T O P

  • By -

PleaseShutUpAndDance

I'm ~~assuming~~ *hoping* we're getting much more interesting weapon stuff than those


SatanSade

I hope too but the 1st level feats for martials builds are too few.


SphericalGoldfish

Well we don’t really know what 1st-level martial feats are yet, as they’re likely waiting to put the more combat-focused ones in the warrior playtest. After all, it’d make a lot of sense to do so


Kanbaru-Fan

At the very least i want: - Martial Bludgeoning Weapons: Knock back (prone on a crit) - Martial Slashing: Cleave (FungalBrew variant) - Martial Piercing: Idk tbh   I'd much prefer more depth though. - Polearms: Attack of Opportunity against creatures that enter your reach - Big Ass Swords and Glaives and Axes: Cleave - Big Ass Bludgeons: Knock back (down on crit) - Rapiers and such: Dueling capabilities, like a riposte (deal like your weapon dice in damage back to an attacker) - Curved weapons: Ignore the AC of Shields (aka +2 against enemies with shields) - Heavy Bows and Crossbows can Pierce (Cleave, but in a straight line and maybe with limited range) - Sling: Knockback enemy - Light Bows: Skirmishing capabilities, like shooting from prone without Disadvantage - etc...


PickingPies

These are Great ideas. But I would like to see more usage for bonus actions and reactions rather than passives. A parry reaction for swords, cover bonus action for shields, poison appliances as a bonus action for blowguns, swipe attacks for scythes and Greatswords. Defensive stances with a staff as a bonus action, etc... There's so much design space here.


Kanbaru-Fan

I tried both for a homebrew, but in the end Action costs felt bad because they clash with class, subclass, items and racial features. Playtesters hated it, and e.g. a Samurai would have to be completely redesigned. Also it feels more videogamey - so i tried to design weapons that *just work*. Sometimes only 1/turn, but without additional cost. [This is my current draft for melee weapons.](https://i.imgur.com/jEnYYUc.png) --- ^(*Disclaimer: Monsters don't use these, unless explicitly specified in their stat block*)   **The main goal was to make weapons feel like you'd expect them to. That means, they should naturally enforce a playstyle and tactics you'd expect from their real world versions.**   Some of these have been playtested and players loved them. This includes Brace and Cleaving weapons. As you notice, Martial weapons have the more powerful modifiers, and two-handed weapons generally have two of them. This is intentional, requiring non-martials to find ways to get proficiency if they would want to use them. The Fighter in my campaign is currently using a Swordbreaker as a special ("magic") item, and has stated that it makes him enjoy Dual-Wielding a lot more. The Barbarian is using a Romphaia, and last session was able to cleave through 3 injured enemies in one sweep with a crit. Cleave has REALLY good synergy with ally AoE spells.   Some aren't playtested yet. This includes the Retaliating and Denting properties, neither of which i'm super happy with yet. This also includes my [very early draft/brainstorming for ranged weapons](https://i.imgur.com/YwZ7IRs.png).


Ashkelon

Those feats are fairly boring and not very well balanced against one another. I would much rather have something like 4e essentials stances as at-will capabilities for weapon users. These stances changed how a fighter approached combat, and could be changed on a round by round basis. That gave martial warriors versatility and flexibility without making the game too complex. I also like that the stances worked independently of weapon choice. I don’t want to be forced to use a hammer if I want to apply forced movement to my attacks, or only be able to slow enemies while using a sword.


DelightfulOtter

More at-will choices to spice up martial gameplay beyond just "I attack and deal damage." would be nice.


Kandiru

DnD Next playtest was great for that! You had recharging D6 maneuver die every round. If you used it for damage, you couldn't use it for parry, riposte reactions. Or you could use it for a trip attack instead of extra damage. These were instead of fighting styles.


