ground and it's just the weight of the tether. OK, putting aside the mechanics of the length of tehter you'd need for a medium sized weapon to be fully on the ground and the risk of accidentally kicking it, this now assumes you're not moving around in your space like the rules assume you do (where it says there are no facing rules because you're in constant movement in your space). 

OK, so now you're not moving around in your space like normal, because otherwise this weapon on the ground chained to your arm will get tangled in your legs. We have a rule for that - it's the Restrained condition. So now not only can't you move with a weapon chained to you that's on the ground, but attack rolls against you have advantage, and your attack rolls have disadvantage, and you have disadvantage on Dexterity saving throws.

So either you're making a check to cast a spell with a medium weapon dangling it's weight from your somatic-casting arm, or you're restrained from the medium weapon laying on the ground tethered to you. Pick your poison. Both sound pretty bad to me.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 22, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Okay. Then it's the rule itself that's weird.
> 
> Sweet. Now I can't be accused of being a WotC shill who thinks they can do no wrong.



Fool!  You're obviously just serving your War Caster lobby masters, deep in the bowels of Hasbro's finance department!


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 22, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> You can drop your weapon as a free action and pick it up as part of an attack...per RAW.



Maybe I'm a little late to the discussion, but are we talking about 3rd Edition rules here?  In 5th Edition (PHB 190), you can draw or sheathe a weapon in tandem with either your Movement or your Action.

That Action can be making an attack, casting a spell, disengaging, channeling divinity, wildshaping, whatever.  Strategically dropping your weapon isn't really a thing anymore (unless the king's bodyguards insist.)


----------



## BookBarbarian (Feb 22, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Never seen this come up; admittedly I've never played at high level. But I'd think my approach still does well vs critters with Resistance, though a backup +1 greatsword might be handy.




The backup approach works fine.

I wouldn't say it's a problem limited to high level though. I once ran into a couple of Jackalweres in an AL game when I was level 1. Hell a +1 Dagger would have been handy.

Still I think a fair portion of players don't go with PAM because they prefer other weapons for aesthetics .


----------



## S'mon (Feb 22, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> Still I think a fair portion of players don't go with PAM because they prefer other weapons for aesthetics .




I call my barbarian's halberd a "long handled axe"


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 22, 2019)

CleverNickName said:


> Maybe I'm a little late to the discussion, but are we talking about 3rd Edition rules here?  In 5th Edition (PHB 190), you can draw or sheathe a weapon in tandem with either your Movement or your Action.
> 
> That Action can be making an attack, casting a spell, disengaging, channeling divinity, wildshaping, whatever.  Strategically dropping your weapon isn't really a thing anymore (unless the king's bodyguards insist.)




Yes but you cannot do BOTH on your turn. You get ONE object interaction and he's talking about dropping the weapon (free action) and then picking it up (single object interaction on your turn). If you sheath your weapon as part of spellcasting, you no longer have it in your hand after the spellcasting. So for example you will not be able to make an opportunity attack with that weapon if it comes up, until you draw your weapon again on a later turn. And of course if you draw it, you won't be able to sheath it on that turn. The only way to really avoid this is the war caster feat.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 22, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> Actually, Crawford has established that you don't need warcaster for casting spells that do have a material component if you've got a focus on your shield, but that you DO need it for casting spells with a somatic but no material component. So Cure Wounds, Divine Favor, Heroism, Lesser Restoration, Magic Weapon, Daylight, Dispel Magic, Elemental Weapon, Remove Curse, and Holy Weapon all require you to give the opponent a chance to pick your weapon up if you want to use them. And that's only if people use that odd, non-official ruling.




Yep and of all those the only one you would use in battle instead of before or after (as a rule) is  Cure wounds, which you can ignore with lay on hands....?


----------



## CleverNickName (Feb 22, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Yes but you cannot do BOTH on your turn.



I think you can, though...you can do either one of those in tandem with your Action and your Movement.   (I might be reading that little sidebar wrong, though.)  Seems like the rules would allow you to move 10 feet while sheathing your weapon as part of your movement, then cast a spell and draw your weapon as part of the Action.  That lets you start and end your turn with a weapon in your hand, while still casting a spell and having your weapon at the ready for your Reaction.

It may or may not be a_ good idea_ to do this; especially if that movement would draw an opportunity attack.  Still, it's completely possible without the War Caster feat.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 22, 2019)

Jay Verkuilen said:


> I'm not entirely convinced they did the various subsetting properly, or else it means something slightly different than we think.
> 
> I don't know for sure but I know that things like this are rather challenging to manage given the nature of the data. In particular, the fact that everybody's account has customizable resources means that a Basic (i.e., free) account has very different access that someone with the PHB and Xanathar's purchased. I'm not saying this is the issue, but I do know that analyzing user data or administrative data more broadly runs into the serious problem of generating comparable cases.




I thought that they had given us a previous chart showing that variant human was a little less than half as popular as normal human.  Did I dream that up?


----------



## Staffan (Feb 22, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> In the right hands, a bard with the Actor feat can be devastating. The bard in our party has that feat, as his only feat, and he's worked wonders with it.



Oh, certainly. In the right hands, and the right campaign, it can be fairly powerful and certainly great fun.

But the options for starting with a +2 to a casting stat in the PHB are fairly scant. They are:

1. Gnome for +2 Intelligence.
2. Half-elf or Tiefling for +2 Charisma.
3. Variant human stacking a racial +1 with a feat +1.

So, what would your options for that feat +1 be? There is, of course, Resilient - but most casters are already proficient in their casting stat's save, so I think we can ignore that. That leaves:

Intelligence - Keen Mind, Linguist, or Observant.
Wisdom - Observant
Charisma - Actor

The same thought process goes for someone who starts out with an odd score in their stat and later wants to raise it to an even value (perhaps because they're at 19 and want to hit 20).

This is one of those things that I find to be a minor flaw with 5e - I wish there were a few more feats with mental stat bonuses to give casters some options.



> It's also, however, how he ended up impregnating a succubus. So there's that.



That's always fun.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 22, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> No, using it would be perfectly possible, they just grab it, now they're holding it, and they swing it at you.




Yeah, with a weapon dangling from 6-8 inch loop or chain around your wrist I'm not seeing what you're seeing.



> You're stuck because you're now grappled as they have ahold of you. They wouldn't need any 'trying' to grab a dangling weapon any more than you have to, they just grab it and swing it at you using the same actions you would - only now it's putting you at a disadvantage because it's also attached to your body by this unbreakable tether.




Yeah, I don't know what you're envisaging, but a tethered weapon is attached to a person's body and still moves with the arm that it's tethered to.



> Unbreakable tethers that don't hinder your movement or use of the weapon but that prevent enemies from grabbing the weapon or using the tether to grapple you are way outside of standard rules.




I don't see how leather strips or or light chains are either "unbreakable" (they'd certainly not be easily breakable, but you're indulging in a bit of a staw man) or beyond the scope of the rules or the setting of most D&D games. But you do you.



> Getting surprised that people take a feat that allows you to cast a spell with a weapon in hand instead of relying on the DM to inventing special rules for super tethers that don't work like any real-world object and give you a way to completely bypass the drawbacks of a RAW option is just silly.




No, what's silly are rules that create a situation that can easily be ignore with a modicum of craftiness (seriously, been doing this since 1e or 2e) and then creating unnecessary feats to asdress the unnecessay situation.



> The 'oh, put it on a tether' solution fails both RAW and realism analysis.




Um, I suggest you take a heavy hammer, mallet or some other fairly heavy tool, tie a leather loop into the a hole in its base (if it has one) or otherwise afix the loop into a strap. Then put the loop around your wrist. Then hold the tool. Then let it go from your grasp. Wow! You can do this in the real world—some tools or devices already come with straps. It's like as if this is easily a thing.



