Knights Defender ability - most broken thing in the Packets right now?

Hi forum, is it just me or is a knight with 20AC getting to impose disadvantage against all incoming attacks to his/her self way broken? 

I LOVE the ability to impose disadvantage on the allies though, that's a MUCH better way to do marking without calling it marking, than Tactical Warrior. IMO, that's the way it should work.

Currently, any MC Fighter build that doesn't take Knight subclass for this Defender ability is just ganking themselves. Combine that with the also-incredibly OP 50% HP boost of Second Wind, and I think it's silly to even bother including the Barbarian and Ranger and Paladin in the game. The fighter beats them all in DPR, in HP, in defenses, and even in healing (with one of their very many feats, Healer). A party of all fighters would be just way brutal. I can't imagine the frustration my story-focused DM would have if I brought a knight into his game, he'd have to spend hours and hours more of prep time pumping up enemies just to cater to my ridonculastic defenses and HP, instead of that time to create a fun story for everyone.

Tactical Warrior's "mark" is rather dubious. Much better to make it like the Defender's protect others ability of the Knight. Why call it a mark anyway? I thought people made it clear to you that that was a terrible metagame construct and should die in a fire? The knight's ability is EASY to narrate, fun, builds on the adv / disadv system easily, and works great. Why make fighters have to take a feat just to do their core job? Let them pick it. Even better, make it the core level 1 ability "Parry" which works against anything, but just give it a 1d4 AC bonus per hit using their reaction. So you can use this parry with your shield to defend yourself or your ally, and it's less beneficial than "always on" disadvantage. That's waaaay OP.

I'd love it if all fighters got Parry at level 1, but make it require not only a reaction, but concentration too. That will prevent a lot of buff stacking abuse right there. I'd LOVE to see more concentration requiring abilities for other classes. Will make you have to decide if you gish and cast Fly, if you want to keep flying or Parry that dragon's attack. So if that's your goal, perhaps offer Parry or something else, like a one step damage die boost maybe. Fighters getting 2d6 out of greataxes and greatswords makes their DPR way more reliable, which to me makes perfect sense for the fighter to have rather than a barbarian (who gets a flat +2 while raging).

Then again, all these things seem pretty powerful. I guess it's important for Fighter to kick butt compared to wizards, I just don't want to see wizards take one level of fighter to get Second Wind or something equally brokenly good that stacks with everything else. Might as well just tune monster AC and HP to assume everyone has it, they'd be stupid not to (a wizard doesn't really lose much by taking 1-3 levels of fighter, since their spell slots improve by character level not class level). Lots of wierd side effects of the multiclassing system that have to be taken into account. 

At first blush, Second Wind and Defender are the two best single class features of the entire game.
So you hate 4E. Nothing new or unique. Frankly, you're biased. To be fair, I hate 2E, so I'm biased against those elements.

Fighters don't even branch paths until level 3, so that's a significant investment if you're talking multiclassing. Defender requires him to spend his reaction, so no AO, and only once per round. Feats are few and far between, if allowed at all.

You're never going to see a party of all Fighters. If nothing else, the Wizard is still more powerful. The Fighter is much stronger than the Rogue, Monk and Ranger, but not really the casters, and the Barbarian isn't bad.

Sorry, but you're probably not going to find many people who see this as a major problem. We have at least five bigger fish to fry, just that I can think of right now.
You don't think it's a major balance problem between martial classes that one class has 50% better HP than the other classes, the highest AC, AND gets to impose disadvange on incoming attacks ALL the time, as a class feature?

I wonder if you've ever seen a broken build at your game table before. This is clearly one of them. 

For one, it makes crits only happen one every 400 rolls. Might as well make them immune to them.
Second, it makes a Horned Devil, who has +6 to hit, who normally only hits on a 14+ (70%), now have 49%, that's a 30% improvement.

That's not even a feat. That's a single class feature, that stacks with things like Heavy Armor master. I'd be surprised if I ever see a Knight falling. Is that a good thing? It's surely a lot of rolls at the table.

Heck, maybe it is balanced.

The feats in this packet are SUPER crazy, and now seeing lots of these class features be this good. I mean, maybe that's good for the game...I just feel it's too good to have always-on disadvantage vs all incoming attacks to you or your allies.

