D&D 5E When -5/+10 starts becoming Very Reliable?

[FrogReaver]

There is no opportunity cost in dpr at level 12. You can have max stat and gwf

Run the numbers again, giving the non GWM fighter +1 to hit and damage (the opportunity cost for the GWM feat).

Also; when you factor in magic weapon damage, it gets even less attractive an option (just like it becomes a less attractive option for rogues with sharpshooter - youd rather land a sneak attack of +10d6 than risk missing with a sneak attack +10d6+10

 

[Flamestrike]

There is no opportunity cost in dpr at level 12. You can have max stat and gwf

There still is an opportunity cost though. Your non GWM fighter in the party is instead Alert (going first and ignoring surprise) or takes HAM (turning that 2-5 point damage increase per attack into a 3 point damage reduction the other way).

The argument with GWM is 'Hey look I get a damage boost!'. The counter argument is - 'Yeah sure, but with hit point inflation of critters in 5E, and the opportunity cost of doing it including the importance of stats - particularly with respect to saves at high level - its really not that big a deal'.

GWM i dont mind that much. I do have slight problems with sharpshooter however.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sure. But alert doesn't add damage. So adding +1 hit and damage doesn't really work for the comparison.

There still is an opportunity cost though. Your non GWM fighter in the party is instead Alert (going first and ignoring surprise) or takes HAM (turning that 2-5 point damage increase per attack into a 3 point damage reduction the other way).

The argument with GWM is 'Hey look I get a damage boost!'. The counter argument is - 'Yeah sure, but with hit point inflation of critters in 5E, and the opportunity cost of doing it including the importance of stats - particularly with respect to saves at high level - its really not that big a deal'.

GWM i dont mind that much. I do have slight problems with sharpshooter however.

 

[ccs]

You shouldn't need to change too much. The damage increase is only about 1-2 hp more per hit on average. In fact giving out a +1 or +2 weapon can have more of an effect than using this feat. I wouldn't compound the issue by doing both though

Hm, no. The damage increase will be exactly +10 (on top of however much weapon + str + ? Yields).
But this isn't really a negative of any sort. The players WANT to do big damage, consistantly. All I need to do is plan combat encounters keeping this in mind. (Mostly all this will entail is increasing/maxing HP so that everyone gets a chance to wack the monsters a few times. And increase the #s of weaker foes so cleaving through them doesn't end things too fast.) But planning encounters with the parties capabilities in mind is something a DM should be doing regardless.
Those who complain about this feat? They (or thier DMs) don't plan accordingly. Or they're ranting in a vacum.

As for "compounding the issue" with +weapons? There is no issue. My games can withstand alot of magic. Be that in the form of mere +s all the way up to WISH (yes, with capitol letters).

 

[Ancalagon]

Hm, no. The damage increase will be exactly +10 (on top of however much weapon + str + ? Yields).

*rubs temple*

A: Not all attacks will hit
B: The feat reduces chances to hit when used
C: Therefore, the actual damage increase is less than 10 - more like 1-4.

If you don't believe me, do the math. Or read the thread.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hm, no. The damage increase will be exactly +10 (on top of however much weapon + str + ? Yields).

He's talking about overall DPR.

Remember, your expected damage in a round is the sum of [(hit probability %) x (average damage on a hit)]

 

[Kusodareka]

Thanks for the thread and all the comments and arithmetic. I did a lot of this for Power Attack in 3.x. After reading everything I am inclined to allow both feats, but I might disallow Sharpshooter. Anyway, thanks for all the comments.

 

[CapnZapp]

*rubs temple*

A: Not all attacks will hit
B: The feat reduces chances to hit when used
C: Therefore, the actual damage increase is less than 10 - more like 1-4.

If you don't believe me, do the math. Or read the thread.

No, because you're averaging out all the times you're not getting the bonus with the times you do.

And that's not a useful statistic,plain and simple.

The feat's massive power lies in giving you an unprecedented +10 bonus to damage for SOME fights. That's the huge spike in "spotlight time" you can't get any other way.

The fact you aren't using it all the time is irrelevant.

You can't even say you're back -1 to damage (and further back because -1 to attacks), because you can still have Strength 20!

 

[CapnZapp]

He's talking about overall DPR.

Remember, your expected damage in a round is the sum of [(hit probability %) x (average damage on a hit)]

Remember, nobody is talking about overall DPR.

Unless you're actively trying to hide the feat's true strength. But why would you do that? WotC should be able to defend their design choices by themselves, they don't need anyone spending time defending their every choice.

 

[Ancalagon]

No, because you're averaging out all the times you're not getting the bonus with the times you do.

And that's not a useful statistic,plain and simple.

The feat's massive power lies in giving you an unprecedented +10 bonus to damage for SOME fights. That's the huge spike in "spotlight time" you can't get any other way.

The fact you aren't using it all the time is irrelevant.

You can't even say you're back -1 to damage (and further back because -1 to attacks), because you can still have Strength 20!

And you, by saying it gives you +10 bonus to his, are hiding the fact that it reduces your chances to hit! That's why we have to do the math!

And then you are going to say "but that penalty to hit is easily negated!

And then I'll say "go read my first post again. My math takes that into account".

*temple rubbing intensifies*

(I never claimed that the feat usage was mandatory, I'm well aware that you can choose to use it vs some opponents and not other btw)