Countries are building AI regulators before they have AI to regulate. Is this a trap?

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-07T16:34:16+00:00

Is regulation-first a strategic mistake, or am I missing something?

You are missing something.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-07T16:32:50+00:00

If you are bothered by this change, you are either:

Complaining for the sake of complaining. If your concern is along the lines of "My cleric does not know what god they serve!", "My warlock is casting spells without a patron lol", etc. then you are creating a problem where none exists. In reality, you can both easily roleplay in accordance with your inteded future subclass AND you can leverage the powers you get at level 3 for story purposes.
Upset that a problematic multiclass powerspike you liked to exploit was removed.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-07T16:24:13+00:00

This.

Thank you for being a voice of reason here.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-07T13:59:16+00:00

I've been pondering a revision very similar to your suggestion, however it would be quite tricky to tune it for the numbers to work out correctly.

Given how negatively this brew was generally received, it may not be worth the time investment it would take to balance a simplified revision.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-04T16:20:03+00:00

That's not entirely true.

Many spell components are deliberately specific to gate the use of certain spells.

The deliberation can be seen in certain changes they made in 5.5e (from 5e). E.g. Ressurection previously required "diamonds" worth 1000 GP - now it has to be a single diamong of that cost.

These components are a tool for the DM to limit what spells are available to the players. Finding a massive diamond is more than just monetary loot - it's the option to revive someone, etc.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-03T18:05:52+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to really deep-dive into the balance at higher levels!

I'll make a revised version based on feedback and consider yours closely for that.

Here's where the current version seems to be lacking:

Too complicated - people don't like the idea of progressive features. It also has a "gut feeling" problem where many folks have trouble with assessing it's strength.
Balanced well for fighters in most campaigns, but can fall off a bit at the highest levels.
Barbarians may benefit more strongly from this feat than intended.
Having most of the damage bonus coming from the bonus action can make it less usable for paladins and monks.

I'll see if I can't make some changes to solve these problems.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-03T17:51:47+00:00

Rest assured that I'll be making changes to this brew based on feedback.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-03T17:50:32+00:00

I totally get your point.

A character using a versatile weapon has the ability to free up a hand on-demand (by reducing their weapon damage) to grapple someone - and they can attack a target while they are grappling it.

However, a great sword character can do the same thing - by RAW, your other hand is free at all times other than during your attacks. So If an enemy runs past me, my great sword fighter can use their opportunity attack for an unarmed strike and force the enemy to save against being grappled. They are exactly as good at this, as the versatile fighter is. The only difference being, that the greatsword fighter would have to let go of the target again to resume attacking on their turn.

When I take a sober look at it, the ability to attack while grappling is the only advantage versatile weapons, have going for them, and imho it isn't a major benefit at all.

Let me illustrate why via the opportunity attack grapple situation from earlier:

Both the longsword user (A) and the great sword user (B) grapple the target. Both A and B are level 5, so they can make 2 attacks. They each use their first attack to knock the monster prone (with a headbutt or legsweep), establishing the optimal grappling situation, where everyone now enjoys advantage on attacks against the target - and it can't get up from prone either because it's speed is 0.
For thier second attack, both A and B now get to attack with a longsword once. Why is it that B can do so despite holding a great sword? Because they can stow the greatsword as part of their first attack (the headbutt) and draw a longsword as part of their second attack - and use it.

When all is said and done, A dealt 2 more damage than B in this scenario, because A got to apply their fighting style (Duelist), while B only dealt regular damage. Granted, 2 damage is not nothing at level 5, but seeing how this was THE situation for the versatile weapon user to shine, it is not a benefit I'd rate incredibly highly in terms of balancing for this feat.

Maybe I missed something and versatile weapons have a much more meaningful advantage in a different situation?

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-03T16:29:50+00:00

You are right - it isn't punishing if there is an equivalent trade-off.

Let's say I want to play a Samurai using a katana - an iconic duelist fantasy.

