D&D 5E Full feat or half-feat?

[DND_Reborn]

1. Would you consider a feat which allowed you to add 1-2 damage to a weapon attack once per turn a full feat or half-feat? I am thinking half-feat...

2. What about a feat which allowed you to add 1-2 damage per attack with a weapon? Full feat or half-feat? I am thinking full feat.

Thoughts?

 

[TwoSix]

Well, WotC made gaining a fighting style worth a full feat, and that gives 2 damage per attack with a weapon. (Dueling) I don't know if I agree with that cost, but that seems to be their current guidance.

 

[Weiley31]

I thought a Half-Feat had a +1 to an ability score plus something else?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Well, WotC made gaining a fighting style worth a full feat, and that gives 2 damage per attack with a weapon. (Dueling) I don't know if I agree with that cost, but that seems to be their current guidance.

Well, if I made it +2 for every weapon attack (like Dueling) I agree it would be a full feat and can accept that.

I thought a Half-Feat had a +1 to an ability score plus something else?

Yes. If the first option should be valued as a half-feat, I would include you gain a +1 to STR or DEX.

 

[Stalker0]

So if we look at Savage Attacker.

With a Greataxe (aka d12), the feat effectively changes the average of a single attack from 6.5 to 8.49....just shy of +2 damage. If you consider with multiple attacks you can choose when to use it, then I think we can fairly say its a full +2.

This feat is typically seen as a "weak" feat generally, so that's something to consider. Now you could argue +2 damage straight up is better because it pushes bounded accuracy more, but on the whole they are roughly equivalent.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, if I made it +2 for every weapon attack (like Dueling) I agree it would be a full feat and can accept that.


Yes. If the first option should be valued as a half-feat, I would include you gain a +1 to STR or DEX.

It depends on the weapon, of course. Adding a +2 to daggers is probably worth a half-feat, adding a +2 to a greatsword is much closer to a full feat.

 

[TwoSix]

So if we look at Savage Attacker.

With a Greataxe (aka d12), the feat effectively changes the average of a single attack from 6.5 to 8.49....just shy of +2 damage. If you consider with multiple attacks you can choose when to use it, then I think we can fairly say its a full +2.

This feat is typically seen as a "weak" feat generally, so that's something to consider. Now you could argue +2 damage straight up is better because it pushes bounded accuracy more, but on the whole they are roughly equivalent.

Yea, that a good comparison. Savage Attacker, realistically, should be a half-feat at most. Virtually no one takes it as a full feat, which gives you a perspective of how much a feat should be worth.

 

[DND_Reborn]

So if we look at Savage Attacker.

HA, surprise! The first version IS savage attacker, which is why I said the bonus would range from 1-2 points.

Which, when I ran the math, actually did seem sort of weak to me...

FWIW, here are the increases for Savage Attacker depending on the weapon damage die:

It depends on the weapon, of course. Adding a +2 to daggers is probably worth a half-feat, adding a +2 to a greatsword is much closer to a full feat.

Interesting. Why do you think this? A +2 to damage for daggers represents a much greater boost since the base maximum is 4, compared to a greatsword with a base maximum of 12. I would consider the reverse to be the case, personally.

Yea, that a good comparison. Savage Attacker, realistically, should be a half-feat at most. Virtually no one takes it as a full feat, which gives you a perspective of how much a feat should be worth.

Yeah, I think it should be a half-feat as well, adding the STR or DEX +1... or maybe just STR or STR/CON option?

 

[TwoSix]

Interesting. Why do you think this? A +2 to damage for daggers represents a much greater boost since the base maximum is 4, compared to a greatsword with a base maximum of 12. I would consider the reverse to be the case, personally.

Because it's always better to bring a weaker option up to par than to make the top performer even better.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Because it's always better to bring a weaker option up to par than to make the top performer even better.

Right, so wouldn't you value it more as a "full-feat" (e.g. worth more) for a d4 weapon because it makes a larger difference?

Given what you said below seems to imply otherwise..

Adding a +2 to daggers is probably worth a half-feat, adding a +2 to a greatsword is much closer to a full feat.