D&D 5E I Told Ya So 2014!! (or not)

[The Human Target]

You were definitely the only one.

Congratulations!

 

[FrogReaver]

Well 5E has plenty of ways to do that or grant advantage. Natural spell is fine, might have problems when you use it with a Druid.

Most ways to grant advantage end up granting disadvantage to a number of allies. Kind of interferes with the typically optimal focus fire tactic.

 

[Celtavian]

Wait a minute. What am I doing? We've discussed this topic to death. Must stop responding.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Its more than half a dozen popel though.

Not by any degree not covered by my statement of "or so".

The -5/+10 fetas are coming up in mulitple forums by multiple posters and they are in various char op type guides here on ENworld.

I've seen the conversations and the posters bringing them up in multiple forums, that is the information upon which my earlier statement that it really isn't that many people was based.

And something being in a char-op guide has no inherent relationship to whether that thing is or is not "OP".

Bards were never really bad

I didn't say they were.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

A bunch of folks seem to think it is fine. I do wonder how many are seeing these feats continuously.

For the sake of clarity, I need to be sure that everyone knows I've seen the feat in play at my own table.

But because I use a wide enough variety of enemies and situations that the AC of the targets isn't always low enough for those with the feat to constantly use it, the feat has more impact by way of granting additional attacks than by way of adding 10 damage to some hits.

 

[Ancalagon]

People who look at -5/+10 feats constantly compare "vanilla guy" doing a normal attack vs "power girl" doing a +5/-10 with advantage. They never ever compare it to "vanilla guy" doing a normal attack *with advantage as well*, which is the *proper* comparison to make!

When you do the math and compare *properly*, you realize that yes those feats can be good, but they aren't adding nearly as much damage as they think it does.

 

[Celtavian]

People who look at -5/+10 feats constantly compare "vanilla guy" doing a normal attack vs "power girl" doing a +5/-10 with advantage. They never ever compare it to "vanilla guy" doing a normal attack *with advantage as well*, which is the *proper* comparison to make!

When you do the math and compare *properly*, you realize that yes those feats can be good, but they aren't adding nearly as much damage as they think it does.

The math has been done. It's been proven that Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Fighter used intelligently far exceed the damage of those without the feats. What usually gets done wrong is comparing guy using vanilla attack to guy using Sharpshooter all the time. They always forget that Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are optional. If you only use them in advantageous circumstances, you will always do a great deal more damage than guy not using them because guy not using them has no other means to boost his damage.

Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are always much better than guy without because both feats are optional and are only used when it is advantageous to do so. Thus they are always increasing damage and almost never decreasing it. Guy with Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master hits just as hard as guy without either feat when not using the feats. They both benefit from the other bonuses the feat provides even when not using the -5/10 mechanic.

It is always better to take the appropriate combat feat (Sharpshooter for bow use and Great Weapon Master for heavy weapons) over not taking it. Whether that makes them OP or not is dependent on what the table considers OP.

 

[Zardnaar]

The math has been done. It's been proven that Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Fighter used intelligently far exceed the damage of those without the feats. What usually gets done wrong is comparing guy using vanilla attack to guy using Sharpshooter all the time. They always forget that Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are optional. If you only use them in advantageous circumstances, you will always do a great deal more damage than guy not using them because guy not using them has no other means to boost his damage.

Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are always much better than guy without because both feats are optional and are only used when it is advantageous to do so. Thus they are always increasing damage and almost never decreasing it. Guy with Sharpshooter or Great Weapon Master hits just as hard as guy without either feat when not using the feats. They both benefit from the other bonuses the feat provides even when not using the -5/10 mechanic.

It is always better to take the appropriate combat feat (Sharpshooter for bow use and Great Weapon Master for heavy weapons) over not taking it. Whether that makes them OP or not is dependent on what the table considers OP.

This even getting to cleave whenever something dies or reaches 0 hit points.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I didn't say they were.

I will. He said they rocked in AD&D, but which one? 1e? Or 2e? There's a big difference there. In 2e they were decent, but nothing that super rocked or anything. And in 1e, they were far too much of a pain the butt to multiclass just to get to be a bard in the first place. In my book, that qualifies as "really bad".

 

[Zardnaar]

I will. He said they rocked in AD&D, but which one? 1e? Or 2e? There's a big difference there. In 2e they were decent, but nothing that super rocked or anything. And in 1e, they were far too much of a pain the butt to multiclass just to get to be a bard in the first place. In my book, that qualifies as "really bad".

Bards were good in both 1E and 3E. In 2E it was because they were a better magic user for most of the game. For example level 4 bard and level 3 mage required the same xp and had the same spell pattern and Bards had this up to level 16 or so IIRC.

1E Bard was a pain to get to but bucket oh hit points relative to the other classes.