> Because you attached a tether with a handle on the end of it to your body. They can just grab the handle on the loose weapon with their free action, the same way you do. Since the tether is attached to you, they are now grappling you.




It would still be opposed because it is still attached to your body.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 22, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> In my game I'd require you make a check to cast a spell with a mace dangling from the hand you're using for somatics.




That's fair enough.


----------



## Guest 6801328 (Feb 22, 2019)

Not that anybody on Enworld would do this, but I'm betting it drives some people BAT$#!~ CRAZY that most 5e players aren't optimizers and don't care about optimization.

Either that or they dismiss the data as being inaccurate and non-representative.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 22, 2019)

Kurotowa said:


> You'd be surprised, every group has its own dynamic.
> 
> In my current group we've got a guy who's not big on mechanics. He went to one of those historic recreation towns on his last vacation and got to shoot a crossbow. The experience impressed him so much he decided his next character would be a crossbow user, and the group put our heads together to help him pick the right class for it. Other times we've had someone decide they wanted to play the front line anchor and then shop around for which class offered the style they wanted.
> 
> ...




I enjoy finding a role, then finding away to perform that role in away that mechanically works but no one has seen. Point in case, my current character is a warlock pact of the tome scout, it works and its a lot of fun. My starting point was "what role do I want to be for the group? Scout... not a rogue"


----------



## Mistwell (Feb 22, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> I enjoy finding a role, then finding away to perform that role in away that mechanically works but no one has seen. Point in case, my current character is a warlock pact of the tome scout, it works and its a lot of fun. My starting point was "what role do I want to be for the group? Scout... not a rogue"




Pact of the Tome seems an odd choice for that role. I'd think Pact of the Chain would make more sense. A flying, invisible imp familiar with 120 foot darkvision and 100 foot telepathy seems like a better scout.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 23, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Not that anybody on Enworld would do this, but I'm betting it drives some people BAT$#!~ CRAZY that most 5e players aren't optimizers and don't care about optimization.
> 
> Either that or they dismiss the data as being inaccurate and non-representative.




No doubt.  I'm at the point where I'd like to see the complete usage stats for all feats so our table can give the lesser picked options some love.  In the rare game where I get to actually play instead of DM, my PC is a Githzerai Arcane Trickster 3/Ranger 1 currently with 14 DEX heading towards Gloom Stalker.  With first ASI at character level 7, I'm leaning towards taking Skilled and getting proficiency in Acrobatics, Poisoner's Kit, and Weaver's Tools.  Next up after that, probably Linguist.  So, anyway, the character does just fine and I'm not robotically pursuing DPR because that's what I'm "supposed to do" according to some white room theories.
"It's a trap (option)!" some might Akbar.  But fun comes in many different kinds of packages - as evidenced by the data that are being presented.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> No doubt.  I'm at the point where I'd like to see the complete usage stats for all feats so our table can give the lesser picked options some love.  In the rare game where I get to actually play instead of DM, my PC is a Githzerai Arcane Trickster 3/Ranger 1 currently with 14 DEX heading towards Gloom Stalker.  With first ASI at character level 7, I'm leaning towards taking Skilled and getting proficiency in Acrobatics, Poisoner's Kit, and Weaver's Tools.  Next up after that, probably Linguist.  So, anyway, the character does just fine and I'm not robotically pursuing DPR because that's what I'm "supposed to do" according to some white room theories.
> "It's a trap (option)!" some might Akbar.  But fun comes in many different kinds of packages - as evidenced by the data that are being presented.




From the optimizers perspective they have to optimize that much harder to help compensate for your terribly underpowered character.  They view the fact that you can even go through the game with that kind of character as evidence of the necessity of their optimization.  So while you view being able to play that character is proof you don't need to optimize, they view you being able to play that character as proof you do need to optimize.


Also, when someone dies your terribly underpowered character will be the one to be blamed and probably rightfully so.  Of course there's also the tidbit that if you had optimized the DM likely would have threw stronger enemies at your group and you'd just be on a different kind of treadmill.  Of course there's also the consideration that if you are not in a heavily combat focused game then taking a lot of random non-combat options may actually be optimized compared to taking a bunch of combat options


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 23, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> From the optimizers perspective they have to optimize that much harder to help compensate for your terribly underpowered character.  They view the fact that you can even go through the game with that kind of character as evidence of the necessity of their optimization.  So while you view being able to play that character is proof you don't need to optimize, they view you being able to play that character as proof you do need to optimize.
> 
> 
> Also, when someone dies your terribly underpowered character will be the one to be blamed and probably rightfully so.  Of course there's also the tidbit that if you had optimized the DM likely would have threw stronger enemies at your group and you'd just be on a different kind of treadmill.  Of course there's also the consideration that if you are not in a heavily combat focused game then taking a lot of random non-combat options may actually be optimized compared to taking a bunch of combat options




The point seems to be just outside your grasp, fluttering on the breeze like the feather in Forest Gump.  You see, all the characters at our table actually _are _fully optimized.  Optimized for fun.  How about yours?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> The point seems to be just outside your grasp, fluttering on the breeze like the feather in Forest Gump.  You see, all the characters at our table actually _are _fully optimized.  Optimized for fun.  How about yours?




That's rude.  Assuming I didn't grasp your post because I pointed out the optimizers perspective that takes the same initial evidence as you and results in the opposite conclusion.  

The simplest reason I responded to your post is not because you optimized for fun and I failed to grasp that but because I disagreed with a fundamental premise of your post: you claimed that your ability to play such a character was evidence your playstyle was right.  Additionally​ you used the buzzwords that are used to belittle optimizers "robotically pursuing DPR, that's what I'm supposed to do, white room theories" and that meant your post went to far.


----------



## Leatherhead (Feb 23, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> How does this work if the enemy sees you drop your cool sword and snags it for their own use? It's also a free action for them to grab it, so it seems like if you're actually doing this per RAW you'd end up with your preferred weapon being used against you an awful lot.




You can only use a free action (or in this case, an object interaction) on your own turn, not during another's turn. The only risk is that you drop your sword in acid, or down a cliff, or something else like that.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

Leatherhead said:


> You can only use a free action (or in this case, an object interaction) on your own turn, not during another's turn. The only risk is that you drop your sword in acid, or down a cliff, or something else like that.




DM:  Okay Paladin McSwordDrop - roll me a d20 and let's see if something randomly bad happens to your sword upon dropping it...


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> Yep and of all those the only one you would use in battle instead of before or after (as a rule) is Cure wounds, which you can ignore with lay on hands....?




If you have a DM who always lets you know that combat is coming up in exactly a few rounds but not many rounds and exactly what you'll be fighting, then you can pre-cast one minute buffs before combat. I have never met a DM who always tells you when the next combat will be, and never has the bad guys run away, talk, activate something that takes time to deal with before you can get to them, or call in allies after combat is joined, however, so I certainly wouldn't count on never casting one minute buffs during combat. Similarly, if you have a DM who never gives you nasty magical effects that you want to dispel in combat, more injury than your LOH alone can cure, or any kind of curse or restorable condition that you want to remove during combat, then you'll never cast those in combat. But, again, it's not reasonable to assume that every DM avoids those conditions all the time. (The 'you can always pre-cast 1 minute buffs' sounds a LOT more like white-room theorycrafting than play experience, BTW)



Leatherhead said:


> You can only use a free action (or in this case, an object interaction) on your own turn, not during another's turn. The only risk is that you drop your sword in acid, or down a cliff, or something else like that.




You only get one object interaction on your own turn, so you have to use one to drop the weapon, then another to pick it up, which adds to two, which is more than you can do on one turn. During the intervening turn, someone else can use their free object interaction to pick up the weapon off the ground. All of this stuff with these special invulnerable, non-hindering tethers is an attempt to keep people from doing just that. If you allow two free object interactions per turn instead of one then of course you don't need that, but if you're house ruling I don't see why you wouldn't just house rule that someone can cast with a weapon in hand instead of house ruling the 'drop-recover' silliness. Also, like above, the assumption that you're never fighting near any kind of bad terrain is pretty at-odds with my experience too. Boss fights often involve things that make throwing your weapon on the ground rather risky.