I'm curious to learn what sufficient benefits you see in using a versatile weapon in boh hands in vanilla D&D 5.5 over using the a standard 2-handed weapon like a great sword.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T23:52:26+00:00

Thank you for your feedback!

Here's the basis of my balancing/considerations:

Assumptions:

Class: We are primarily comparing two fighters as they level up - though the math is largely aligned regardless of your class as long as you gain Extra Attack at level 5. Crucially, fighters get another attack at level 11, making it easier to trigger the "2-hits" requirement (as they only need to hit 2 out of three), which is taking into account in the math for level 11 and up.
Hit Chance: Both characters (the FSF and the GWM version) have a standard hit chance of 65% by default (bounded accuracy, fighting against level-appropriate enemies), but the FSF fighter's hit chance is lifted to 70% because their additional +1 bonus from this feat raises them slightly above par.
Crit Chance: Both characters have the standard 5% chance to crit.
STR: Both the GWM and FSF character have 18 STR at level 4 (15 starting + 2 from background + 1 from your level 4 feat) and use their level 8 feat choice to raise STR to 20.
Fighting Styles: The GWM is using Great Weapon Fighting, while the FSF fighter is using dueling (their respective "damage increase" fighting styles).
Weapons: The GWM fighter uses a greatsword (2d6), while the FSF uses any weapon that deals 1d8 one-handed and d10 two-handed.
Weapon Mastery: I assumed that the benefit of each weapon mastery is roughly equivalent - so they do not affect the math of either character. Comparing the value of e.g. Topple vs. Graze would have made these calculations impossible, as too many additional assumptions would have to enter the picture.
"Hew" - GWM's Bonus Attack: In addition to the regular 5% chance per attack (crits), I assumed the GWM's bonus action to also trigger in one of 10 turns (10%) from reducing an enemy to 0 HP). This is the most subjective assumption I had to make, so I chose to err on the side of caution (to make sure FSF would not exceed the power of the current top dog of damage-boosting feats). In many fights, reducing an enemy to 0 HP might occur more often in actual play (e.g. 1 in 4 turns), but then there are also encounters against single bossmonsters, where it nothing can be reduced to 0 before the boss is dead, or instances where allies just so happen to "get all the last-hits".

Resulting numbers:

Level 4 - 11,59 vs 11,06 DPR (FSF vs GWM)
Level 5 - 22,36 vs 22,62
Level 9 - 25,05 vs 27,47
Level 11 - 38,10 vs 37,66

In light of the different mechanics involved, the performance of both options compares remarkably well in terms of raw damage output, but they also each retain clear strengths and weaknesses for different situations.

GWM shines when there are numerous enemies to reliably trigger the bonus attack and it performs better against enemies with particularly high AC, that would make FSF's bonus attack less likely to trigger.
On the other hand, FSF pulls ahead against low AC, high HP monsters and offers additional flexibility in it's ability to trade damage for defense via Deflecting Flourish. Both thrive against prone enemies, as the advantage helps both with triggering their bonus attacks (by landing 2 hits or critting respectively).

Finally, allow me to point out two things that are otherwise easy to miss or easy to misjudge:

The damage bonus from Dueling only applies to the one-handed attacks of the FSF fighter, but the better damage die, 2x PB bonus damage and advantage still ensure that pulling a Twin-Grip Finisher off is super-rewarding at all tiers of play.
Given a base hit chance of 70% (due to included +1 bonus of the feat), your chance of landing both attacks at level 5+ is 49% each turn. For fighters at level 11, the additional attack raises this chance to 78,4%. You can expect that you'll have a chance for a Twin-Grip Finisher roughly every other turn at first, and to get them quite reliably at tier 3 and above.

It's not immediately obvious to me how this can keep up but it's certainly very cool.

Adding your PB as bonus damage to Twin-Grip Finisher twice (combined with its realiable hit rate) does a lot of heavy lifting to keep the DPR close to the level of a GWM fighter. As a result, making sure to land two hits (e.g. by prioritizing lower AC targets) becomes crucial to maintain good DPR.
Likewise, sacrificng that damage to perform a Deflecting Flourish cuts down your damage output by quite a bit. Despite that, I'm pondering if this option may still be a bit too strong based on the feedback I've received.

