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

By similar reasoning, Sharpshooter has a wildly different value depending on whether it is taken by a paladin with Dex 8 or a Dex-based Ranger.... (In other words, I think it is pretty obvious that we're talking about choosing Dex+2 for a character who actually uses Dexterity versus taking Sharpshooter for a character who actually wants to use some kind of bow.)
Er, right? So are we only comparing absolute best-case scenarios, then? Like comparing GWM against +2 Strength for a barbarian? Because the number of feats which operate at that level is pretty small. Most of the feats that are currently good enough to take, for a character who actually wants them, are still going to rank behind +2 to a primary stat and ahead of +2 to a secondary stat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

CapnZapp

Legend
This analysis from last month found that, contrary to some peoples' intuition, Crossbow Expert + Sharpshooter is not the optimal build for fighting in a cage match, despite its high DPR. Defensive Duelist proved to be superior for killing (simplified, spell-less) Slaads and Earth Elementals. Heavy Armor Master is also excellent in a variety of situations.

The real advantage of Sharpshooter is that it has a much wider niche than the average feat (applies to almost any combat, so it impacts almost a full third of the game); but it doesn't dominate other feats within their niche (many of which are also combat-oriented). It is not easy to determine which feat is the "best"; all that can be said with confidence is that there are a number of very attractive feats competing with each other.
Sorry for barging in like this, but since you keep bringing up that thred...

I didn't read the thread, since I thought it irrelevant to put a build largely dependant on range and mobility in a cage. Of course it can't come out ahead if you cut off its ability to switch targets, and its ability to (ahem) take advantage of advantage (presumably provided by somebody else), or its unsurpassed ability to focus fire on the "right" target every round.

To properly value the first part, you need to have an actual battlefield with several foes, somewhat spread out to mimic an actual combat scenario - any time the melee builds can't reach a new foe in time (and thus wastes an attack, i.e. automatically has its avg DPR set to zero for that attack), that heavily favors ranged builds. That, in turn, requires you to also put other ranged builds into the equation, so you can have them lose efficiency whenever you're "trapped" in melee with a foe (something the CE/SS build isn't susceptible to).

For the second part, you can assume "generic advantage" that just drops on a major monster (to simulate the actions of allies). Regardless, getting to shoot at monsters that are stunned, held or otherwise "at disadvantage" is a significant help in lowering the AC threshold to a point where -5/+10 really starts to pull away.

For the third part, you would need to compare various parties against each other (and not just one on one deathmatches), and specifically include at least one lineup where everybody in Team Heroes can project force at range (including our crossbow sharpshooter). This should lead you to a valuation of the team's ability to take out just the right target each round - perhaps the one about to pull a lever or otherwise needs to Die Right Now, or the one wounded and therefore the perfect candidate for Team Monster culling, or whatever. Do note that having two crossbow sharpshooters work beautifully together together, since they can tank too (by virtue of being Battlemaster Fighters), making a note of how this party composition doesn't mean you lose anything significant from your party's repertoire.

---

But as I said, I haven't read the thread, so if those variables are taken into proper account, I instead laud you for it, and I shall have to read the thread to find out how Defensive Duelist still managed to came out ahead.
 

@CapnZapp, I agree that more complicated, multi-PC sims are more enlightening than cage matches. I was making a narrow point about counterintuitive results, but I agree that ranged weapons are very strong in 5E and that Sharpshooter is a must-have feat for any sane archer fighter; I have every intention of making a more sophisticated simulator that can measure the effect of various tactics in numerous party configurations against various monsters/terrains--but I can't do it tonight because I'm busy playing D&D with some friends.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
@CapnZapp, I agree that more complicated, multi-PC sims are more enlightening than cage matches. I was making a narrow point about counterintuitive results, but I agree that ranged weapons are very strong in 5E and that Sharpshooter is a must-have feat for any sane archer fighter; I have every intention of making a more sophisticated simulator that can measure the effect of various tactics in numerous party configurations against various monsters/terrains--but I can't do it tonight because I'm busy playing D&D with some friends.
Thank you. I was merely triggered by the claim Defensive Duelist being better than CE/SS. Glad you aren't making that claim in general.

Have a fun game night, and please don't make any simulations for my sake. I'm actually fairly convinced they're mostly a waste of time, since they never seem to capture the game reality of those you wish to persuade.

Cheers,
 

pemerton

Legend
[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] - one benefit of DPR-focused buiilds compared to defensive/grappling-type builds is that, by defeating foes in fewer rounds, they make the combat take less time in real life, at the table.

At some tables that is probably an advantage of DPR; not necessarily at all. But I suspect there are few or no tables where making combat take longer is considered a benefit in an of itself.
 

@Hemlock - one benefit of DPR-focused buiilds compared to defensive/grappling-type builds is that, by defeating foes in fewer rounds, they make the combat take less time in real life, at the table.

At some tables that is probably an advantage of DPR; not necessarily at all. But I suspect there are few or no tables where making combat take longer is considered a benefit in an of itself.

This doesn't seem to be true in my experience. My experience is that the time a fight takes is roughly proportional to the complexity of the fight, not the length of the fight; more decisions and harder decisions = longer fights. (Also more interesting fights IMO.)

My experience is that putting an enemy at a severe disadvantage tends to actually speed up the fight by reducing the difficulty and complexity of subsequent decisions. The extra die rolling is a mere bagatelle.

IMO, the tradeoff between offense and defensive in 5E is that offense allows you to project power to protect others, including unwise/un-tactical PCs and NPCs. You can save a hundred villagers by killing all the orcs quickly enough, regardless of what those villagers are doing. The downside is that overly offense-focused strategies are very brittle and tend to fall to pieces when the opposition scales up, e.g. if there are twice as many orcs in the fight as you are expecting. (This wouldn't be true of a game other than 5E--you can certainly design games where offense and defense are equally-robust strategies.)
 
Last edited:

LapBandit

First Post
I turned Archery Style to ignores 1/2 cover and Sharpshooter into a half-feat that ups your cover ignoring ability. 1/2 becomes 3/4, 1/2 becomes 3/4.

If you are willing to melee without a shield (GWM or dual wield), I reward you.
 

Shiroiken

Legend
Working as intended for low levels doesn't excuse working poorly for high levels. You could always give other races the human option, and let them sacrifice their bad stats for a feat. And you would still have the option, if you really thought a particular feat was worth it.

Alternatively, you could have feats reduce your maximum scores. If Great Weapon Master came with the penalty of reducing your maximum potential Strength to 18, that would solve a lot.
My current campaign is level 14, and the variant human paladin (who you would probable consider a prime offender of the system) has Polearm Master, Great Weapon Fighting, Inspiring Leader... and an 18 Strength. The Sorceress and Bard both have a 20 Charisma; the Sorceress has Elemental Adept (fire) and Magic Initiate (Warlock), while the Bard has Magic Initiate (Sorcerer) and has raised Wisdom. With the exception of Polearm master (which was taken at level 1 as a focus for the character design), each of these Feats was pondered before chosen (and as noted, the Bard choose to raise a secondary ability rather than take a Feat). This really feels like working as intended to me.

Have your experiences been different?
 

Remove ads

Top