Talk:Titan's Strength (5e Feat)
From D&D Wiki
so i was thinking of changing the strength requirement to 15+. was also planning on adding the ability to increase the damage die by one for two handing a weapon with the two-handed property.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koonicus (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.
- Remember that a feat is balanced to replace the Ability Score Increase (ASI) a class gets. That is, increasing one of your ability scores by 2. If you increases your Strength by 2, you would get a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls with most but not all weapons, but usually little other benefit.
- Compare that ASI to the current state of the feat. Increasing the "damage die rolled by one" can grant the equivalent of about a +6.5 bonus to every weapon damage roll (that's the average result of a d12 and, really, why would you not use a d12 weapon if you have that benefit)—plus you still get another +1 to your Strength and yet another boon on top of that. No matter how you crunch the numbers the current state of this feat is very overpowered compared to the Ability Score Increase it's meant to replace.
- All that said, the primary intent of this feat is to let you wield two-handed weapons in one hand... which... well, "wield a two-handed weapon in one hand" has been made many times now. Like most of them, this one doesn't account for longbows or other weapons which have a good reason to be two-handed even if you have ridiculous forearm size/strength. At face value, the 2H-in-1H effect also lets you replace one-handed longsword attacks (average damage of 4 ¼) with greatsword attacks (average damage of 7) without any other drawback. That +2.5 (on average) damage per primary attack is already worth the cost of an entire feat, if not more so—let alone with a +1 to an ability score on top of it.
- Plus, the stub template from WeirdoWhoever still seems pretty relevant. This is still little more than a "do more damage" feat. - Guy 17:39, 18 September 2018 (MDT)
Thanks i didn't consider some of the ranged aspect. i've been part of one too many "tweaked" campaigns it seems. where the Dungeon manager unfairly stacks things to the hard of deadly encounter bracket. So to put a finer touch to things it sounds like you're suggesting to specify melee weapons specifically and do away with the add an extra die to the dmg roll?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koonicus (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.
- That would be a step in the right direction in terms of balance. I would still expect others to still consider this feat very "bland." Even with that improvement the feat wouldn't do do much beyond "more damage," which is discouraged in 5e. Feat Design (5e Guideline) can explain this and other noteworthy concepts better than I can right now. - Guy 18:11, 18 September 2018 (MDT)