The ability is called Defender, I dunno, maybe it's better to have Parry to defend yourself, and Defender to defend allies. (yes I know the word implies both, but I just think it's too good to get to do both things in a single ability).
Jessica, if Defender worked that way it would be too powerful. As-is, the Knight only recovers his reaction if it is used to protect another. If he shield blocks to protect himself then he doesn't get it back. He doesn't make it so every physical attack against him is at disadvantage, only 1 per turn (or none if he's fully dedicated to protecting his allies).
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
You don't think it's a major balance problem between martial classes that one class has 50% better HP than the other classes.



actualy i think the paladin has even more effective hitpoints then that.
paladin level X5 by itselve would be close to +50% Hp if the paladin had no bonus from Con, and on top of that comes all the healing you could generate by using all your spell slots for cure spells.

so take 2 level 5 characters one fighter one paladin both with con 16, both avaraging 49 HP. 

Fighter  49 + 24 from second wind, 73 effective hitpoints.
Paladin
 49 + 25 from lay on hands + (10d8+8) 53 from spell slots, 127 Effective hitpoints

At that level the ranger could also have more effective hitpoints of he decides to use all his spells slots for healing as that on avarage would give him +33, beating the fighters +24.
The barbarian is a bit situational with taking 1/2 damage from weapon attacks while raging but that very well could beat the +50% the fighter gets.

The fighter +50% isen't putting him ahead of the field it is a necessity for him to be able to keep up with the others.
 
Jessica, anyone can Hinder as an action. The Knight can Hinder as a reaction once per round. Not so powerful especially when facing multiple opponents or monsters with multi-attack. Other class features are just as useful. Look at cunning action for rogues, you can disengage then hide in the same turn, now you grant disadvantage to attacks against you AND have advantage on your next attack, while keeping your reaction!

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

yeah the defender ability isn't really broken.

the only time it slightly breaks is at 20th level when you get 10 dudes that have the ability, and you can put them in a phalanx, and even then it isn't that broken because they are level 5's rolling with level 20's, and even beyond that it becomes less broken because it actually requires you to have a solid placement strategy to get the most bang for the buck (basically you have to have people that can block for the people in the front line but that can't be targetted due to being out of reach).  Basically it isn't broken because you have to use proper strategy to make it work well and even then using it correctly at this point only just barely puts them on par with the rest of the party.  Also this is exactly what fighting in a phalanx is supposed to do for the people in the phalanx so its actually kind of awesome that there is some mechanical benefit for fighting in a phalanx. 
Jessica tends to have a bad first impression of 4E, and God knows, her writing is provocative if nothing else - but you can usually pick out what she's saying if you wear your edit-glasses.

And there is a discussion to be has about the relative merits of 2nd wind (which I want to take home to meet my mother) & Defender's ability.

Frankly I'm glad that stuff exists. It gets me closer to a 4E knight/slayer type thing. Which I need for D&D.
Jessica, if Defender worked that way it would be too powerful. As-is, the Knight only recovers his reaction if it is used to protect another. If he shield blocks to protect himself then he doesn't get it back. He doesn't make it so every physical attack against him is at disadvantage, only 1 per turn (or none if he's fully dedicated to protecting his allies).



Jessica, anyone can Hinder as an action. The Knight can Hinder as a reaction once per round. Not so powerful especially when facing multiple opponents or monsters with multi-attack. Other class features are just as useful. Look at cunning action for rogues, you can disengage then hide in the same turn, now you grant disadvantage to attacks against you AND have advantage on your next attack, while keeping your reaction!



I do laugh when people who have no idea how things actually work or how to do the math complain things are "broken" instead of being able to recognize the things that actually are issues.
Would Fighters Second Wind work better if HD were used? Take an action and spend as many as you like. Still stays a Fighter only mechanic but uses a daily resource.

Or what if HD could also be used to resist spell effects? Say 1HD per spell level? 3HD and you auto save from Fireball!

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

What I find absurdly backwards is that if you attack the knight he can impose disadvantage against you. If you attack his friend, he can impose disadvantage, but you can attack him instead without the disadvantage.

