Talk:Aggressive Melee Mastery (5e Feat)
From D&D Wiki
Currently Playtesting[edit]
I like this feat, I think it provides the potential for a very satisfying way to fight in combat, and it does exactly what it says on the tin thematically.
That being said, I do believe it is fair to have the balance in question. At a first glance, it feels more powerful than a first party feat, although I highly doubt so much so that it would break a game.
I've recently read over it with a DM friend of mine and he approved it for use in his game. The character using it is a barbarian/monk multiclass who I felt it fit thematically, and I will update my posts here if it had any significant ramifications in combat. --ZarHakkar (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2022 (MST)
Addressing the Needsbalance/Breaking Down Some of the Design[edit]
This does not contain the entire charger feat, just the part of it that allows you to bonus action melee attack after moving 20 feet. The extra damage/shoving away portion is excluded.
It does contain a feature that is similar to the berserker barbarian's 14th level feature, but it is not the same. Berserker barbarian's Retaliation only occurs when you take damage from a creature, and it can be used with any weapon.
I believe the weird prerequisites are to offset the supposed power, as this is supposed to be a buff taken by "duelist" type characters, most likely a fighter. The strongest weapon you can use this with is a two-handed longsword (d10), but you'll lose the AC benefit from a shield. That's what the circumstantial AC bonus is designed for in this feat, to compensate for that and to encourage you to stay in the thick of melee. Instead of spending your reaction for opportunity attacks, you get the choice between a counterattack or chasing down a fleeing enemy. Unless you're using this with a rapier (d8), the dexterity prerequisite (although not exactly in line with the feat design guidelines, since it's not being directly used) will always render any build using this a little bit MAD. --ZarHakkar (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2022 (MST)
- Okay, I was not entirely accurate with that message. What I meant was you took best part of charger(one more attack as a bonus action) and added it here without need of dashing beforehand. In and out of itself, no problem, kinda weak actually. Then attack as a reaction when not being hit is strongly benefitial to high AC characters like full armor+shield fighter. Still ok. Movement up to speed is actually great part, and it takes reaction too, so this is not overloaded in using both of features. But what strikes me the most is (let's be honest here) practically permanent bonus to AC and those weird prerequisites. Drawbacks or other things you must do to gain some abilities in D&D 5e are usually, well, logical. You must have okay dex for Defensive Duelist because this is a ability that coresponds with it (quickly blocking an attack). This just takes the posibility to take this feat by STR fighter, and barb with low dex(those exist), which would propaby benefit the most from this. I cannot grasp the sene of this. It's like giving metamagic adept prereq of charisma 13+, so no wizard would take it, wchich is very viable option. So now what, you need to waste one ASI to even qualify for a good feat for you? The thing with that weapon condition tho: If you want to make unarmed fighting monk, this will not work either. So what, frontline rouge? You do not make weird or limiting drawbacks to offset a power of some feature or feat or race. And forcing player to build MAD is kinda meh.
- To sum up: I do believe both prereq are harmful for this feat, so should be removed, or swapped for something more ... dunno. And second, not broken, but I believe feat is simply too strong for what you give up(ASI) for certain characters (monk, DEX fighter). Oh, and one thing: you do not give up shield bonus to AC from monk anyway :|. --Cezaryx (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2022 (MST)
- I could have sworn that unarmed strikes/natural weapons counted as melee weapons, so they would work for the requirement. I might be wrong though. Either way, the DM letting me playtest is allowing that interpretation. I do see what you mean with the prerequisite, and the weapon requirement should be rewritten to be a bit more flexible. I will argue that the AC bonus isn't practically permanent, and that, while it is not the reason while I liked and wanted this feat, I find it interesting to have a conditional AC boost, as very little in 5e actually does that. The conditional boost means that your character would shine in melee, but would otherwise be normal to hit when engaged at a distance, as opposed to the constant AC martial classes usually grant. --ZarHakkar (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2022 (MST)
- Yes, unarmed strikes count as melee weapons, but you cannot wield them :\. So on melee weapon attack it would work, but when wielding melee weapon no. With AC, if you play a close combat melee fighter(not class), and you propably do considering this feat, around 7-8 rounds out of 10 in combat you do have this benefit. But I was trying to show that this feat propels itself. You have higher AC -> you are harder to hit -> you more often get to use your reaction attack -> you want to get close -> you get one more attack as a bonus action -> you want to stay close -> you move up to your speed as reaction. While it is literally what this feat should be doing (as Aggressive Melee Master implies), consider the following: at level one you can get fighter(class) with this feat to have 20 AC, so up to an error of 5% margin(if you get attacked more than one time per round), you simply have two attacks per round. You know what? I have an idea. It should not have prereq on used weapon, but on shield precisely. That way we negate number crunch on AC, we do not limit effectiveness of this for monks/rogues/barbs and it appeals to this "stay close to enemy at all costs, even your own safety" vibe. What do you feel?--Cezaryx (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2022 (MST)
- I generally agree. If the wording was changed so that: A. The feat does not work if you are wielding a shield, and B. It also worked with unarmed strikes. The only thing I'm pensive about is the non-heavy weapon requirement. I feel like removing that would make the feat too powerful (if using a greatsword/greataxe or the like). According to the original creator, a shield is not intended to be used, so that's good. --ZarHakkar (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2022 (MST)
- Yes, unarmed strikes count as melee weapons, but you cannot wield them :\. So on melee weapon attack it would work, but when wielding melee weapon no. With AC, if you play a close combat melee fighter(not class), and you propably do considering this feat, around 7-8 rounds out of 10 in combat you do have this benefit. But I was trying to show that this feat propels itself. You have higher AC -> you are harder to hit -> you more often get to use your reaction attack -> you want to get close -> you get one more attack as a bonus action -> you want to stay close -> you move up to your speed as reaction. While it is literally what this feat should be doing (as Aggressive Melee Master implies), consider the following: at level one you can get fighter(class) with this feat to have 20 AC, so up to an error of 5% margin(if you get attacked more than one time per round), you simply have two attacks per round. You know what? I have an idea. It should not have prereq on used weapon, but on shield precisely. That way we negate number crunch on AC, we do not limit effectiveness of this for monks/rogues/barbs and it appeals to this "stay close to enemy at all costs, even your own safety" vibe. What do you feel?--Cezaryx (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2022 (MST)
- I could have sworn that unarmed strikes/natural weapons counted as melee weapons, so they would work for the requirement. I might be wrong though. Either way, the DM letting me playtest is allowing that interpretation. I do see what you mean with the prerequisite, and the weapon requirement should be rewritten to be a bit more flexible. I will argue that the AC bonus isn't practically permanent, and that, while it is not the reason while I liked and wanted this feat, I find it interesting to have a conditional AC boost, as very little in 5e actually does that. The conditional boost means that your character would shine in melee, but would otherwise be normal to hit when engaged at a distance, as opposed to the constant AC martial classes usually grant. --ZarHakkar (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2022 (MST)
Regarding this feat: This feat was intended to emulate a gameplay style like that seen in Sekiro: Shadows Die twice, in which you are encouraged to play as aggressively as you can get away with using your sword. In regards to designer intent, you aren't supposed to be using a shield with this feat and I am going to remedy that forthwith.
In case you're confused, the weird prereqs (13 dex + one non-heavy weapon only) are supposed to closer emulate this style. Endermage77 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2022 (MST)
