Talk:Way of the Spear (5e Subclass)

From D&D Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Balancing and others[edit]

So, while I like the idea of this subclass, there are several elements I would change.

The Way of the Spear. 1d12 seems too much. 1d10 should be enough, especially considering later features. The damage increases at 7th, 11th and 17th are definetely too much. I'm not even sure what "Additionally, your flurry of blows bonus action is based on the amount of attacks in your attack action" even means. Does that mean that until Level 5 where you get Extra Attack your Flurry of Blows only grants you one additional attack instead of the usual two?

Spear Versatility. Being able to choose between slashing, piercing and bludgeoning is one of the most useless features imaginable. Using your spear instead of unarmed attacks, however, is broken, even if get rid of most in The Way of the Spear. The Martial Arts die only reaches 1d10 at level 17, so you basically jump to level 17 in that regard or even higher.

Spear Stance. A third feature on level 3... No idea what "While wielding a spear you are proficient with with both hands" means. A spear is a simple weapon and therefore you are proficient with it as Monks are proficient with simple weapons. A free +5 to damage rolls is a lot, especially compared to the +1 AC from the first stance. It isn't clear if the third stance gives you a reach of 10 or 15 feet. 15 seems a bit much.

Spear Adept. The first option gives you half of the Samurai's Fighting Spirit feature, but up to 18 times per day, not just 3 times per day. Not to forget that due to Spear Versatility already being broken, you can have 4 spear attacks with advantage for the cost of 2 Ki. Taking reactions in your own turn is rather uncommon.

Spear's after-image. Unusual wording. Not sure how useful this feature is, but it's a second feature on level 6 regardless and Spear Adept is already broken on its own.

Whirlwind Attack. The first feature that seems more or less fine on its own, giga broken in combination with the other features.

One with the Spear. If I remember correctly, other level 17 subclass features are kinda broken, so I'm not sure how this compares to the others.

All in all, great idea, but the implementation is questionable. --Kevidiffel (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2022 (MDT)

I agree with everything you wrote except that this subclass was a good idea. vladulenta (talk)
The reason why I like the idea of this subclass is that spears are largely underwhelming. They are designed as short spears and therefore lack the reach property. They lack the finesse property and therefore are not attractive for DEX builds. As spears are monk weapons, a monk subclass about spears at least solves the lacking finesse property. One problem with the subclass is that it's more of a fighter subclass than a monk subclass. I really like the idea with stances, but using your bonus action for that is problematic, because a monk has a bonus action by Martial Arts (every turn) or Flurry of Blows (as long as you have Ki) and a fighter would have a bonus action provided by Polearm Master (every turn). I'm not sure if this is possible to solve. --Kevidiffel (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2022 (MDT)


Depending on how the author reacts to the added needsbalance template, I might ask an admin for help here. Reverting needed balance changes and then making it worse isn't helpful for the subclass. --Kevidiffel (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2022 (MDT)

Here are the changes I made to hopefully balance things out.
  • Heavily reduced the Spear damage scaling.
  • Removed the ability to replace unarmed strikes with Spear.
  • Reduced the bonuses you get from Spear stances, but can now be done as part of attack action.
  • Removed Spear's After-image to simplify things at Level 6.
Honestly everything else is okay and it just needed some toning down in my opinion. --DonMafia (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2022 (GMT+8)
Some very good and well deserved changes. Expect them to be reverted by the author very soon. If they don't, I will try to implement some changes aswell that were sadly reverted. --Kevidiffel (talk) 11:56, 29 July 2022 (MDT)