So as a DM, if you're going to attack the knight you should always attack the knight's ally first and then change your action to attacking the knight. If you forget, and just attack the knight like you're going to anyway, then the knight gets to impose disadvantage. This isn't tactics . . . It's a nonsensical "Simon Says" sort of "I gotcha! You didn't attack my friend first!"
Reinhart, it's slightly more complex.
Just attack the knight. If he uses his defender he can't use it again until the next round. Now as the DM, you're free to slaughter him and the friends he was protecting.
Or, the knight realizes this and refuses. He instead takes hit after hit so he can defend at lower health or save the option to protect his allies. It introduces an element of chicken/flinching that is high risk and somewhat tactical.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
If you think defender ability is OP, you didn't read what Flare does then :D
Starcraft Saga Edition: http://sc2se.wikispaces.com/
I admit that I haven't looked the knight over super carefully.  I assumed my groups were going to be using the warrior.  

I think JessicaT might be raising a point about a feature in the game but it is cloaked in a lot of noise.  A simple statement like - the knights defender ability is too good compared to what the other fighters get - would be a reasonable statement even if it is wrong. 
@YouKnowTheOneGuy: That's a fair distinction, but those complexities will basically only surface when you're personally facing more than two enemies at once. The mechanic is a tangled mess compared to 4e defender's mark and defender's aura, and those weren't exactly the most elegant mechanics to begin with.
The knight has no offense when not charging anyway. And Courtly graces encourages more MAD.

So what if he is hard to hit, his part is dead unless they all bunch near him... then they eat AOE.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Reinhart, "...or fighting one enemy w/ 2 attacks." But, that doesn't refute your key point that it's inelegant, difficult to read, and situational. As Orzel points out, too much knight clumping makes it AoE bait. While I'm rather okay w/ it being quite good in certain situations, I'd prefer its wording to be a little clearer. And heck, the rules-as-intended may be different and the whole thing may change. :D
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
There are tons of threads on multiple websites claiming the barbarian destroys the fighter in dpr.


Citation needed

The monk can nova for insane amounts of damage and people already found a kill asmodeas in a rnd or two build.


Citation needed

I would very much like the barbarian to out dpr the fighter, as the fighter is not restricted by rage.  I would very much like the monk to have an insane nova compared to a fighter, as the fighter is more survivable.   But if this is the case show us the math...

Personally I dislike Advantage/Disvantage being thrown everywhere in the game, especially into class abilities. I'd save it only for circumstancial bonuses that can happen during actions (such as prone, flank, blinded, etc).

You're capped at one extra die for Adv/Disadv, which would work nice with the Adv/Disadv system as a nice way to simplify things just so you don't need to keep track several circumstancial factors. However, by throwing the system all around, everyone is gaining Adv from something and/or imposing Disadv unto someone most of the time, making actually seeking tactical advantage in combat all but useless, since you only ever get or impose one extra die, and you're probably already getting that from some ability.

The Adv/Disadv system is defeating it's own purpose to simplify things, and turning into the most bothersome system so far to keep track of during play. It's like every action during every PC or NPC turn now, you have to stop and figure out how many Adv and Disadv are affect what rolls, from whom, to whom, for what types of rolls, etc.

I found the idea of Adv/Disadv quite interesting at first, but the way they ended up implementing it, to me feels like a big mess. 
No, I don't think it is overpowered for the fighter to get second wind when the barbarian is resistant to damage or the paladin can heal for large sums of HP.

And no, I don't think it is overpowered for the fighter to impose disadvantage on one attack per turn when the attack is made against him, or every attack when an adjacent enemy chooses to attack an someone other than the fighter. 

I really don't see a big deal. I agree with everyone else in this thread who has said that this is a blatant anti-4e overreaction.  
There are tons of threads on multiple websites claiming the barbarian destroys the fighter in dpr.


Citation needed

The monk can nova for insane amounts of damage and people already found a kill asmodeas in a rnd or two build.


Citation needed

I would very much like the barbarian to out dpr the fighter, as the fighter is not restricted by rage.  I would very much like the monk to have an insane nova compared to a fighter, as the fighter is more survivable.   But if this is the case show us the math...



Monks don't have a restriction listed on the number of flurries allowed on a turn as written (I expect this will change if there wasn't a comment I missed clarifying it already), and many of their ki abilities are determined after the attack roll.  With 8 ki, for example, I can make my 2 attacks, if one hits I can spend 3 ki (2 to stun and 1 for stony doom or fist of the 4 elements) and then attack 5 more times for 7 attacks that round, 5 with advantage and vulnerability/+1d10damage.  And unarmed is specifically stated to allow 2 weapon fighting rules on top of those attacks.  The ki regenerates per turn anyway and 4 elements lasts a minute for continued TWF flurries.