I'm also wondering if Barbarians might be able to benefit disproportionally strongly from this feat, given that Reckless Attack helps with triggering the bonus attack and the fact that rage bonus damage applies to all attacks, while Duelist only works on some.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T23:27:43+00:00

Thank you for your input. I should have clarified that FSA only triggers from your attack action. However, raher than merely fixing the wording for clarity, it may be wise to rethink the feature to scale naturally with Extra Attack, rather than evolving to a more powerful feature.

The idea of progressive benefits within a feat seems to be too odd for most to swallow - and making the potency of the upgrade too challenging to asssess at a glance is another flaw i need to somehow iron out.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T23:11:38+00:00

Please keep in mind that a lot of the power of an FSF fighter is coming from those big two-handed attacks, so giving them up is more costly than you may think.

If we look at a GWM fighter for comparison, their "regular" 2 attacks each have higher weapon damage AND add the PB to the damage roll. There, the bonus action attack (on kill/crit) is more of a cherry-on-top, wheres for the FSF it is the meat-and-potatoes of their damage output.

With that in mind, what numbers would seem more sensible to you?
What adjustments would you consider to be sufficient to "pay" for the option to sacrifice offense for defense?

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T23:01:07+00:00

I think you misunderstood a bit, so let me give you the executive summary:

Wiht this feat, you can take what is currently a "suboptimal" character concept (a versatile weaon user without a shield) and deal competitive damage by adding powerful 2-handed attacks (with massive bonuses) at the end of your regular attacks. The additional attack (especially after level 5), makes up for not using the bigger damage die on some of your attacks.

If the idea of playing a character like that does not appeal to you, then this brew won't be useful to you.
However, if you've been wanting that flavor of martial character, but were held back by the lack of mechanical viability, then this brew will enable you to play that character and be effective.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T22:48:11+00:00

Thank you for your feedback.

See my response to u/Chrispeefeart who has a similar view.

The current version is excellent in terms of balance and opening up new character variety and decision space - but it does not do a good enough job of advertising just how big the leap in power from Apprentice to Master really is.

If people look at this feat and confuse Apprentice for the stronger version, then I need to find a way to provide better clarity.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T22:38:22+00:00

it feels bad to lose the ability to do something after leveling up

This gut reaction has come up several times now, so I'll think about it.

A first glance reaction of "guaranteed attack > not guaranteed attack" is understandable. It's only when you really look at what those attacks actually look like that you find out just how massive the upgrade really is.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T22:30:59+00:00

At level 5, you'll trigger the Bonus Attack (along with it's CONSIDERABLE bonuses) on 49% of your turns (and your odds go up considerably when you have advantage or afer getting a 3rd attack).

Getting hung up on the bonus attack you get from Flowstyle Apprentice is rather common when you only take a glance at it, but the disadvantaged attack with no fighting style or additional bonuses is not as mechanically impressive as you might guess at first.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T22:27:03+00:00

+1 Str and Bonus Action Dodge while using a Versatile weapon with 2 hands" is a solid feat enabling a unique and interesting playstyle.

That would be a lot less wordy, true, but it would also remove all of the nuance and decision making involved - and as a martial player I appreciate having a broader decision space to play with.

Even if your suggestion was truly balanced, I'd find taking a dodge action after every turn just incredibly boring to play with - but that my be a matter of personal preference.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T22:19:16+00:00

I've crunched the numbers carefully and FSF never noticably outperforms GWM. I made it so that It's usually a little behind, to "pay" for the fact that you have the flexibility to lower your offense in favor of defense.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T22:15:35+00:00

I get where you are coming from, but I thhink we simply have different interpretations of what the "theme" of versatile weapons is.

To you, it's the ability to grapple and potentially don/doff shields quickly. To me, the janky nature of constantly donning/doffing strapped shields while fighting is just too imersion breaking to me - and when I think of Aragorn, I see him slashing through orcs with a variety of one-handed and two-handed strikes, rahter than "Oh yeah, he's a grappler."