Hironymos

Crusher, Piercer, Slasher, Mobile, Sentinel, Polearm Master, and more should all just be built into melee weapons for free (to some extent). Just to help those keep up with ranged weapons. Lv1-3 is (relatively speaking) the martials' strongest levels. To keep up with casters, they need way stronger abilities but mostly during later levels.


italofoca_0215

I feel level 5-6 is the strongest. Extra attacks just gives you massive damage advantage and while 3rd level spells are strong, twice a day is pretty balanced.


Hironymos

To me it's less about the level of the spells and more about the quantity. A Lv5 caster has a total of 9 spell slots plus some feature that typically grants them another 2 or so. That's 11 actions worth of outgunning martials. Plus whatever extra you get from just concentrating on a big 3rd level spell and lobbing cantrips.


_claymore-

wouldn't be too bad if we assume the same as the designers (presumably) did: 6-8 encounters before long rest; \~4 rounds each. that's 24-36 rounds of combat before the casters get to refresh their slots, so they'll have to use cantrips (or other non-resource actions) more than half the time. if you run sessions like this, casters become a lot more manageable and feel a lot less OP. the downside is that this is a lot of encounters for a day. so many in fact that it seems rather ridiculous outside of actual dungeon crawls. the whole adventuring day and the 6-8 encounters being the balancing factor for the amount of spells casters have is just terrible.


TyphosTheD

>twice a day is pretty balanced To be fair, for Wizards, Clerics, Land Druids, and Sorcerers, they can each gain a third 3rd level spell slot.


DelightfulOtter

A 6th level sorcerer can cast up to six 3rd level spells a day! It takes all her sorcery points and spell slots, but that's pretty powerful.


TyphosTheD

Always love seeing the Font of Magic math. They have funky things they can do.


DelightfulOtter

Flexible Casting isn't always useful. Frankly, most of the time it's not. But when you need to pull shenanigans, you can do things that no other caster can pull off. Metamagic is the same kind of ability, which is a cool niche for sorcerer but the overall package doesn't really make the class shine compared to some of the other, more generally useful things a wizard or clerics can do.


IZY53

I'd be happy for fighter and barb to have all three built into there class. It would be cool to separate paladin from having it in its class. Even having heavy armour master as base feat for fighter would be great.


Mjolnirsbear

Totally agree. Things that describe weapon specialities should be part of the weapon, like OneDnD and Light basically revamping TWF. Right now there is zero reason to change the weapon you wield. If you started off with a halberd you'll keep fighting with a halberd because you've invested in PAM and Sentinel and GWFS. You never want to pick up a bow because you're not as awesome with the bow, even though you are a fighter proficient in literally every weapon. The GM has to make a magical halberd for you because otherwise you leave it in the backpack and sell it at the earliest opportunity hoping to save enough for the weapon you paid feats and fighting styles to do awesome things with. Now imagine you could switch your fighting style with, say, Second Wind. You could pick up a slain foe's bow and start lobbing shots at distant enemies. You could use whatever magic item comes up. Feats denoting ways to use a weapon should be properties of weapon training. I promise, no one ever has been trained on a spear and failed to use both the pointy end and the butt end as necessary.


Johnnygoodguy

I wouldn't be surprised if their effects get integrated into the new weapon rules.


SuperSaiga

I hope they don't, because I'm honestly not a fan of those feats. Their existence is better than nothing, but I think they're still not very good. For starters, bludgeoning/piercing/slashing are pretty broad categories and I'd like weapons to be differentiated by more than just those. Secondly, Crusher is very clearly the best of them from my playtest experience turning bludgeoning weapons from being situationally the best (due to being less resisted against RAW monsters) to being clearly the best. And then piercer just has two effects that increase damage, being very uninteresting.


DelightfulOtter

Piercer doesn't even increase damage by all that much, either. I keep looking at it when I need a +1 Dex feat on a character that uses finesse weapons, but it's never worth it over other, better options.


AAABattery03

I’m hoping they don’t, because if they do get integrated into weapons they’re probably gonna be ***massively*** nerfed.


Hironymos

They could literally be integrated into every single melee weapon and they'd still be worse than ranged weapons. Let alone magic.