Monks have higher DC's than casters on top of that type of line of thought, and high AC.  Regardless of future clarifications on the wording behind flurry of blows it's still pretty easy to use 4 elements, TWF for an additional attack, 1 flurry per round that regens anyway, and additional ki attacks as desired for the other 7 ki available.

For barbarians, they have unlimited rage use at 20th level and raging is free as part of their action.  Brutal critical is free with crits, incite rage is a decent group buff to damage, and berzerker path gives more options.   Unchecked fury gives 1 free attack if another attacks misses to bring the average up a bit.  +4 damage to start with is better than average on a d6 per attack and if the 20th level barbarian is willing to give up his rage on that last hit (and take advantage on attacks against him) for a guaranteed brutal crit those guaranteed brutal crits add up fast because he can just rage again on his next turn, and those crits are more effective than something like the extended crit range that can be found with fighters.

(EDIT: I'm not sure 20th level barbarians can't re-enter rage as part of their same turn for a lot more crits in the same turn for that matter as still being part of their action).

Even looking at a paladins 2 attacks and divine strikes and spell buffs and the occasional smite and we re-examine fighters to see that extra attack is more of a method of competing with other class abilities more than a significant damage bonus over them.

I can build a strong DPR fighter, but I can see strong DPR in a lot of other classes too.  Ki regenerating flurrying elemental fisted monks being a big one.
What I find absurdly backwards is that if you attack the knight he can impose disadvantage against you. If you attack his friend, he can impose disadvantage, but you can attack him instead without the disadvantage.

So as a DM, if you're going to attack the knight you should always attack the knight's ally first and then change your action to attacking the knight. If you forget, and just attack the knight like you're going to anyway, then the knight gets to impose disadvantage. This isn't tactics . . . It's a nonsensical "Simon Says" sort of "I gotcha! You didn't attack my friend first!"




actually the awesome part is that you still attack him with disadvantage...if he wants you to.  when you elect to attack him instead of taking disadvantage on your attack he gets his reaction back...a reaction he can use immediately to grant you disadvantage on the attack vs him.  However if he plans on covering for more people he might want to save that reaction to be used to block for another ally.
The knight has no offense when not charging anyway. And Courtly graces encourages more MAD. So what if he is hard to hit, his part is dead unless they all bunch near him... then they eat AOE.




Courtly graces actually reduces MAD. It's average bonus is 2.5 which means in order to on average operate at a decent thrshold you only need a 12 in charisma to participate as someone thats specialized in charisma.  Fun thing about this edition you don't need to pump stats to a ridiculous height to be considered useful.  You can pump them up but it isn't required to participate, and courtly graces puts a 12 Charisma into the range of being like a 16 in charisma...namely the highest expected Charisma.  18 and 20 are just gravey over the expectation.  basically you're gunna have a hard time saying that a bonus to charisma checks increases your need to put points into charisma.
There are tons of threads on multiple websites claiming the barbarian destroys the fighter in dpr.


Citation needed

The monk can nova for insane amounts of damage and people already found a kill asmodeas in a rnd or two build.


Citation needed

I would very much like the barbarian to out dpr the fighter, as the fighter is not restricted by rage.  I would very much like the monk to have an insane nova compared to a fighter, as the fighter is more survivable.   But if this is the case show us the math...



You do realize that the "average" number of fights per day that the game is balanced around is 4. The barbarian will be capable of raging every single fight by a fairly low level. Even without rage, the barbarian can have advantage on every single attack which greatly increases thir damage.

I did an in depth comparison on their damage output at level 11 here:

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758... 
No, I don't think it is overpowered for the fighter to get second wind when the barbarian is resistant to damage or the paladin can heal for large sums of HP.



  Average fighter HP at 20 would be around 200, so second wind is often more than lay on hands.  The paladin has lower damage than the fighter even dedicating their spell slots to it.  If they spend the slots on healing rather than damage, their damage is pathetic and their amount of healing is nowhere close to the "large sums" you claim.  Fighters are winning on this hands down.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

My all level comparison indicate that Fighter and War Cleric are the two best Single Target DPR right now. Paladin is close.