Azzy said:


> > I don't see how leather strips or or light chains are either "unbreakable" (they'd certainly not be easily breakable, but you're indulging in a bit of a staw man) or beyond the scope of the rules or the setting of most D&D games. But you do you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 23, 2019)

pukunui said:


> It just makes it so a holy symbol on a shield works the same way as every other spellcasting focus: a focus can be used in place of a material component, and if a spell has both somatic and material components, you can perform the somatic component while holding the focus.
> 
> It makes it so a holy symbol on a shield is no different to a holy symbol on an amulet. If you’re holding a shield with a holy symbol on it, then you’re considered to be holding the holy symbol.




I think by the RAW if you choose to use an amulet as a focus you need a free hand to "hold" it so it's not the same. 

However, IMHO the RAW allows you to use the same hand for a focus as the free hand you are already using for the somatic component and NOT the other way around. And the RAI is clearly to require ONE free hand rather than TWO when you have both components.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 23, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Yes but you cannot do BOTH on your turn. You get ONE object interaction and he's talking about dropping the weapon (free action) and then picking it up (single object interaction on your turn). If you sheath your weapon as part of spellcasting, you no longer have it in your hand after the spellcasting. So for example you will not be able to make an opportunity attack with that weapon if it comes up, until you draw your weapon again on a later turn. And of course if you draw it, you won't be able to sheath it on that turn. The only way to really avoid this is the war caster feat.




I want to point out that nobody is "entitled" to count an object interaction as free. It's the DM deciding if it's free or it costs your action. There is no players entitlement in cheating on the spellcasting component by use of a tether.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 23, 2019)

Li Shenron said:


> I think by the RAW if you choose to use an amulet as a focus you need a free hand to "hold" it so it's not the same.



I would argue that it is exactly the same.

Some pertinent rules from the PHB: 

On page 203, it states: _"A spellcaster must have a hand free to access [material] components, but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components."_ 

Also, _"A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus ... in place of the [material] components specified for a spell."_

On page 151, it states: _"A cleric or paladin ... must hold [the holy symbol] in hand, wear it visibly, or bear it on a shield."_

I would argue that, in the case of cleric and paladin spells that require both a material and somatic component, that the latter is the act of presenting the former, especially if you are using a holy symbol rather than whatever is specified in the spell description.

If you've got an amulet, you hold it in your hand. If you've got a shield with a holy symbol on it, you hold it so the holy symbol is facing whatever your target is. If you've got it as a reliquary strapped to your arm, you touch it or move your arm so the box is "pointing" in the desired direction.

I've even allowed players to have a holy symbol as a tattoo. In that case, they've needed to have a free hand to touch the tattoo.

Anyway, I don't really see how having a holy symbol on an amulet is any different to having a holy symbol on a shield. If you have to have a hand free to grab your holy symbol amulet to use it as a focus, fine. If you've got the symbol on your shield, well, you're already holding it, so that makes things easier for you! Imagine if you had it on an amulet and you used a shield that *didn't* have the symbol on it. That could get awkward!


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 23, 2019)

pukunui said:


> I would argue that it is exactly the same.
> 
> Some pertinent rules from the PHB:
> 
> ...




The way I see it, the RAW doesn't specify that using a focus removes the requirement for a free hand in general. Only that if both the somatic and material components require a free hand, it can be the same hand so you don't need 2 free hands.

Things do get awkward with a holy symbol because the RAW says you can either hold it or wear/bear it, and the latter clearly doesn't require a free hand (the errata also says you need a free hand to HOLD the focus, it doesn't say you need it to WEAR it).

Also notice there is no need to "present" the focus, that word is used for Channel Divinity but not spellcasting. So you literally need to do nothing at all with your hands if you wear/bear the holy symbol. 

But the point is, because you don't need to do anything at all, you are not using a hand. So you cannot say you are using the "same hand" also for somatic components. If you want to do that, you need a free hand.


----------



## pukunui (Feb 23, 2019)

Meh. I feel that is needlessly pedantic.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 23, 2019)

pukunui said:


> Meh. I feel that is needlessly pedantic.




Yes, but if people start arguing pedantically I respond pedantically 

Don't judge me badly. In my own games I don't give a damn about spells component rules except extreme circumstances  (a Silence spell preventing verbal components for instance). Anything less than extreme or clearly specified gets handwaved because the reality of somatic/material components rules is that they ARE pedantic but nearly useless (they are irrelevant for most Arcane casters who normally don't use shields and provide exceptions for clerics and paladins so what is REALLY their purpose... to bully Druids?). Their main effects are to frustrate those wanting to follow the RAW, and making people pedantically and uselessly argue with each other. In short, they are a neat example of BAD DESIGN. And sage advice is even wrong about it, but even if it were correct it wouldn't redeem the rules a bit.

So when I answer pedantically and annoyingly, it's not because I want to prove you wrong... it's because I want to fuel the feeling that some rules are cr4p.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 23, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> That's rude.  Assuming I didn't grasp your post because I pointed out the optimizers perspective that takes the same initial evidence as you and results in the opposite conclusion.
> 
> The simplest reason I responded to your post is not because you optimized for fun and I failed to grasp that but because I disagreed with a fundamental premise of your post: you claimed that your ability to play such a character was evidence your playstyle was right.  Additionally​ you used the buzzwords that are used to belittle optimizers "robotically pursuing DPR, that's what I'm supposed to do, white room theories" and that meant your post went to far.




My ability to play a fun character is evidence that “my” playstyle is right?  Yes, I agree.

Of course, if you find playing your DPR machine of a character to be fun, then you are also saying “my“ playstyle is right.  It would seem we’re after the same goal in the end.  If that offends you in some way, there really is not anything else to say.

You see, at our table, we’ve shaken off the yoke of “DPR or Bust optimization” as the only means to have fun.  And that has made all the difference.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Pact of the Tome seems an odd choice for that role. I'd think Pact of the Chain would make more sense. A flying, invisible imp familiar with 120 foot darkvision and 100 foot telepathy seems like a better scout.




Which is largely why I didn't take that. "I enjoy finding a role, then finding away to perform that role in away that *mechanically works but no one has seen*." I am pretty sure pact of the chain scouts are pretty common. Also, I want to scout not have my familiar do it for me. Me scouting means I am actual danger if I get ambushed, step on a trap, or can't get back to the party. I don't want to live in safety having a great scout companion. I want to play the scout and risk the danger. Taking tome with devils sight lest me see in the darkness without alerting people with a light, cast guidance for disarming a trap I find, an use ritual detect magic for those magic inclined trapped dungeon. As a human with Devi's sight I could urchin background (thieves' tools and stealth) and originally as variant human observant making me pretty good at spotting traps and ambushes. My GM did not like my high passives (despite them being lower than a rogues with expertise) so I changed it to alert and picked up misty step so when I do get ambushed don't suffer a round of surprise and I can misty step move back to the party. Also as scout your in a pretty reasonable position to be alert so it seemed like the next logical choice for my goal. I am level 8 now and its been working great.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

Mistwell said:


> Yes but you cannot do BOTH on your turn. You get ONE object interaction and he's talking about dropping the weapon (free action) and then picking it up (single object interaction on your turn). If you sheath your weapon as part of spellcasting, you no longer have it in your hand after the spellcasting. So for example you will not be able to make an opportunity attack with that weapon if it comes up, until you draw your weapon again on a later turn. And of course if you draw it, you won't be able to sheath it on that turn. The only way to really avoid this is the war caster feat.