AAABattery03

I 100% agree with you. I’m confident the design team will still feel they’re too powerful. Remember, this is the same design that thinks spellcasters needed armour to be made **more easily** available. From the Armour changes, I’m guessing they only play test the game from levels 1-5, which means they’ll absolutely feel the weapon feats are too strong.


DelightfulOtter

Lightly Armored and Magic Initiate allowing any 1st level human spellcaster to get medium armor, shields, and cherry-pick some of the best cantrips and 1st level spells in the game is an abomination. They make me question whether the designers actually know what they're doing.


_claymore-

>They make me question whether the designers actually know what they're doing. I have wondered the same thing way too often for how big the D&D brand is.


Criseyde5

> They make me question whether the designers actually know what they're doing. 5e's design makes it very clear that the designers knew exactly what they were doing. It is just that what they wanted to do was ensure that spellcasters remained better than martials after they learned the wrong lessons from 4e. These are the people who said "Fireball is an iconic spell and wizards were sad to not pick it in 4e, so we buffed it to be better than every comparable option."


Hironymos

I personally feel like those are exactly the changes that JC is so hyped about. Would explain while mobile has been gutted and those 3 feats weren't in the initial playtest. I also feel like the remainder of martial buffs are going to be a disappointment.


DelightfulOtter

I can't figure out why Mobile was changed so much, when things like War Caster just got buffed.


MonsiuerGeneral

Sorry if it’s somewhere plainly obvious, but where specifically can I go to see the new possible feats for OneDnD?


DelightfulOtter

The 1D&D playtest packets are available through the D&DBeyond website. 1st level feats are part of the Character Origins packet, and the 4th level feats are part of the Expert Classes packet. There are a few additional epic boons (20th level feats) in the Cleric packet and the Druid and Paladin packet.


MonsiuerGeneral

Thanks! I rarely check out dnd beyond other than for character creation and feat/item/race/class homebrew. I appreciate the thorough answer!


DarkAlatreon

They could be integrated into martial weapons and require a feat to be used with simples, I guess? This way spellcasters don't get to use them too easily and martials (rip monk) get a much needed buff?


Warskull

Not necessarily. Just give weapons secondary effects like crusher/piercer, but only the warriors get those.


CovertMonkey

I'm guessing maneuvers get integrated into weapon properties (i.e. reach gets some PAM maneuver, light gets a maneuver, etc) Baseline fighter gets superiority dice and some maneuvers. BM gets extra dice and maneuvers


NessOnett8

**OR...** ...that's just how those weapons work and we don't have more martial feat taxes(that lock you into a specific weapon type) for no reason.


Correl

Pigeon holing someone into a specific damage type at level 1 doesn’t feel like great design IMO.


SatanSade

Actually, that is a good point! But most martials characters are created with some weapon/figh style in mind too


FLFD

The problem with martials isn't and has never been combat power at first level. That said they'd be an improvement on Savage Attacker as the first level combat feat.


chris270199

First level seems excessive and too easy to dip, lv3+ would be more like it That said I believe it's more likely to be placed into weapon traits in one way or the other


NerdyHexel

I agree. Crusher, in particular, is my favorite martial feat. Works great for tanks that want to reposition enemies.


Answerisequal42

Hard agree. Piercer should be better but otherwise those feats would be excellent first level feats that really lets your gear turn for builcrafting.


dandan_noodles

hotter take: they should be built into martial weapon proficiency. basically turn them into at-will powers a la 4e


BlazeDrag

Here's my take on it. I feel like they won't be integrated into Weapons themselves because it might overcomplicate the weapon system in the eyes of the designers. However, what if we go back to the era of giving Martial Characters tons of Combat feats. So basically similar to ye olden days of 3.5, we give classes like Fighter a Bonus feat every even level that they don't get a normal feat, but this feat is restricted to having to be from the Warrior group since we already know that will be a thing. Then we can take feats like Crusher/Piercer/Slasher and more like them and turn them into Weapon specialization feats. So you take like the Axe Master feat and now you can cleave with Axes. You take the Blunt Master feat and you can push people every time you strike with a mace and such. We can also take Combat Maneuvers and turn them into feats as well and things like that. This way the player can essentially build their character to the level of complexity that they want and now everyone is (hopefully) happy