Fighter has best DPR (about tied with war cleric) AND best burst DPR. No other class comes close to his burst ability due to action surge. I did not calculate with feats, only ability bonuses, but with great weapon feat a fighter should pull well ahead of anyone. Most calculations also don;t take into account the magic weapon effect, which greatly favors fighter as well. 

Ranger, Monk, and Rogue fall well behind the pack. Barbarian is in the middle with wizard. Didn't calculate druid.

My mind is a deal-breaker.

Knights Defender ability - most broken thing in the Packets right now?
No its not the most broken thing in the slightest. Its just fighter getting cool things, as weird as it may sound.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Its just fighter getting cool things, as weird as it may sound.



This sounds like a serious balance issue. What's the best way to get rid of it?
There's no need to get rid of fighter's options. Those who don't like such options can just use warrior fighter.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

I think Molecule forgot the of joking...
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
I think Molecule forgot the of joking...



I was hoping it would be so clearly absurd that it wouldn't need a smily. Shows what I know.

Sorry if i took you seriously. Some joke about purging fighter's options, some are serious about it, so i think it bears repeating anyway when in doubt ;)

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

Removed some baiting which is against the Code of Conduct - company.wizards.com/conduct
@zago - if you haven't factored in feats, you're missing the crazy synergy of greatweapon master raging barbarians. -5 to hit for double damage is a GREAT deal when you always have advantage.
@zago - if you haven't factored in feats, you're missing the crazy synergy of greatweapon master raging barbarians. -5 to hit for double damage is a GREAT deal when you always have advantage.



I think he also must have missed the fact that berserker's get a free attack when they miss as well. There is really no point in which the fighter outdamages the barbarian (well except for levels 5-7).
@zago - if you haven't factored in feats, you're missing the crazy synergy of greatweapon master raging barbarians. -5 to hit for double damage is a GREAT deal when you always have advantage.



I think he also must have missed the fact that berserker's get a free attack when they miss as well. There is really no point in which the fighter outdamages the barbarian (well except for levels 5-7).


I really think people would stop just considering dpr when comparing classes. I know it important but there are other factors when compaing classes.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

If there are lots of 4e players who like and want surges, doesn't that mean that there is part of the player base that hasn't rejected them? 

WotC does not NEED classic views of D&D. They will not sell anything Next related to those who like OSR games. Why? We already have the game we like, and Next isn't going to turn our heads. Not one D&D group in my town is remotely interested in Next.  According to the guy who owns our FLGS, 2e sales are way up as are 4e sales, but that's it. Yes, I am in fact an OSR guy (and yes I play 4e too, shock of shocks!), and my table is not even remotely interested in Next. At all. I pop in here every once in a while to see if things have progressed in a manner that might get our interest. So far, nothing. WotC cannot hope to pull people from games they are already playing. They can't and they won't. So some 'classic' veiw of the game isn't going to help at all.         

It was at #2 when nothing was in production. If that's a failure, then I guess EQ2 at second best in the MMO market is a failure too (protip- it isn't).


Haven't you heard?  EQ2 was a total failure.  They're even working on a new EQ game which is going back to the old-school no quest markers and stuff!  Why would they do that if EQ2 was a success?

;)

Just for clarification, I consider EQ2 the best of the fantasy MMOs currently live.  If it didn't have such a clunky client (a product of SOE's gamble of higher clock speeds vs. multiple cores), I'd probably still be playing it.  And I'm looking forward to EQN.

Love optimisers who blame others for the result of their optimising.

It sounds like your DM has to spend extra prep time working around your optimising.

Either see it as a feature, or stop optimising. You really don't have to squeeze every point out that you can get, to do a (prewritten) story.

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

@zago - if you haven't factored in feats, you're missing the crazy synergy of greatweapon master raging barbarians. -5 to hit for double damage is a GREAT deal when you always have advantage.



I think he also must have missed the fact that berserker's get a free attack when they miss as well. There is really no point in which the fighter outdamages the barbarian (well except for levels 5-7).



  And when you're hitting on a 2+ anyway this power helps how exactly?

  On a miss a barbarian gets to make 3 attacks on their turn.  Fighters get to make 3 attacks on their turn all the time.

