D&D (2024) So the Power Feats Got Nerfed!

[Willie the Duck]

Long time ago I identified the 5 strongest feats in 5E imho. They were.
Sharpshooter
Great Weapon Master
Healer
Warcaster
Resilient: constitution
...
So was Zardy right or wrong?

"strongest" is one of those things that, IMO, requires a lot of caveats and explanations. Let's instead talk about strong and then circle back to strongest.

• Sharpshooter and GWM are strong regardless of the value of the -5/+10 component -- ignoring cover and letting hand crossbows and the like be useful past 30' is a big deal. An extra attack after you drop a foe is also strong* . Adding in the -5/+10s, well, mathematically I think people have worked it out and it isn't as big a bonus as it seems. Even when you stack archery style and magic weapons and bless and such, you still miss on 25% of the attack rolls when you otherwise would have hit**, so the total average damage ends up being kinda on par with putting the ASI into the combat stat (so unless you are banking on gauntlets/belts/Etc. to boost your Str/Dex, probably wait until you've maxed out if this was the only reason you were taking the feat. Any side benefit you gain from the stat will overwhelm the damage difference).*note: there are optional "Cleaving through a creature" rules in the DMG which approximate this effect, but I don't know many people who use it or even know it exists. **unless your unmodified attack would hit on a 1 or less, in which case why not take a to-hit penalty?
• Healer is really good at what it tries to do -- allow a non-healer to (or already-healer to do without spending that other resource) do non-focused healing (fixed amount for everyone per short rest). If you have that one character (maybe the shieldless frontline barbarian who keeps reckless attacking with 2-handed weapons to try for the -5/+10 damage) that needs lots of healing and everyone else maybe needs none at all, someone with healing spells works better. If your group rarely runs out of hp or hp+hd by the time to long rest (which I supposedly happens for a lot of people who don't modify the recharge frequency rules), it may well be excessive as well. That said, if you need what it wants, it does it quite well. I suppose it has diminished since 2014 because the number of alternatives has expanded.
• Resilient:<stat> in general is a strong feat, especially for the saves that occur the most (Con, Dex, and Wis). Con has the added benefit of helping anyone who needs to concentrate on spells. I think exactly how strong that is depends on what you want to do with yourself. Cleric who wades into the frontline with Spirit Guardians or Paladin who casts bless before diving into combat head first (or arcane gish who uses shadow blade, and so on) probably want as many concentration boosters as they can. Side note: if you are a moon druid* or other caster who spends a lot of combat not using their casting stat for to-hits or save DCs, you almost may as well pick up resilient and war caster because why not? *worth noting: wild shape also specifies that "you retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so," so feats like resilient:con and war caster will be retained. Casters changing shape via polymorph do not share this benefit and lose both these feats in their new form.
• War Caster as well is great on a frontline caster-- and, as others have mentioned, if you want a weapon and shield in hand while also casting (and aren't a swords bard, certain warlocks, cleric with holy symbol on shield-and all spells desired have material components*), it jumps all the way up to build-necessary (which I've never quite decided where such things stand on strength scales). *if your DM enforces the full spellcasting focus rules.
• You mentioned PAM and CBE as being highly powerful but not as powerful as these. I think the 2014 versions of these are at least as powerful as GWM and SS... provided you have additional sources of damage which are per-attack and are in a campaign where preemptively selecting your weapons down to a specific subset isn't a problem. An 11th level paladin where the magic halberds (or quarterstaves, glad this is going away) have the same pluses as the greatswords or other options -- they are going to love another +1d4+1d8+stat+magic attack (and smite opportunity).

Ah my bad derp.

I missed that initially too. I imagine that page layout isn't the highest priority for a playtest document. Certainly wouldn't want the same setup on a finalized product.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wonder if -5/+10 will return as a general rule, tbh. Only weapon attacks or unarmed strikes.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wonder if -5/+10 will return as a general rule, tbh. Only weapon attacks or unarmed strikes.

The only version of "power attack" that's not broken is the 4E one (-2/+3) or maybe 3.0 (-1/+1).

 

[Zardnaar]

"strongest" is one of those things that, IMO, requires a lot of caveats and explanations. Let's instead talk about strong and then circle back to strongest.