But again that implies paladins cast alot of spell instead of smiting while in melee range where they could get opportunity attacks. Almost all paladin spell that require empty hand for somatic components but don't have material components (18/19 Cure wounds being the only exception for all paladins) are special condition spell or are pre/post battle spells. Unless your GM magically ambushes with enemies starting battle within 30ft when your walking through the forest, roads, or down hallways where you should see them in advance and know they are coming with 1 round prep as the ranged fighter engage... then you should typically have 1 round for the concentration battle prep spell of your choice then use lay on hands to keep people up in battle not needing cure wounds.

*If I am wrong?... *(which I could be, this is the question of my confusion) ... if so what paladin spell that requires a somatic component and not a material component are they casting *in battle regularly* that makes war-cater useful to a paladin other than spell concentration check where reliance (CON) is simply better and that the worst they have to do is sheath or drop their weapon as a free action then use the once a turn item interaction with the move rotating 5ft around and enemy (Not even forfeiting opportunity attacks) to pick it up on the same turn?

I really want to know. Can someone give me a specific answer of why they are using it? What spell made it so this was worth the lose of feat/ASI for mechanical or cool character design reasons?


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> My ability to play a fun character is evidence that “my” playstyle is right?  Yes, I agree.




My point was that your ability to play a fun non-optimized character is also evidence to any optimizers that might play with you that his playstyle is "right".  

If you want to make the it's more fun claim and that's all that matters I can't refute that and I'm not trying to.  However, if you want to claim that your particular character is evidence your playstyle is right then I'm going to keep on pointing out that it's only right when someone already approaches that evidence from your perspective.  The moment that same evidence is approached from the optimizers perspective, he can also use it to support the notion that his playstyle is right.

Anyways, I think a more honest assessment of what you are doing isn't simply playing whatever strikes you as fun.  I mean we all play what strikes us as fun, but your choices have a specific method involved in your fun.  Your stated goal was to want to know what feats are least used so you can use them.  That to me implies that your fun comes simply from running underutilized and unoptimized options.  That's fun for you but it's not what I'd describe as just playing what's fun.  You also have just as much a focus on optimization as DPR optimizers have, it's just the goal of that optimization is different.  The goal of your optimization efforts are so that you end up with a totally unoptimized character.



> Of course, if you find playing your DPR machine of a character to be fun, then you are also saying “my“ playstyle is right.  It would seem we’re after the same goal in the end.  If that offends you in some way, there really is not anything else to say.




Fun for you is always right unless it overly impacts someone elses fun.



> You see, at our table, we’ve shaken off the yoke of “DPR or Bust optimization” as the only means to have fun.  And that has made all the difference.




See there you go criticizing another playstyle...

You can talk about your method of having fun without downgrading others.  I get that you feel liberated from a mindset that you feel previously shackled you but that doesn't mean others don't genuinely enjoy the playstyle that mindset brings and don't feel shackled by it because they find it fun.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> But again that implies paladins cast alot of spell instead of smiting while in melee range where they could get opportunity attacks. Almost all paladin spell that require empty hand for somatic components but don't have material components (18/19 Cure wounds being the only exception for all paladins) are special condition spell or are pre/post battle spells. Unless your GM magically ambushes with enemies starting battle within 30ft when your walking through the forest, roads, or down hallways where you should see them in advance and know they are coming with 1 round prep as the ranged fighter engage... then you should typically have 1 round for the concentration battle prep spell of your choice then use lay on hands to keep people up in battle not needing cure wounds.
> 
> *If I am wrong?... *(which I could be, this is the question of my confusion) ... if so what paladin spell that requires a somatic component and not a material component are they casting *in battle regularly* that makes war-cater useful to a paladin other than spell concentration check where reliance (CON) is simply better and that the worst they have to do is sheath or drop their weapon as a free action then use the once a turn item interaction with the move rotating 5ft around and enemy (Not even forfeiting opportunity attacks) to pick it up on the same turn?
> 
> I really want to know. Can someone give me a specific answer of why they are using it? What spell made it so this was worth the lose of feat/ASI for mechanical or cool character design reasons?




The top 5 reasons paladins take it (in no particular order):
1.  To do what they want while avoiding silly sheninigans like dropping weapons during combat
2.  For a big early bonus to concentration saves
3. * Because their DM rules that having the feat allows you to cast whatever spells you want while holding weapons or a weapon and shield in both hands*
4.  There's a spell they really want to be able to cast as a reaction, possibly booming blade picked up through multiclassing
5.  They don't like the visuals of sheathing their weapon in combat to cast a spell

My guess is that some combination of those reasons are why most every player choose the feat.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

Elfcrusher said:


> Not that anybody on Enworld would do this, but I'm betting it drives some people BAT$#!~ CRAZY that most 5e players aren't optimizer and don't care about optimization.
> 
> Either that or they dismiss the data as being inaccurate and non-representative.




It doesn't both me at all if a character is not optimized. I take feats like tavern brawler because I want to my barbarian to through his weapon on the floor and beat the crap out of NPC that disrespected his mom, etc. That said, while not optimal it has a purpose. I would hate to think paladin players are taking warcaster and its not really doing anything for them mechanically or for flavor. That's not a desire for optimization, its just not wanting players or GMs pushing a feat when they could be having fun with a new feature they want instead of a "class tax" that is not required for any reason I can see. ... I also totally recognize their my be a truly valid reason having this feet would make play more fun for players but as of yet... the only answer I have seen amounts to "so I cast cure wounds while hold my weapon that I could have sheathed or dropped and picked when I moved or just use lay on hands" ... I don't understand taking a useless feet when you could get a new toy. So if someone sees a "new toy" aspect I don't I want to see... maybe I want that toy and I never new. Maybe it would be my new favorite toy. Right now (I could have missed the answer trying to go back through) I very simply feel like players are taxing themselves a feat they don't need to because they missed the parts of the rules and the fact they lack an actual use for it... and if thats true I feel kind of sad for their missed opportunity as I always get happy when I level up and improve some way. If I found out (and I have) I wasted a known spell, feat, or attribute increase on some thing ... their is a sadness for well crap... then I talk to my GM to see if I could be allowed to fix it. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. So if talking about that hear means we ether find a legitimate fun reason, mechanical improvement reason, or just realize its an unnecessary tax players are putting on themselves and we can warn them for a chance of avoiding that regret. I feel like we all won. I really don't care which but base on the post I have read so far... I am starting to see a pattern.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> But again that implies paladins cast alot of spell instead of smiting while in melee range where they could get opportunity attacks. Almost all paladin spell that require empty hand for somatic components but don't have material components (18/19 Cure wounds being the only exception for all paladins) are special condition spell or are pre/post battle spells. Unless your GM magically ambushes with enemies starting battle within 30ft when your walking through the forest, roads, or down hallways where you should see them in advance and know they are coming with 1 round prep as the ranged fighter engage... then you should typically have 1 round for the concentration battle prep spell of your choice then use lay on hands to keep people up in battle not needing cure wounds.




I sometimes wonder if people posting actually play D&D or if they just do white room analysis. You seriously expect that every fight you will have a round to prepare, you will know exactly what will be in the fight so you know whether you want to buff or not, never have a fight where there is a delay of a minute from 'I think we'll fight' to 'the fight starts', never have a fight that turns out harder than you expected at first, never have a boss that brings in allies partway through a fight, and so on. That's a pretty specific set of circumstance that in my experience is rare, even in published AL modules which are rather constrained in what they do. 



> that the worst they have to do is sheath or drop their weapon as a free action then use the once a turn item interaction with the move rotating 5ft around and enemy (Not even forfeiting opportunity attacks) to pick it up on the same turn?