  Barbarians get to roll an extra crit die on a 20.  Fighters get an extra crit die on an 18 and 19.

  Fighters > barbs.

Surges are a great way to limit healing, that is the part that the new Hit Dice rule doesn't use.  With out it you will see players stockpile, healing potions and be able to full heal up between encounters just like in 3e and earlier editions.



  Surges are a bad way to limit healing.

  Limiting healing is bad anyway with only negative consequences.

  Stockpiling healing potions like you say is stupid unless you somehow think that 220 HP fighter is going to carry around 90 potions (4500 GP) every day (I invite you to try putting 90 flasks in a backpack and carry it around).

  Making rules to intentionally prevent your characters from doing the thing they would most naturally do when they are putting their lives in danger is stupid and immersion breaking.

  Not allowing healing to full between fights when the party puts effort in to doing it is bad GMing.

  Not having healing to full between fights makes balance impossible without in-play adjustments by the DM, and impossible to make modules for.

@mikemearls don't quite understand the difference

I don't make the rules, I just think them up and write them down. - Eric Cartman

Enough chitchat!  Time is candy! - Pinky Pie

@zago - if you haven't factored in feats, you're missing the crazy synergy of greatweapon master raging barbarians. -5 to hit for double damage is a GREAT deal when you always have advantage.



That feat benefits fighters and barbarians equally, if not favoring fighters, I know barbarians get advantage when they rage, but a couple of things I think your missing.

1. Fighter Bonus to hit improves 1.5 faster then barbarian. At all levels a barbarian has a 1 or 2 less attack bonus then fighter. 

2. Fighter gets Much faster attribute/feat  progression, assuming both classes take great weapon feat at 4, Barbarian Human gets to STR 20 at Level 13. Fighter Human has it at 8. 

So adv on attacks, which at best on the bell curve equals +5, is only +2 or +3 against fighter depending on level. But the reality is that the Bestiary AC's are low enogh that once you get beyond level 10 the average encounter is gonna make Barbarians adv bonus more like +3 or +2. Which means most encounters past level 10, raging gives barabarian the to hit of a fighter or maybe +1 better.

3. Fighter gets an extra attack. Barbarian's ability to attack again if he misses =/= an extra attack. You have to keep in mind that Fighter's extra attack is a type of superior advantage, he rolls 2 dice like barbarian, but if he hits with both he does double damage. This only effects levels 5-7, and 11+. It's important to note that attacks are multipliers now. I calculated that a +3 weapon is about 18 dpr bonus to a fighter. 

4. Great Weapon Feat: Well I don't think this feat in this version is going to last long. Its way too good and creates a huge imbalance in the DPR of class who takes against any other class, but we will see. It is situational when the greatest benefit of this feat is toward fighter or toward Barbarian. It mainly has to do with when the fighter gets an xtra attack vs. the AC of the enemies in the encounter. Barbarian gets better DPR against higher AC targets , fighter against lower DPR. This bestiary favors fighter.

5. Action Surge: Quanity is better then Quality. But fighters get both. Lets assume that a group over the course of a session can get only 1 short rest. there are 4 encounters easch 4 rounds long. Fighter at 11th level, fighter will get 48 base attacks, + 6 action surge attacks. 56 total attacks for fighter. Barbarian will get 32 attacks with advantage. That means barbarian has 57% the attack potential of fighter. 

6. Path of the Warrior: Sitiuationally the other subclasses could be better and definately more interesting. But the warrior get 3x the crit chance of all other classes, this acctually constitutes a big improvement to DPR. Not sure how Great weapon Feat and Crit work togethor if they do. But if they do.... well... that's crazy. In the above 16 round day, fighter:warrior should crit 8.4 times a day where as barbarian crits 1.6 times. With the ability provided by the Great Weapon Feat, getting an extrat attack everytime you crit, this boosts the the daily attacks to 64 attacks in 16 rounds, exactly double that of the Barbarian. 


I'll do the specific math on this soon, but I think its very likely that a Fighter:Warrior with great weapon feat will dominate Single target DPR with or without this feat option. 

So seriously, Barabarian DPR even woith this feat is prolly arond .75 that of fighter warrior. I'll post an all level comparison by tomorrow tho. 

My mind is a deal-breaker.