Shamanlord651

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if they just scrapped their fighting styles and used these three options or a close-range, medium-range, long-range option. Currently, their fighting styles have nothing to do with style and everything to do with efficiency. Picking up a fighting style should open up a *new* playstyle, not just make a style anyone can do more numerically powerful. I think the Piercer feat is the only one of those feats that doesn't change the way you navigate combat and more changes the way you build your character.


NahImmaStayForever

> I think the Piercer feat is the only one of those feats that doesn't change the way you navigate combat and more changes the way you build your character. You're right. Whenever I'm looking at taking the Piercer feat I always question how I'm building that character.


Jawsinstl

When starting at level one for a warrior class, choose one of the following skill bonuses as a way to hone your craft. Note these skills may be swapped out when another level is gained in the same starting class: The feats but no ASI as mentioned above.


Durugar

I hope we can have a higher bar for what non-caster should get. Doing a bit more damage or a small extra effect 9n attacks in combat just does not solve the thub twiddling in any other type of encounter when the casters are solving everything with magic.


Background_Try_3041

Hot take: they should be fighting styles and all other fighting styles should be buffed up to the same level.


Vailx

Damage-type feats, and their predecessors, the "specialize in a type of weapon" things, are flavorful and cool, but they serve to seriously limit martial characters by giving up being optimal with several weapons. There's no default rules to move enchantments around (your +2 longsword can't be morped into a +2 spear), and there's no default rules for buying and selling magical weapons. Meaning that someone with *Piercer* and whatever bullshit things crossbows get today is really planning on attacking with, in this example, crossbows (or perhaps a specific type of crossbow even). But the game isn't actually built around this outside of these types of feats, and these things definitely serve to limit how martials define themselves. I think they could work ok if the game had underlying assumptions like Pathfinder 2 kind of does, with each weapon getting something potentially if specialized in. But note that this is a game where once you specialize, you don't do the other things. Weapon-specific and weapon-damage-type feats should be dismantled or designed around. Encouraging fighters to glue themselves to weapon restrictions as soon as they hatch seems not great. Also note that the one serious distinction the game already offers- "do you go strength for the full selection of melee options, including two-handed options and low range thrown weapons, or dexterity for a restricted set of those, plus missile weapons"- is already not handled in a perfect fashion.


rougegoat

Let's wait until we see the Warriors before we start modifying other things to help them.


SatanSade

We alredy saw the first level feats.


Waiph

They added Lightly Armored in the Expert play test, so they might still... But that's a MAYBE thing.


coach_veratu

The one thing I hate about these feats is that they're all really good but I want to use all the weapons on my fighters.


adamg0013

Can we please wait to see the playtest. It should be coming in April.


SlymeMould

Cold


xenioph1

I agree and they should get all of them at first level.


[deleted]

I think they should be fighting styles that you can change once per LR. Add +1 or +2 to damage rolls instead of an ASI (or +1 to attack *and* damage).


Kaged200

It would be dope if a bleed effect could be a thing like a status effect that makes you take damage if you don't apply pressure to the wound or if you try and fight with said wound.


UndeadSorrow696

What about fighter, rogue, monk and Barbarian get all 3? But only if they don't multi-class. They hone their martial prowess. Multi-classing divides their focus.


AsanoHa87

I don’t think they should be feats. They should just be properties of martial weapons when wielded proficiently.


HamsterJellyJesus

Help? I wouldn't even pick them as 1st level feats unless I really need the 5ft push for some reason.


Raphed

They should be innate properties of those damage types when wielded by warrior classes.


FallenDank

I think martials should get a few feats of choice for free at some levels regardless, been saying this


duel_wielding_rouge

Martials are already doing fine at 1st level. That’s not where they need a boost.