• Sharpshooter and GWM are strong regardless of the value of the -5/+10 component -- ignoring cover and letting hand crossbows and the like be useful past 30' is a big deal. An extra attack after you drop a foe is also strong* . Adding in the -5/+10s, well, mathematically I think people have worked it out and it isn't as big a bonus as it seems. Even when you stack archery style and magic weapons and bless and such, you still miss on 25% of the attack rolls when you otherwise would have hit**, so the total average damage ends up being kinda on par with putting the ASI into the combat stat (so unless you are banking on gauntlets/belts/Etc. to boost your Str/Dex, probably wait until you've maxed out if this was the only reason you were taking the feat. Any side benefit you gain from the stat will overwhelm the damage difference).*note: there are optional "Cleaving through a creature" rules in the DMG which approximate this effect, but I don't know many people who use it or even know it exists. **unless your unmodified attack would hit on a 1 or less, in which case why not take a to-hit penalty?
• Healer is really good at what it tries to do -- allow a non-healer to (or already-healer to do without spending that other resource) do non-focused healing (fixed amount for everyone per short rest). If you have that one character (maybe the shieldless frontline barbarian who keeps reckless attacking with 2-handed weapons to try for the -5/+10 damage) that needs lots of healing and everyone else maybe needs none at all, someone with healing spells works better. If your group rarely runs out of hp or hp+hd by the time to long rest (which I supposedly happens for a lot of people who don't modify the recharge frequency rules), it may well be excessive as well. That said, if you need what it wants, it does it quite well. I suppose it has diminished since 2014 because the number of alternatives has expanded.
• Resilient:<stat> in general is a strong feat, especially for the saves that occur the most (Con, Dex, and Wis). Con has the added benefit of helping anyone who needs to concentrate on spells. I think exactly how strong that is depends on what you want to do with yourself. Cleric who wades into the frontline with Spirit Guardians or Paladin who casts bless before diving into combat head first (or arcane gish who uses shadow blade, and so on) probably want as many concentration boosters as they can. Side note: if you are a moon druid* or other caster who spends a lot of combat not using their casting stat for to-hits or save DCs, you almost may as well pick up resilient and war caster because why not? *worth noting: wild shape also specifies that "you retain the benefit of any features from your class, race, or other source and can use them if the new form is physically capable of doing so," so feats like resilient:con and war caster will be retained. Casters changing shape via polymorph do not share this benefit and lose both these feats in their new form.
• War Caster as well is great on a frontline caster-- and, as others have mentioned, if you want a weapon and shield in hand while also casting (and aren't a swords bard, certain warlocks, cleric with holy symbol on shield-and all spells desired have material components*), it jumps all the way up to build-necessary (which I've never quite decided where such things stand on strength scales). *if your DM enforces the full spellcasting focus rules.
• You mentioned PAM and CBE as being highly powerful but not as powerful as these. I think the 2014 versions of these are at least as powerful as GWM and SS... provided you have additional sources of damage which are per-attack and are in a campaign where preemptively selecting your weapons down to a specific subset isn't a problem. An 11th level paladin where the magic halberds (or quarterstaves, glad this is going away) have the same pluses as the greatswords or other options -- they are going to love another +1d4+1d8+stat+magic attack (and smite opportunity).

I missed that initially too. I imagine that page layout isn't the highest priority for a playtest document. Certainly wouldn't want the same setup on a finalized product.

Didn't matter if you miss 25% of the time.

One build we had if you missed 50% of the time you were still better off soaking up the -5 you still came out ahead in damage. And that assumes all 4 attacks hit.

4 attacks a round 1d6+5 damage. Potential damage 34

4 attacks a round 50% hit rate. 1d6+15 damage. 37 actual damage.

That was level 11 XBE+SS or level 5+ with haste. Or using action surge with 5/7 attacks.

Average AC in the MM is 14.5 apparently they also counted the most common saves and resistances. Poison damage is the weakest then fire.

 

[Charlaquin]

Adding in the -5/+10s, well, mathematically I think people have worked it out and it isn't as big a bonus as it seems. Even when you stack archery style and magic weapons and bless and such, you still miss on 25% of the attack rolls when you otherwise would have hit**, so the total average damage ends up being kinda on par with putting the ASI into the combat stat

That’s if you assume you use the -5/+10 on every attack. But since you choose whether to use it or not, you can only use it when doing so is to your advantage. There’s a simple formula to figure out if -5/+10 is a net increase to your expected damage value depending on your attack bonus and the target’s AC. But even if you don’t know the target’s AC (since a lot of DMs won’t give that information out for free), you can still get great use out of it with simple estimation. Is the enemy heavily armored or has thick scales or carapace? Probably don’t use the -5/+10, unless you have advantage. Is the enemy likely at low enough HP that you’ll kill it without the +10? Don’t bother. Otherwise, it’s safe to use most of the time.

 

[Zardnaar]

That’s if you assume you use the -5/+10 on every attack. But since you choose whether to use it or not, you can only use it when doing so is to your advantage. There’s a simple formula to figure out if -5/+10 is a net increase to your expected damage value depending on your attack bonus and the target’s AC. But even if you don’t know the target’s AC (since a lot of DMs won’t give that information out for free), you can still get great use out of it with simple estimation. Is the enemy heavily armored or has thick scales or carapace? Probably don’t use the -5/+10, unless you have advantage. Is the enemy likely at low enough HP that you’ll kill it without the +10? Don’t bother. Otherwise, it’s safe to use most of the time.

Or using the shield spell.

No set AC for me but something's like a dragon, chainmail or better+shield or the shield spell.

