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

[Celtavian]

They're optional feats. Only thing people need to know is that if you allow them into your game, be ready for the damage spike.

Sharpshooter isn't as good as it is because of the -5/+10 damage mechanic. If that were all it gave, the feat would be fine. Sharpshooter is great because it negates all penalties for range and cover making it so a person can shoot from any distance he can see through anything less than full cover without any penalty. This severely limits a DM's ability to use tactics such as quality cover to provide enemies with bonuses. This is why Sharpshooter is such a ridiculously good feat. It gives so much and all of it is immensely useful and easy to use.

 

[Xeviat]

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.

I'd agree if and only if feats didn't cost your ability score increases. Because they do, they need to be as valuable as a +2 to your primary stat. It's nice to have a metric to put them against. It's tough to balance them all to that metric.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ashkelon]

I'd agree if and only if feats didn't cost your ability score increases. Because they do, they need to be as valuable as a +2 to your primary stat. It's nice to have a metric to put them against. It's tough to balance them all to that metric.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Totally agreed. My ideal 5e would not have tied feats and ASIs together at all. Perhaps if Ability scores increased by +1 to an ability score of choice every 4 character levels and current ASIs were used only for feats.

Or maybe if all feats had a +1 to one ability score + some other effect. That way the choice would be between +2 to a single ability score or +1 to an ability score and some other feature.

 

[mellored]

If you only look at just damage. Sharpshooter/crossbow expertise > dex.
However, Dex also gives +1 AC, +1 intitive, +1 dex saves, +1 skills.
Healer and Inspiring leader are also great feats.


Overall I would say...

healer = inspiring leader = sharpshooter = crossbow expert = polearm master = +2 attribute > great weaopn master > other feats >>> charger.

 

[Shiroiken]

The problem with the -5/+10 Feats isn't that they're too good; it's that many other Feats aren't good enough! I find the balance of these Feats well in line with +2 to Primary Ability, while there are too many that are well below (especially ones that grant proficiency which can be gained with Downtime).

The other downside I see to these Feats is that there is no equivalent to other fighting styles. Shield Master and Two Weapon Fighting come off as decent Feats for those fighting styles, but they don't compare to -5/+10 (since DPR is an easy yardstick to use). If either they granted some method to -5/+10 (or a way to undo the benefit of an opponent using it), these would be fine. If only GWF gained this benefit, it would be fine as well, since that really fits the feel of Heavy Weapons. I would rather have seen Sharpshooter have the following "When you make a Ranged Attack that doesn't have Disadvantage, you may choose to make 2 Ranged Attacks at Disadvantage instead (once per Attack)."

 

[CapnZapp]

They're optional feats. Only thing people need to know is that if you allow them into your game, be ready for the damage spike.

This is so easy to say. But the truth is that without feats, 5e is simply not crunchy enough.

I don't want to be "ready for the damage spike". Far better if the very few feats that contribute mostly to this were scaled back or changed or outright removed.

Feats are good. But some feats are not. I don't want to ban all feats because some aren't designed well.

So, no, that's not something I "need to know". I want and expect better from WotC.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem with the -5/+10 Feats isn't that they're too good; it's that many other Feats aren't good enough!

I understand this in the context of an immediate sentiment.

But in the longer run; if monsters are calibrated for a feat-less game, feats absolutely wreck the monsters (and the encounter guidelines).

I want customizability, options, flexibility and complexity out of feats.

But I don't want outright power and DPR out of them. Yes, a more complex and flexible character is more powerful in general, and nothing wrong with that; but now I mean the direct and immediate combat capacity comparisons.

In my ideal world, feats are used to add layers and subsystems to the simple basic game without, for instance, outright doubling the DPR and thus changing the difficulty of monsters and adventures.

The purpose of feats isn't (shouldn't be) to make the game easier. It should be to add more decision points to character building aka "crunch" (as well as enabling character concepts that might not be well supported by the base rules).

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Far better if the very few feats that contribute mostly to this were scaled back or changed or outright removed.

Then "outright remove" them at your table? You sound like you are saying, with the bolded portion, that because you don't like how something works that those of us that do like it shouldn't have.

Meanwhile, you are the one deciding which optional content to use for your own game, so you can do like most people do and simply not choose to use options that you don't like.

 

[CapnZapp]

Then "outright remove" them at your table? You sound like you are saying, with the bolded portion, that because you don't like how something works that those of us that do like it shouldn't have.

Meanwhile, you are the one deciding which optional content to use for your own game, so you can do like most people do and simply not choose to use options that you don't like.

I'm saying I would have preferred not to have to do that: to scale back, change or remove individual feats.

More generally, I'm saying I would have preferred if feats added breadth and depth to character building but without outclassing featless characters in key performance areas, most notably DPR.

Stop reading anything else into my posts. I am never saying anything about you, or "those of us" that you feel you must champion. Thank you.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm saying I would have preferred not to have to do that: to scale back, change or remove individual feats.

Alright. That is a fine thing to say, and is very clear in this sentence.

The earlier sentence which I quoted, however, is less clear - it doesn't include any words which clue the reader in to the subjective nature of the claim, and is when read literally a much broader claim than just apply to you and your own preference.

Because "Far better if..." and "I would have preferred..." aren't synonymous phrases.

Please excuse my confusion.