No, not everyone plays with your specific house. RAW you get one object interaction per turn, you don't get this 'drop, action, pick up' sequence; "drop their weapon as a free action" isn't part of the core rules. It's a common online attempt to get by a restriction in the game, buy isn't supported by RAW and is pretty goofy looking to picture.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> If you have a DM who always lets you know that combat is coming up in exactly a few rounds but not many rounds and exactly what you'll be fighting, then you can pre-cast one minute buffs before combat. I have never met a DM who always tells you when the next combat will be, and never has the bad guys run away, talk, activate something that takes time to deal with before you can get to them, or call in allies after combat is joined, however, so I certainly wouldn't count on never casting one minute buffs during combat. Similarly, if you have a DM who never gives you nasty magical effects that you want to dispel in combat, more injury than your LOH alone can cure, or any kind of curse or restorable condition that you want to remove during combat, then you'll never cast those in combat. But, again, it's not reasonable to assume that every DM avoids those conditions all the time. (The 'you can always pre-cast 1 minute buffs' sounds a LOT more like white-room theorycrafting than play experience, BTW)




I have never played D&D without someone wanting to be "the scout" and even if they fail to spot the enemy they are always about 30ft forward meaning that any character moving 30ft and attacking would be 60ft away from the paladin and would likely double move for their turn not getting a chance to attack. If your saying you never use scouts I am sure you have these problems. 

I would also say it only takes 1 turn to cast such a buff then the 1-10 minute buff last the rest of the fight as a rule ... 
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/
*The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does.*
*"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action." PHB p190 Example listed: • pick up a dropped axe*

Scenario 1: Player characters are not engaged in combat they can cast the buff on the first turn even if engaged and as part of the action of casting that spell ... draw their weapon for opportunity attacks. 
So even if they have Zero warning...How does that impact anything? This does not require warcaster.

Scenario 2: Weapon draw engaged in a fight they drop their weapon (which does not use their free action), cast a spell and Pickup their weapon as part of the action to cast the spell.
...How does that impact anything? This does not require warcaster.

Sure their are times when might want this as feature casting reaction spells like absorb elements and shield but paladins don't typically use any of those that I know of. (Did alittle research and oathbreaker has Hellish Rebuke but that one subclass doesn't seem enough to account for this being the #1 paladin feat). As a rule the other 2 aspects of warcaster are more useful:

1.You have advantage on Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage.
- But Resilience (con) is better for paladins and does the same thing, so why is Warcaster the #1 pick instead of it? I mean I don't care I am just trying to make since of it.

2. When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
- So I was thinking it was something to do with this but "Blinding smite" is the best use of this I can think of and you don't get it until level 13 I believe... so why are paladins taking Warcaster at level 4?
- These feature justifies the other like a cleric casting Sacred Flame using this reaction not wanting to drop their weapon to do so as a reaction would not let them pick it back up.

So if your an Oath Breaker Paladin with Hellish rebuke, expecting to play past level 13 and pick up Blinding smite... then this makes a bit more since, but that still doesn't seem to account for it being #1 for paladins. I would have expected something like great weapon master or something fun like actor... but warcaster on a paladin? Just seems weird to me.

Based on this post and a lot of others at this point, it seems like a paladin tax for not knowing you just pick up your weapon after you cast. I mean I get casters including clerics because of the opportunity attack with spell and advantage on concentration saves, the casting with a weapon usually only being useful to clearics but ... they all want the other 2. Its really surprising to me all the posts saying they are taking warcaster because they have weapon and a shield which seems like the lest useful aspect of the feat. Also, all those two handed weapon paladins just need to let go of the weapon with one hand and cast because they are just carrying the two-handed weapon with one hand (over their shoulder perhaps) and you only need two hands to wield it. Since any adult could realistically carry a 18lbs or less item in one hand for 6 seconds and carry weight would not change if your just holding it and not fighting with it, you might think two handed weapon paladins alone would make this feat less common than heavy weapon master that has comes in second by a 10% lead...


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> I sometimes wonder if people posting actually play D&D or if they just do white room analysis. You seriously expect that every fight you will have a round to prepare, you will know exactly what will be in the fight so you know whether you want to buff or not, never have a fight where there is a delay of a minute from 'I think we'll fight' to 'the fight starts', never have a fight that turns out harder than you expected at first, never have a boss that brings in allies partway through a fight, and so on. That's a pretty specific set of circumstance that in my experience is rare, even in published AL modules which are rather constrained in what they do.
> 
> 
> 
> No, not everyone plays with your specific house. RAW you get one object interaction per turn, you don't get this 'drop, action, pick up' sequence; "drop their weapon as a free action" isn't part of the core rules. It's a common online attempt to get by a restriction in the game, buy isn't supported by RAW and is pretty goofy looking to picture.




Its not a house rule:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/03/29/what-are-the-rules-on-dropping-weapons/
Jeremy Crawford "The intent is that letting go of something requires no appreciable effort. But picking it up does."
"You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action." PHB p190 Example listed: • pick up a dropped axe

They left drop weapon of the list of free actions because dropping stuff doesn't cost a free action. It takes that little effort to let go.

Its also not that goofy to imagine someone stabbing the sword into the ground or dropping a hammer on its head to cast a spell that is urgent enough to not be smiting as a paladin generally does, then take that second that is needed to retrieve your weapon before moving on. It would be more silly if that were not the case. In my opinion. You want another turn just to pick up your weapon?


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> I have never played D&D without someone wanting to be "the scout" and even if they fail to spot the enemy they are always about 30ft forward meaning that any character moving 30ft and attacking would be 60ft away from the paladin and would likely double move for their turn not getting a chance to attack. If your saying you never use scouts I am sure you have these problems.



You never encounter foes that lurk in ambush and let the scout go past so they can attack the entire party? Or ambush with ranged attacks? Or teleportation, invisibility, or shapechanging to look like an ally?

...All I can say is, your DM is very, very nice to you.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> The top 5 reasons paladins take it (in no particular order):
> 1.  To do what they want while avoiding silly sheninigans like dropping weapons during combat
> 2.  For a big early bonus to concentration saves
> 3. * Because their DM rules that having the feat allows you to cast whatever spells you want while holding weapons or a weapon and shield in both hands*
> ...




1. I understand for players who don't like role play in there table top strategy game. They exist, but enougth for #1?
2. Sure lower level characters are more common. Actually a pretty valid point. I tend to think this is the best reason though resilience would also apply to other con saves, knowing that I would wander why it didn't make the top 3 if warcaster did for this reason?
3. Two handed weapons don't require 2 hands just to carry but to wield so all the paladins not using a shield don't need a feat (polearms masters being the 3rd most picked feat and great weapon masters) add to that not having many spells that you would need to cast more than once a battle with a somatic but not a material component. The only good one that has been pointed out was Dispel magic. Cure wounds can be ignored with lay on hands for the most part and everything else is ether better served out of battle or would generally last the whole fight. Largely your talking about 1 maybe 2 casts in a generally melee and smite fight.
*4. Multi classing ... that is a consideration.*
5. Hu? Its schematic they do it in movies and video game trailers all the time just because it makes for cool, "Now he is really serious!" moment.. but no accounting for taste. 

That said, you do realize 1,3, and 4 are basically table "because". I would be more surprised if they were enough to push any feat to the #1 spot than anything.

So I can see some of #2 but not on its own and a lot of #4 pushing it higher than I might have thought. A booming blade sorcerer smite might not be optimal but for people who like theory crafting it seems like something people would want to try. I can also see that shield, hellish rebuke, counter spell, and Absorb Elements being pulled form multi-classing and making holding the weapon actually matter since actions but not reactions let you pick it back up. As well as adding spell options to make opportunity casting more appealing like booming blade as you mentioned.

I was defiantly thinking of paladins as just paladins but considering all the 2 lvl multi-classes dips in paladin for smite I have seen ... that makes a certain since. They don't show for example top 3 feats for paladins with 8 levels of paladins vs paladins with the first 2 in paladin and the next 8 in sorcerer,bard, or warlock. If they did it might confirm that as the reason its higher than I would expect.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> Its not a house rule:
> They left drop weapon of the list of free actions because dropping stuff doesn't cost a free action. It takes that little effort to let go.