My friends AC number was 20 unless it was over that he would always use the -5 part. He and something like +14 to hit.

(4 or 5 proficiency, magic weapon, archery style, +5 dex).

If blessed or advantage he always used the -5 regardless.

 

[Willie the Duck]

Didn't matter if you miss 25% of the time.

It matters to the math calculations. Average damage times change of hit is average damage per attack.

One build we had if you missed 50% of the time you were still better off soaking up the -5 you still came out ahead in damage. And that assumes all 4 attacks hit.

Unless the damage varies between attacks (say halberd with PAM or 2wf), you can calculate it per-attack.

4 attacks a round 1d6+5 damage. Potential damage 34
4 attacks a round 50% hit rate. 1d6+15 damage. 37 actual damage.
Average AC in the MM is 14.5

Okay. If you have a 50% hit rate with -5/+10, you have a 75% change without. Average damage on 1d6+5 is 8.5. Without -5/+10 average DPS is 8.5 x .75 (+.05x3.5 for crit chance) = 6.6, with -5/+10 it is 9.4. You are correct, with damage at that point, SS/GWM nets you almost 3 damage (of course if you spent the same ASI on +2 Str/Dex, the it becomes 9.5 x0.8+.05x3.5= 7.8, so again unless the only thing you do with that stat is fight, the side benefits will likely override the 1.7 dmg difference). The issue becomes every time the base damage increases (magic pluses, sneak attack, flaming sword, rage, etc.), the relative value of the 10 extra damage compared to risk of missing with the primary damage goes down. Keeping the hit chances equal but now the attack is with a flaming greatsword (4d6+5, and extra 4d6 on a crit) and it becomes GWM for 29*.5+.05(14) =15.2 against 19x0.75+.05(14) = 15 (or 16 if you put it into str/dex, making it actually detrimental to do until after you've maxed out your combat stat).

apparently they also counted the most common saves and resistances. Poison damage is the weakest then fire.

I don't follow. Was this in relation to something I stated?

 

[Charlaquin]

Or using the shield spell.

No set AC for me but something's like a dragon, chainmail or better+shield or the shield spell.

My friends AC number was 20 unless it was over that he would always use the -5 part. He and something like +13 or 14 to hit.

Yeah, though personally I find it harder to guess if an opponent has shield prepared than it is to guess if they have high AC. Obviously if you see them use shield, don’t keep using -5/+10 because they effectively have high-AC.

 

[Willie the Duck]

That’s if you assume you use the -5/+10 on every attack. But since you choose whether to use it or not, you can only use it when doing so is to your advantage. There’s a simple formula to figure out if -5/+10 is a net increase to your expected damage value depending on your attack bonus and the target’s AC. But even if you don’t know the target’s AC (since a lot of DMs won’t give that information out for free), you can still get great use out of it with simple estimation. Is the enemy heavily armored or has thick scales or carapace? Probably don’t use the -5/+10, unless you have advantage. Is the enemy likely at low enough HP that you’ll kill it without the +10? Don’t bother. Otherwise, it’s safe to use most of the time.

Yes, there is a math to it, and it will all depend on both the chance to hit (advantage also changes the math), and how much damage you do without the extra 10 damage. It also depends on if you have something else positive to do with the ASI (such as contributing the the attack stat).

 

[Zardnaar]

It matters to the math calculations. Average damage times change of hit is average damage per attack.

Unless the damage varies between attacks (say halberd with PAM or 2wf), you can calculate it per-attack.

Okay. If you have a 50% hit rate with -5/+10, you have a 75% change without. Average damage on 1d6+5 is 8.5. Without -5/+10 average DPS is 8.5 x .75 (+.05x3.5 for crit chance) = 6.6, with -5/+10 it is 9.4. You are correct, with damage at that point, SS/GWM nets you almost 3 damage (of course if you spent the same ASI on +2 Str/Dex, the it becomes 9.5 x0.8+.05x3.5= 7.8, so again unless the only thing you do with that stat is fight, the side benefits will likely override the 1.7 dmg difference). The issue becomes every time the base damage increases (magic pluses, sneak attack, flaming sword, rage, etc.), the relative value of the 10 extra damage compared to risk of missing with the primary damage goes down. Keeping the hit chances equal but now the attack is with a flaming greatsword (4d6+5, and extra 4d6 on a crit) and it becomes GWM for 29*.5+.05(14) =15.2 against 19x0.75+.05(14) = 15 (or 16 if you put it into str/dex, making it actually detrimental to do until after you've maxed out your combat stat).


I don't follow. Was this in relation to something I stated?

I can't verify the 14.5 average AC in the MM but the source also gave the most common residences and saves.

All I know is ACs are generally low resistance to fire and poison is good and poison is fairly useless (most common save and resisted).

You're not gonna find a flaming greatsword in my games. Longswords sure or some love to spears for monks or whatever.

Same thing with ranged weapons at best you get a +1 and that's unlikely.