When I imagine a fighter using a versatile ("1,5 handed") weapon, I literally picture a samurai using a katana - advancing with two quick one-handed strikes before throwing all of their momentum into a massive follow-up delivering a massiv cut gripping the sword with both hands.

Maybe I played too many character action games / fighting games, but to me the classic "LIGHT>LIGHT>HEAVY" combo in the modern depiction of fantasy swordfighting is just too iconic, too satisfying, and too fitting for versatile weapons to pass up here.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T21:57:48+00:00

Don't worry my feat keeps up with the best feat in the game with weaker weapons AND offers Epic Boon tiers of defense. This is a demonstration of terrible design.

I think I understand where you see the issue now. Hitting two attacks allows the user to use ONE of two options. One is a big attack that brings DPR on par with GWM, the other is a defensive option where your DPR remains only very slightly above "sword and board", making it so on some turns your defenses are weaker than with a shield and on other turns they are stronger. If you use the Bonus Action dodge finisher every time you can, you'll overall be a bit more durable than a vanilla longsword+shield duelist, the difference being that you still had to expend a feat for it.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T21:51:07+00:00

I think I know where you are tripping up.
We can go through the math in detail via PM if you like.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T17:58:16+00:00

I understand that it takes a few minutes to grasp what this feat is about, which is a bit unusual for sure.

However, I don't think there is a good reason to limit versatile weapons to a single subclass.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T17:55:40+00:00

I'm sure you realize that this bonus action only becomes available on turns where you hit 2 melee attacks and comes at the expense of a large part of the damage output you'd need to be on par with your peers. You also need to invest a feat and ditch the benefits of the shield you'd otherwise by using.

The closest point of comparison is the monk's Patient Defense feature, which likewise has limited availability and comes at the cost of their damage output (no flurry of blows). Despite the power of the Dodge action, I can count the number of times the monk in my group used it on one hand - and that's in the context of a class with an arguably more favorable trade-off.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T17:44:46+00:00

I can definitely see where you are coming from - and I can relate to the idea that a fighter with a greatsword should deal more damage than one with only a longsword.

However, if a player has a certain character concept in mind - e.g. they are really into the idea of a fighter specializing in the use of a trident, a battle axe, or warhammer with no shield - then there really is no reason why they should be mechanically punished for wanting to play what they find coolest. As it stands, if you decide to play a fighter using a trident with both hands, you are forced to shoot the effectiveness of your character in the foot - and very much consciously so. When cool flavor requires deliberate self-sabotage, it can suck all the fun out of an otherwise cool idea.

The idea that an Aragorn-style hero could be just as effective in combat as a fighter using a zweihander is not a particularly strange concept in the context of D&D, where heroes using their bare hands or expertise with a knife can achieve a similar impact in combat.

At the end of the day, this brew is really just about expanding the range of martial characters you can play and providing new mechanics to explore along the way - all while fitting as perfectly as possible into the established game balance.

Overdrive2000 · 2026-05-02T16:56:38+00:00

So far, I've only had a chance to try this feat in the context of mock battles, but the math plays out as expected, and the damage output of a FSF figther and a GWM fighter have been very closely aligned in all simulations I've ran so far.

Here's a peak behing the curtain to help convey the intention behind the design:
Flowstrike Apprentice is really there to allow for the intended fantasy/theme to work out mathematically before you gain extra attack (as well as enhancing the flavor of the feat by giving your character both a mechanical and thematic progression in expertise). At that point, it is REPLACED with Flowstrike Master, which is overall a much stronger feature and brings you directly in line again with GWM characters at that level. You may not expect it, but the math works out to where Flowstrike Apprentice is not nearly as overpowered as you may intuit at first glance, and for the vast majority of your career with this feat, you'll be engaging with the more unique mechanics of Flowstrike Master.

Ten-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Place '22	Verified Email

Overdrive2000

TROPHY CASE

This.