If it's not a house rule, then cite what book and page this "drop weapon doesn't cost your free 'interact with objects' action" exists on. Sage advice and Crawford's tweets are suggestions, not rules, and are not used by a lot of people. It has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread already, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up house rules and claiming that they're universally accepted RAW.



> Its also not that goofy to imagine someone stabbing the sword into the ground or dropping a hammer on its head to cast a spell that is urgent enough to not be smiting as a paladin generally does, then take that second that is needed to retrieve your weapon before moving on. It would be more silly if that were not the case. In my opinion. You want another turn just to pick up your weapon?




Stabbing a sword into the ground is not dropping it, and is precisely the kind of thing covered by the one free 'interact with object' per turn. I think that expecting all tables to accept "there's a rule that says I can't cast with a weapon in my hand, but by inventing a 'free action' that doesn't exist in the rules I can bypass it, especially if I narrate it as something other than what I used to justify the action being free in the first place" is a bit much.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> I have never played D&D without someone wanting to be "the scout" and even if they fail to spot the enemy they are always about 30ft forward meaning that any character moving 30ft and attacking would be 60ft away from the paladin and would likely double move for their turn not getting a chance to attack. If your saying you never use scouts I am sure you have these problems.




Your DM plays an incredibly soft and forgiving game with you if your scouts always find the enemy, you always know what the enemy is, the enemy never runs off or sets traps, rooms with enemies never have traps that make having 'the scout' inside while the rest of the party is outside dangerous, the enemy is always what they seem on initial look and never have reinforcements, and there are few enough encounters per day that you are safe pre-buffing with 1 minute spells before every fight. If you're saying your scouts always find the enemy and the enemy never does anything but blindly charge you and never has reinforcements or other surprises, I'm sure you can always pre-buff. But it doesn't represent the majority of games out there.

EDIT: Also, this sounds very much like "D&D as a paper MMO" playing - for a lot of people, the point of playing pen and paper vs computer is to have more real interactions with enemies, and these set piece battles where you know in advance what you're in for aren't that at all.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

Dausuul said:


> You never encounter foes that lurk in ambush and let the scout go past so they can attack the entire party? Or ambush with ranged attacks? Or teleportation, invisibility, or shapechanging to look like an ally?
> 
> ...All I can say is, your DM is very, very nice to you.




I have, the Paladin cast his spell the first round then drew his weapon after and move into 5ft so if they moved he would get the opportunity attack ...every time.. .without fail. My GM actively tries to kill me as scout so no, he is not being very very nice. 

I would like to take this moment to thank Wizards of the coast for Shadow of Moil and misty step though, without ether of this character would have died many times over. Thunderstep is not bad ether but when I found it my GM suddenly started including a wizard with counter spell in every single ambush... but until last session just one so misty step still saved me as I was able to argue that the text on counter spell "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." means that you do not cast it if it is countered and while he says it takes my spell slot, I was able to get a concession that since I wasted my action, lost a spell slot, but did not actually cast a spell then the cantrip restriction on a bonus spell does not apply, allowing me to cast misty step on the same turn as a counter spelled attempt. I only have 2 spell slots so I was stuck with eldritch blast spam for the rest of the fight but at least I didn't get murdered by the ambush in the first round.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> Your DM plays an incredibly soft and forgiving game with you if your scouts always find the enemy, you always know what the enemy is, the enemy never runs off or sets traps, rooms with enemies never have traps that make having 'the scout' inside while the rest of the party is outside dangerous, the enemy is always what they seem on initial look and never have reinforcements, and there are few enough encounters per day that you are safe pre-buffing with 1 minute spells before every fight. If you're saying your scouts always find the enemy and the enemy never does anything but blindly charge you and never has reinforcements or other surprises,* I'm sure you can always pre-buff. But it doesn't represent the majority of games out there*.
> 
> EDIT: Also, this sounds very much like "D&D as a paper MMO" playing - for a lot of people, the point of playing pen and paper vs computer is to have more real interactions with enemies, and these set piece battles where you know in advance what you're in for aren't that at all.




Lol, wow. I never said any of that and insulting my GM seems like a poor way to debate a point you disagree with and its simply not true. I don't know whats coming, he activitly tries to kil me, but I also have the alert feat and expertise in perception through prodigy. I don't stray more than 30ft from my party as a rule because if they ambush me the party can move into aid in one turn. I have 120ft range with eldrich blast so if the party is attacked from behind because I missed the ambush I can engage immediately. with any melee ambushers.

... but that like encounters per day, like reinforcements, like being ambushed doesn't do anything to stop the paladin from droping his weapon, casting his spell, and using a free action to pick it up... This is just an attack on my GM that losts its point in blind hate. ... really? why? Your just trying to say I am not worthy of an opinion because we scout successfully most of the time on a character that is built to be a scout.... This does not take any meaning away from point. None. What so ever.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> If it's not a house rule, then cite what book and page this "drop weapon doesn't cost your free 'interact with objects' action" exists on. Sage advice and Crawford's tweets are suggestions, not rules, and are not used by a lot of people. It has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread already, so I'm not sure why you're bringing up house rules and claiming that they're universally accepted RAW.
> 
> 
> 
> Stabbing a sword into the ground is not dropping it, and is precisely the kind of thing covered by the one free 'interact with object' per turn. I think that expecting all tables to accept "there's a rule that says I can't cast with a weapon in my hand, but by inventing a 'free action' that doesn't exist in the rules I can bypass it, especially if I narrate it as something other than what I used to justify the action being free in the first place" is a bit much.




He stated that was rules as intended. Thats why it wasn't on the very extensive chart. As Lead Rules Designer for Wizards of the Coast it might not be "RAW" but if he says that was always the intent and the best answer you have is to say "Its a house rule because it was explicitly stated word for word" is pretty week since your adding in a rule that says dropping a weapon takes your free action when that is not in the rules ether. There is a list PHB p190, and it does not say "dropping or picking up a weapon" but the do mention picking up a weapon. *So there is more to support me than you*.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 23, 2019)

[MENTION=6795602]FrogReaver[/MENTION] I just want to say I appropriate you actually trying to argue the point even half side ways where others have devolved into personal attacks trying to devalue people instead of debate the information we know. On the point of the question asked. Why are people personally offended by the idea they don't need warcaster to cast a vary small niche of spells instead of considering something like multi-classing and low level paladins getting a better consecration save than resilient(con) for games that are not expected to go higher than 7 and that might inflate those numbers as you pointed out?


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> Lol, wow. I never said any of that and insulting my GM seems like a poor way to debate a point you disagree with and its simply not true. I don't know whats coming, he activitly tries to kil me, but I also have the alert feat and expertise in perception through prodigy.




You didn't say that, but if all of that is not true then your paladin doesn't have enough information to safely buff before each fight, and instead will have times where it turns out a fight is not as expected and he wants to cast a spell mid-fight based on changing conditions. Or fights where he gets ambushed. Or fights where he regrets pre-casting a buff because the enemy decided to run once they saw the party. Or fights where it looked minor at first, but then turned out that one of the generic guards was a werewolf (or other significantly tough creatures). 



> I don't stray more than 30ft from my party as a rule because if they ambush me the party can move into aid in one turn. I have 120ft range with eldrich blast so if the party is attacked from behind because I missed the ambush I can engage immediately. with any melee ambushers.




So the DM plays that enemies can only detect someone in front, and if the party is a mere 30' behind the scout they're unnoticeable? And there are never traps that close off a room from the hallway once someone steps in? Honestly, it is hilarious to me how many people on the boards appear to have never encountered the common 'stone slab drops in the doorway' traps.



> This is just an attack on my GM that losts its point in blind hate. ... really? why? Your just trying to say I am not worthy of an opinion because we scout successfully most of the time on a character that is built to be a scout.... This does not take any meaning away from point. None. What so ever.




