D&D 5E Precision Attack + SS + CBE is like +2d6 sword

[FrogReaver]

The title says it all. The closest comparison I can find to this feat combo is that you need a +2d6 damage sword from level 4+ to stay near the damage of a similar fighter using Precision Attack + SS + CBE.

Let that sink in a minute!

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Hence my doubt that anyone allowing feats in their game is actually concerned with balance at all, since they could trivially avoid that problem (and similar ones) by simply not adding the feats module.

 

[Ancalagon]

Ranged is king in 5e, esp with feats involved. In my campaign I was lucky that our most powerful "ranged" combatant was the warlock with eldrich blast + Ag+hex.

Easy fix: Feast-less game, dex does damage. Game with feats; dex damage is removed from ranged attacks. If you want to do damage with stats on ranged attacks you need high dex (for accuracy) and high strength. Of course, a skilled archer could take feats to make their ranged attacks more dangerous (or magic etc )

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I limit dex to ranged attack damage to 30 ft. So even if the ranged attacker does a lot of damage, melee attackers at least have a chance to get into range to do their damage.

 

[FrogReaver]

Ranged is king in 5e, esp with feats involved. In my campaign I was lucky that our most powerful "ranged" combatant was the warlock with eldrich blast + Ag+hex.

I don't think ranged is king. But this thread really isn't about that - it's about the damage provided by those 2 feats being similar to a melee combatant holding a +2d6 sword.

Easy fix: Feast-less game, dex does damage. Game with feats; dex damage is removed from ranged attacks. If you want to do damage with stats on ranged attacks you need high dex (for accuracy) and high strength. Of course, a skilled archer could take feats to make their ranged attacks more dangerous (or magic etc )

Thats a terrible proposal IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hence my doubt that anyone allowing feats in their game is actually concerned with balance at all, since they could trivially avoid that problem (and similar ones) by simply not adding the feats module.

Yea, I don't think many people realize just how big a damage advantage it is. That's what this thread was about - putting the damage comparison into terms that can easily be understood.

That said, one could argue that feats boost fighters damage enough such that there might actually be a reason to take a fighter over other classes That is the feats are enough to actually make fighters the king of damage (which is one way that's been argued to balance them out against other classes).

I think my biggest problem in the typically played range for me is variant humans and not the feats themselves. The variant human feat is a significant damage upgrade to any warrior class (except monk). At least in levels where you have to decide between +str or +dex or feat it's an interesting choice.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think a lot of the feats are good - but not quite as good as some people think, because they forget the opportunity cost - if you take feat A, you can't take an ASI or another feat.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think a lot of the feats are good - but not quite as good as some people think, because they forget the opportunity cost - if you take feat A, you can't take an ASI or another feat.

Those 2 feats I just listed are worth a combined +2d6 damage with the opportunity costs factored in!

To me that shows feats are better than most people think, because I don't think anyone thought those were like a +2d6 weapon.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think a lot of the feats are good - but not quite as good as some people think, because they forget the opportunity cost - if you take feat A, you can't take an ASI or another feat.

Ability score improvements have ridiculously diminishing returns, once your prime stat is at 20. That's why feats break the math. The power of a feat is nominally balanced against +2 in your prime stat, but the opportunity cost is just +2 to a non-prime stat...

...assuming there even exists any feat for your concept. If you're playing a character concept that doesn't have a supporting feat on par with +2 to your prime stat, then you just fall behind, because everyone else is walking around with an effective 24 Dexterity and you're capped it 20. It's just awful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Those 2 feats I just listed are worth a combined +2d6 damage with the opportunity costs factored in!

To me that shows feats are better than most people think, because I don't think anyone thought those were like a +2d6 weapon.

Yes. The combination of those feats are a bit much and yes, an unsupported fighting style falls off a bit. Still in our games we never felt the need to take such a feat. Probably in parts because something different was more interesting (broadness vs specialization, the damage dealt was always enough), maybe, becauae we never reached a level where it actually was a concern.

On the other hand, the battlemaster fighter is a feat specialist and precisision strike enables him to make best use of the given feats. Compared to spellcasters I would be hesitant to nerf a fighter who really wants to specialize in a very narrow fighting style.

I hope Tasha's guide will have some options for other relatively unsupported styles. I am thinking of versatile weapons and one handed weapons.