D&D 5E Comparison/number-crunching time! -5/+10 feats: How much "too good" are they?

seebs · Jan 13, 2017

So I realized that I was overlooking a thing in evaluating the math on the -5/+10 feats: I was overlooking the opportunity cost. Which is to say: If you didn't get that feat, what would you get instead? So the comparison isn't between using a -5/+10 feat and not using it. It should be, at least fairly often, better to use it than not to use it.

I think the right comparison is probably against taking +2 to your attack stat. So it should be compared against +1/+1, probably. Because the feat comes at the cost of an ASI. I suppose that becomes less true if/when you get the stat to 20, but if your stat isn't 20 yet, the -5/+10 feat is coming at the expense of increasing that stat.

I still think the feats are pretty good, but it occurred to me that all the modeling I saw was assuming that the alternative was just "don't have that feat", rather than "have something else instead".

CapnZapp · Jan 13, 2017

Hooray, a new thread!

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

The Crimson Binome · Jan 14, 2017

seebs said:
I think the right comparison is probably against taking +2 to your attack stat. So it should be compared against +1/+1, probably. Because the feat comes at the cost of an ASI. I suppose that becomes less true if/when you get the stat to 20, but if your stat isn't 20 yet, the -5/+10 feat is coming at the expense of increasing that stat.

The big problem with feats, in general, is that they let you get better at a thing beyond just increasing your stat to 20. If a feat is the equivalent of +2 to the stat, then a character whose concept happens to match a feat can reach a pseudo-22 in that stat. If your concept uses two feats, then you can get a pseudo-24.

Comparing a fighter with Strength 16 and the GWM feat to a fighter with Strength 18 is not problematic, because there are tradeoffs involved; your attack and damage roll both suffer, in exchange for the option of sacrificing attack in order to increase damage.

The unbalancing aspect of feats is that they let you become better than someone who doesn't have feat support. The best fighter in a game with feats is at an effective +4 Strength over the best fighter in a game that doesn't use feats, or whose fighting style doesn't benefit from feats. The best fighter in a game with feats is also +4 to their main stat over the best rogue, who caps out at 20 Dex and can't boost that to a pseudo-22 or 24. Feats exacerbate the power differential between the haves and the have-nots.

Zardnaar · Jan 14, 2017

The main problem is that the -5/+10 feats and feats that grant extra attacks as a bonus action are better than the other feats.

Plaguescarred · Jan 14, 2017

There was, there is, and there will always be feats better than others as perfect balance isn't possible. But otherwise i think;

Ability Score Increase > Greatweapon Master/Sharpshooter > Other Feats

Yan
D&D Playtester

seebs · Jan 14, 2017

So I'm running a game, and so far I've seen two players take feats instead of ability score increases. Both took Observant. I think "better" is inherently contextual, and as it happens, while my game certainly involves combat, it also involves other things.

Caliban · Jan 14, 2017

seebs said:
So I'm running a game, and so far I've seen two players take feats instead of ability score increases. Both took Observant. I think "better" is inherently contextual, and as it happens, while my game certainly involves combat, it also involves other things.

Observant gives a big bonus (+5) to two different skills using two different stats - much bigger than the +1 bonus an ABI would have given to one of the skills. And if your Wisdom or Int stat was an odd number, you get that +5 bonus as well as the ABI bonus to that skill.

If you have an odd stat it's much better than an ABI.

Rhenny · Jan 14, 2017

seebs said:
So I'm running a game, and so far I've seen two players take feats instead of ability score increases. Both took Observant. I think "better" is inherently contextual, and as it happens, while my game certainly involves combat, it also involves other things.

I'm so with you on this. Context/situation/character concept/player play style are all in the mix. Because D&D mixes combat, interaction and exploration into adventure design, and people have different preferences, feats have to be varied to appeal to those different preferences. Some players and DM's grow bored of min/max combat centricism - one pc who has the acting feat (although weak in combat) might be able to influence more in a game session through disguise, performance and eloquence than the killing machine who has a lock on combat.

In some games, the pen can be mightier than the sword, and he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.

Nobody can quantify the value of any given feat to another individual player. Sure, not as many players choose actor or charger or skulked, etc, but for one person, one of those feats might fulfill the players character concept, enhance role play, or get more use because the DM provides more situations where the feat can make a difference.

AaronOfBarbaria · Jan 14, 2017

Plaguescarred said:
There was, there is, and there will always be feats better than others as perfect balance isn't possible. But otherwise i think;

Ability Score Increase > Greatweapon Master/Sharpshooter > Other Feats

Yan
D&D Playtester

I agree with you, but also want to add that which feats are or aren't "better" than others isn't just about the design of the feats - it is also heavily impacted by how the campaign is being run/played.

Because while Great Weapon Master might be the absolute best choice of feat for one campaign, Dungeon Delver might take that place in another, and Actor in another still.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

Ashkelon · Jan 14, 2017

I think 5e would have been much better if feats did not numerically enhance a characters combat potential. At least not directly. No -5/+10 feats. No feats that give you a garuanteed bonus action attack. Instead have feats that change how you actually play.

The Blade Dancer feat might give you the ability to move half your speed as a bonus action, move 10 feet as a reaction when an enemy misses you, and makes opportunity attacks against you suffer disadvantage.

The Steel Vanguard feat might cause the ground within 5 feet of you to count as difficult terrain for your enemies, allow you to mark an enemy you hit with a melee attack as a bonus action, and allow you to take any number of reactions each round (but still only one per turn).

The Mountain Hammer feat might cause your melee attacks to push enemies 5 feet, allow you to shove a creature you hit with a melee attack as a bonus action, and allow you to make an opportunity attack against any creature that successfully grapples you.

Those feats give the player new options in combat without resorting to boring numerical increases. If no feats gave numerical bonuses or bonus action attacks, there could be much more variety in other possible features feats could provide.