It's not an attack on your GM, it's pointing out that the softball, MMO-like play style where the paladin can always safely pre-buff isn't the norm. At no point did I say anything like 'playing softball is bad', or 'playing MMO style is bad', simply that both playstyles are far from universal and being surprised that people might play games that involve ambushes, phased fights, fleeing enemies, unknown opponents, and the like, and therefore want to cast spells mid-fight is not sensible. 



> ... but that like encounters per day, like reinforcements, like being ambushed doesn't do anything to stop the paladin from droping his weapon, casting his spell, and using a free action to pick it up...




That's a house rule, not RAW, as I've pointed out to you multiple times.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> Sure, but that's not really what I am asking. What I am asking is, "Why?" Warcaster is not really a flavor feat its more of a function feat. Taking tavern brawler because you want to fist fight the party monk, actor to pretend to be the captain of the guard, skilled to fill out  a story concept roll, or even Mage Slayer because a sorcerer kill your paw... sure. I understand those. Warcaster isn't a strong flavor options for building a character concept and its not very functional for Paladins. So my question is *what are people taking it for?* They are not taking Resilient (CON) for the same function so I already figured they are not looking for better concentration saves. I am just trying to figure out what draws paladin player to pick this to such an extent that its the #1 picked paladin feat. I am not say they are wrong. I am just curious what the thought pattern is because I don't see it.




Someone may have already answered, but in our experience, folks do take Warcaster thematically.  I sat there and watched it happen one time.

"Hey, I want to be a kinda battlemage, with an army background from War Mage School, can I take Warcaster?"

"Sure"

It fit the RP and didn't gimp the character, so we see no problems with it.

That could be the thought process you are looking for.

Edit:  Oh...Paladin...my bad, not sure.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> He stated that was rules as intended. Thats why it wasn't on the very extensive chart. As Lead Rules Designer for Wizards of the Coast it might not be "RAW"




It isn't RAW, and if it's not RAW it's a house rule. A lot of people do not accept Crawford Tweets or sage advice in their games. Acting surprised at this well-known fact is silly, as is being surprised that people make feat decisions based on the rules they use and note some tweets or message boards.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> @_*FrogReaver*_ I just want to say I appropriate you actually trying to argue the point even half side ways where others have devolved into personal attacks trying to devalue people instead of debate the information we know. On the point of the question asked. Why are people personally offended by the idea they don't need warcaster to cast a vary small niche of spells instead of considering something like multi-classing and low level paladins getting a better consecration save than resilient(con) for games that are not expected to go higher than 7 and that might inflate those numbers as you pointed out?




I don't think that's what they are offended by.  There are some that get offended any time it's said some part of D&D Beyond data doesn't make sense, even when that's done in an attempt to gain greater understanding.  There are others that get offended any time optimization is mentioned.  I think your question just caught enough of them at the same time.  I couldn't begin to tell you why those ideas seems to offend such people though.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> It isn't RAW, and if it's not RAW it's a house rule...




Sigh.  Is it a rule that your level 1 Barbarian PC can't walk on thin air?  If it is can you point me to the rule?  If it's not then disallowing the Barbarian PC from walking on thin air is a house rule??? WTH


----------



## 5ekyu (Feb 23, 2019)

Scouts, spotting, one round prep, typically vs always back and forth - in the better games I have played in tmost pcs and some NPCs  try scouts, recon, stealth, familiars, etc etc etc to get some advance idea and use watches, alarms, etc to watch perimeters to make sudden cold start fights unlikely. 

In the better games I have played in a sub-set of the NPCs are large and ponderous and only rarely sneak up. Often these are heard before they are seen.

In the better games I have played in creatures in a locale are not in a numberedcdpot 24/7 so signs of them being around are often detected before the encounter - often prompting specific actions.

This all boils down to - its gonna be a mix of scenarios from ambush to cold start to quick prep to planned assault - so any feat or permanent investments which depend on a specific pic one get chosen or passed on with that knowledge in mind.

Had my fill of ninja ogres and basilisk that always pop-up at the edge of your light with no prior sign.

As for the dropping et al discussion, I have a simple ruling in games I run - picking up an unattended item (not in your conttol) while an enemy is engaging you (able to AO that spot or your spot) counts as an obstacle or extra care and requires an action - per the PHB interaction rule. This applies to anything - not just dropped weapons - like book on table. 

 "Tethers" and other dodge arounds dont matter, barring magic, if you dont spend the interaction to secure the item you drop for easy recovery, the obstacle applies because while you try and regain control of the item and pull it into usable status, the enemy us not being cooperative and counts as an obstacle. 

So, dropping might save you an interaction at the moment but might cost you an action later, if they dont act with it first.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Feb 23, 2019)

I hope you comprehend the hypocrisy in this statement of yours:


FrogReaver said:


> See there you go criticizing another playstyle...




To wit:
Due to "my" playstyle, I have a... 







FrogReaver said:


> terribly underpowered character



Due to "my" playstyle, if another character should die, especially one that is optimized, then my PC... 







FrogReaver said:


> will be the one to be blamed and probably rightfully so.



and finally, a not so subtle jab that my "fun" is impinging on others "fun" at the table:


FrogReaver said:


> Fun for you is always right unless it overly impacts someone elses fun.




Look, there are several DPR chasers and optimizers at the various tables where I DM, including a Tiefling Swashbuckler/Hexblade and a Half-Elf Celestial Warlock.  There are also those that pay no heed to the color coded optimization tables online and pick options for feats they find fun such as:
A Half-Orc Vengeance Paladin who picked Athlete over GWM
A Half-Elf Druid who picked Skilled over Warcaster
A Forest Gnome Enchanter who picked Actor over Warcaster

I'll tell you what the optimizers, and everyone else for that matter, at our tables don't do.  They don't tell each other how to build and play their characters.  And they don't point fingers at each other when things go horribly, terrifically wrong.  They all work together with all the myriad abilities they have to attempt to overcome challenges and create a fun and memorable experience.  IME, the game is about way more than just DPR and optimal build guides.  Clearly, if that is the only fun way for your table to play, then YMMV.


----------



## jgsugden (Feb 23, 2019)

I wish the class data only showed the data for characters that had at least 50% of their character levels in that class.  The metrics might change a lot if we remove the dipping characters.

I have a feeling they'd also change a lot if we separate out characters that originated with no access to paid content and characters buit with access to most books.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

jgsugden said:


> I wish the class data only showed the data for characters that had at least 50% of their character levels in that class.  The metrics might change a lot if we remove the dipping characters.
> 
> I have a feeling they'd also change a lot if we separate out characters that originated with no access to paid content and characters buit with access to most books.




I just realized the issue with their methodology on the class feat graph.  I didn't catch it initially.  Multiclassing potentially causes feats like warcaster to be counted twice.  It potentially causes all feats to be counted twice but I'm sure that certain feats are more prevalent in multiclass combinations.  I wonder if what we are seeing with warcaster popularity is simply that it's one of the most popular feats for multiclassed characters.

It also makes me wonder whether they could have had the data broken down by class already when they compiled the first graphs and double counted multiclassed characters feats there as well.


----------



## Satyrn (Feb 23, 2019)

Azzy said:


> Um, I suggest you take a heavy hammer, mallet or some other fairly heavy tool, tie a leather loop into the a hole in its base (if it has one) or otherwise afix the loop into a strap. Then put the loop around your wrist. Then hold the tool. Then let it go from your grasp. Wow! You can do this in the real world—some tools or devices already come with straps. It's like as if this is easily a thing.





Clearly, you were more proficient with the Wiimote than I was.


----------



## Dessert Nomad (Feb 23, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> Sigh.  Is it a rule that your level 1 Barbarian PC can't walk on thin air?  If it is can you point me to the rule?  If it's not then disallowing the Barbarian PC from walking on thin air is a house rule??? WTH




If you're having that hard of a time following the conversation, nothing I can post is going to make sense to you.


----------



## FrogReaver (Feb 23, 2019)

OverlordOcelot said:


> If you're having that hard of a time following the conversation, nothing I can post is going to make sense to you.




I think it’s you not following what I’m saying. There are more categories of rules than raw and house rules.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 23, 2019)

Looking at the graphs, the only thing that really kinda stands out as sort of worrying to me is the ranger with 30% sharpshooter.

The other classes, even the most popular feats are around 20%.  High, but, not so high that it becomes almost the default setting for the class.  And, as was mentioned earlier, multi classing might have some impact here as well.  

But, with SS being at 30% for rangers, that means that the feat is pretty much the default for rangers.  That probably means that it should have been a class feature rather than make it a feat tax.  That, or there just aren't enough other feats for rangers that would be as valuable.

Either way, it speaks to a balance issue.


----------



## Azzy (Feb 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Looking at the graphs, the only thing that really kinda stands out as sort of worrying to me is the ranger with 30% sharpshooter.
> 
> The other classes, even the most popular feats are around 20%.  High, but, not so high that it becomes almost the default setting for the class.  And, as was mentioned earlier, multi classing might have some impact here as well.
> 
> ...




I dunno. That's stil 70% of rangers (that take feats) that don't take it. I don't think it should be baked in because not all rangers are going to be primarily ranged combatants (there are melee rangers, too). Also, it would either deny the feat's existence (bad for non-ranger archers) or be redundant (if both the feat and the baked-in ranger ability coexist).


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2019)

Azzy said:


> I dunno. That's stil 70% of rangers (that take feats) that don't take it. I don't think it should be baked in because not all rangers are going to be primarily ranged combatants (there are melee rangers, too). Also, it would either deny the feat's existence (bad for non-ranger archers) or be redundant (if both the feat and the baked-in ranger ability coexist).




Oh, yeah, I get that.  And you're right, it's not in the "must take" column.  Just kinda shading up there.

I mean, if melee rangers were say, 50% of rangers, then it's unlikely that SS would be so popular.  That would mean that nearly all ranged rangers take SS and that would be bad, IMO.  

Honestly, I think, at a guess, it leans towards the notion that there just aren't that many feats that appeal to rangers.  When you look at the other classes, most of the Top 3 feats are spread out pretty close - all in the 10-15% range.  Fair enough, that means that nothing is particularly standing out.

That Warcaster strongly outnumbers other feats for a number of classes is kinda worrying to me.  Again, it speaks to the idea that the benefit (or perceived benefit anyway) of Warcaster is so great that it overshadows everything else.  And the same seems apparently true of Sharpshooter for rangers.  Not that it's truly a balance issue, but, rather, it's perceived as being the "obvious" choice if you see what I mean.

I'm not sure if there is an actual problem here.  Probably not since, as you say, even for rangers, 70% don't take sharpshooter.  It's just that there seems to be a couple of feat/class combinations that seem a bit... dominant.  To me, this simply means that the game could probably use a few feats tailored to those classes to sort of level the playing field as it were.  Dominant elements tends to lead to cookie cutter characters and I would prefer a bit more variation at the table.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Looking at the graphs, the only thing that really kinda stands out as sort of worrying to me is the ranger with 30% sharpshooter.
> 
> The other classes, even the most popular feats are around 20%.  High, but, not so high that it becomes almost the default setting for the class.  And, as was mentioned earlier, multi classing might have some impact here as well.
> 
> ...




But 30% is only one out of three.  Just curious as to your thoughts, as it seems off to me to call something almost default more people dont choose it than do.


----------



## SkidAce (Feb 24, 2019)

Nevermind....I see its being discussed.  No worries.


----------



## Hussar (Feb 24, 2019)

SkidAce said:


> But 30% is only one out of three.  Just curious as to your thoughts, as it seems off to me to call something almost default more people dont choose it than do.




Oh, totally.  I'm suggesting it's something to keep an eye, not that it's a real problem at this time.

Like I said, the best solution, in my mind, is a handful of tailored feats that are as appealing to these classes as something like Warcaster or Sharp Shooter, just to bring in some more variety.

From the second graph, we're talking about Warcaster being twice as popular as any other feat.  Which means that its benefit (whether real or just perceived) is perhaps a bit better than any other choice.  So, probably the best solution is just to offer feats that offer perceived benefits of equal value.

The fact that the next 19 most popular feats are pretty much equally popular (well varying between 2 (ish) and 6 (ish) percent of characters says to me that nothing really stands out as a perceived "better" feat.  Which, again IMO, is as it should be.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 24, 2019)

Hussar said:


> From the second graph, we're talking about Warcaster being twice as popular as any other feat.  Which means that its benefit (whether real or just perceived) is perhaps a bit better than any other choice.  So, probably the best solution is just to offer feats that offer perceived benefits of equal value.




It's not necessarily *better* than other feats, it's just that its benefits are applicable to a whole lot of characters. Pretty much every bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock, or wizard would find Warcaster useful, as would many arcane tricksters, eldritch knights, paladins, and rangers.

I think a feat like Sharpshooter or Polearm Mastery is probably more powerful than Warcaster, but appeal to a narrower range of characters.


----------



## Staffan (Feb 24, 2019)

ClaytonCross said:


> Warcaster isn't a strong flavor options for building a character concept and its not very functional for Paladins. So my question is *what are people taking it for?* They are not taking Resilient (CON) for the same function so I already figured they are not looking for better concentration saves.




This could be an issue of presentation. Imagine the following:

1. I'm playing a Vengeance Paladin, making liberal use of spells like _hunter's mark_ or _shield of faith_. But when I get hit, I often lose concentration and have to re-cast the spells.
2. I look for ways to improve my Concentration saves. I find Warcaster with its "You have advantage on Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage." That's *just* what I was looking for.
3. I do *not* find Resilient, because I'm looking at something that makes me better at Concentration, not something that makes me better at saves. Why would I need something that makes me better at saves? I already have Aura of Protection!

(Also, please consider using paragraph breaks. Your posts are a bit hard to read with big walls of text.)


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 26, 2019)

Staffan said:


> This could be an issue of presentation. Imagine the following:
> 
> 1. I'm playing a Vengeance Paladin, making liberal use of spells like _hunter's mark_ or _shield of faith_. But when I get hit, I often lose concentration and have to re-cast the spells.
> 2. I look for ways to improve my Concentration saves. I find Warcaster with its "You have advantage on Constitution saving throws that you make to maintain your concentration on a spell when you take damage." That's *just* what I was looking for.
> ...




*Great answer thank you*. I could see how Resilient (con) might not click in the mind of newer players as effecting concentration effects or stacking with the paladin aura making it actually stronger (at higher levels +3 aura, +6 for con proficiency, and minimum roll of 1 means you can't fail concentration saves for damage of 20 or less per hit, where warcaster you could roll low twice)… That makes since. I guess that's just a once you are used to somethings you forget that not all players know all the feats and they might be searching for something the first time not understanding relations not explicitly stated.


----------



## ClaytonCross (Feb 26, 2019)

FrogReaver said:


> I don't think that's what they are offended by.  There are some that get offended any time it's said some part of D&D Beyond data doesn't make sense, even when that's done in an attempt to gain greater understanding.  There are others that get offended any time optimization is mentioned.  I think your question just caught enough of them at the same time.  I couldn't begin to tell you why those ideas seems to offend such people though.




You might have a point. I know I have seen it before but I tend to be very literal so I ask "Why?" and get your "you are wrong, take it back" kind of replies... I just get confused, but then you have Jeremy Crawford say RAI = X, when people get stuck on "you are wrong, take it back" and continue ignoring the question its a little maddening for me. Then I got some really good answers in reply and all sanity returned. Thanks to you and Staffan, I can kind of see that data now. 

--tangent end-- sorry, confusion and medication has by brain not on track for the last couple of days.
​


----------

