D&D 5E (2014) [5e] Modification of -5/+10 Feats

[Blue]

One of the aspects of 5e that I see the most complaints about are the feats that give +10 damage for -5 to hit.

By changing the wording to allow a player to choose the level of the penalty to hit, limited to a maximum equal to the character's proficiency bonus, and gaining a bonus to damage equally to twice the penalty it seems that some of the bite could be taken out of these Feats.

Sorry, you've already lost me. This was the case of Power Attack back in 3.x, adn ti was such a time waster at the table. Most common was people trying to work out math to maximize their DPR. "Hey, we hit on AC 18 and missed on an 16, right. So if it's that the case, then I should use ...". The less common was the person who counts up his advantages/disadvantages every roll, and if they can't make a handy chart of what it will be it takes forever.

This may seem like an extreme reaction, but it really got my goat back then. I never again want lots of math options that need to be considered before every attack. A big/obvious one like -5 or not is okay, and non-math option that add interest and flexibility are great. But nothing this fiddly.

Cleanest solution for SS & GWM I've seen is adding "once per round" to the -5/+10 part. Then it can be a decent bonus like a feat shoudl give without being overwhelming on multi-attack characters, and it makes them interesting for single attack characters as well.

 

[hejtmane]

First, lets ask if its a problem in your game. While lots of people talk about how Power Attack is Broken McOP, a lot of that depends on the presence of bonus dice or advantage on the PCs. And that generally requires the party combining their efforts towards it to make it all click. As well, it tends to be a problem at the higher levels rather than lower. Do your games reach that point?


So, is the-5/+10 presnce a problem with your group, or is it just something you hear?


Next, consider where the problem is. Is it a single character doing most of the damage, or is it a problem of a min-maxed group, or something else? Is it mixing two Weapon Mastery feats together? This requres different solutions than tweaking the feat. The -5/+10 gets a lot of flack, but its just the most obvious part of a larger machine.

I have had the feats and the two combo feats in my games no issues at all but none of the magic items I give out have any +to hit and I amke sure to properly encounter build for the players I have.Note I do not run D&D campaigins everything is custom.

 

[Mephista]

*shrugs* Like I said, it depends on the game and the group. People say that this and that are problems, but actual experience shows varied results. I find TWFing and melee Concentration to be more worthy of attention.

 

[Quartz]

It seems to me - having read many threads - that the problem is not the feats themselves but the feats when used in combination with the Guidance cantrip or the Archery combat style and in particular with both. Would changing Guidance to a first level spell that adds 1d4 + spell slot level to the roll would stop this abuse?

 

[Dausuul]

Here's the maths, and as you can see, -2/+4 is not a boost (although of course -6/+12 is).

EDIT: Now with a chart of the difference for easy-to-spot cut off points.

I can see the chart, but not any explanation of the math, which is a problem because the numbers in the chart are wrong.

Take a 1st-level character with 16 Strength and a 2d6 weapon, attacking AC 16. The character's attack bonus is +5 (+2 prof, +3 Str) and damage per hit is 10 (7 from the weapon, +3 Str). With +5 to hit vs AC 16, you need to roll 11 or better, which is a 50% chance.

So average damage per attack is 5: 0.5 x 10. (Your chart says 4.5.)

Give the same character a -2/+4 modifier. With +3 to hit vs AC 16, you need to roll 13 or better, a 40% chance. But your damage per hit is now 14. So average damage is 5.6: 0.4 x 14. (Your chart says 2.5.)

Make it a -5/+10 modifier. You need to roll 16 or better, a 25% chance, and damage per hit is now 20. So average damage is 5: 0.25 x 20. (Your chart says 2.6.)

So, for a 1st-level character versus AC 16, -2/+4 is indeed a buff relative to both normal attacks and -5/+10. Don't have time right now to crunch the numbers for all levels/ACs, but your chart is way off.

 

[Kryx]

It seems to me - having read many threads - that the problem is not the feats themselves but the feats when used in combination with the Guidance cantrip or the Archery combat style and in particular with both. Would changing Guidance to a first level spell that adds 1d4 + spell slot level to the roll would stop this abuse?

The abuse is rampant on a Barbarian who can give themselves advantage every round.

The feat is flawed. In the cases where it is great it is too great. In the cases where it is bad it is quite bad. In all cases it's just a math calculation. As an option it provides a negative experience to games imo.

 

[Yunru]

I can see the chart, but not any explanation of the math, which is a problem because the numbers in the chart are wrong.

Take a 1st-level character with 16 Strength and a 2d6 weapon, attacking AC 16. The character's attack bonus is +5 (+2 prof, +3 Str) and damage per hit is 10 (7 from the weapon, +3 Str). With +5 to hit vs AC 16, you need to roll 11 or better, which is a 50% chance.

So average damage per attack is 5: 0.5 x 10. (Your chart says 4.5.)

Give the same character a -2/+4 modifier. With +3 to hit vs AC 16, you need to roll 13 or better, a 40% chance. But your damage per hit is now 14. So average damage is 5.6: 0.4 x 14. (Your chart says 2.5.)

Make it a -5/+10 modifier. You need to roll 16 or better, a 25% chance, and damage per hit is now 20. So average damage is 5: 0.25 x 20. (Your chart says 2.6.)

So, for a 1st-level character versus AC 16, -2/+4 is indeed a buff relative to both normal attacks and -5/+10. Don't have time right now to crunch the numbers for all levels/ACs, but your chart is way off.

It appears that the formulae don't show in view-only mode. There we go. A greater than was accidentally a greater than or equal.
The damage numbers were also completely off, I have no idea what I was thinking at the time.

Everything should be fixed now, but that still puts -5/+10 ahead of -Prof/+2*Prof at low levels.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

Sorry, you've already lost me. This was the case of Power Attack back in 3.x, adn ti was such a time waster at the table. Most common was people trying to work out math to maximize their DPR. "Hey, we hit on AC 18 and missed on an 16, right. So if it's that the case, then I should use ...". The less common was the person who counts up his advantages/disadvantages every roll, and if they can't make a handy chart of what it will be it takes forever.

This may seem like an extreme reaction, but it really got my goat back then. I never again want lots of math options that need to be considered before every attack. A big/obvious one like -5 or not is okay, and non-math option that add interest and flexibility are great. But nothing this fiddly.

Cleanest solution for SS & GWM I've seen is adding "once per round" to the -5/+10 part. Then it can be a decent bonus like a feat shoudl give without being overwhelming on multi-attack characters, and it makes them interesting for single attack characters as well.

Plus it's completely antithetical to the fantasy of Power Attack. When you're about to take a big reckless swing, that's the exact wrong moment to stop the game and do optimization math. There's a reason not just 5E but even Pathfinder switched it to a fixed penalty/bonus.

 

[pukunui]

I tried -2/+5 for these feats for my Curse of Strahd game. The human rogue with Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert was using it every attack and dealing lots of extra damage because of it. I have a feeling the player wouldn't have used it with every attack if I'd left it at -5/+10.

My guys aren't power gamers, and this was actually the first time anyone in this group had even chosen one of those two feats. One of the players in my other group took GWM for her fighter, but she always forgot about the -5/+10 benefit (and I always neglected to remind her).

It seems to me - having read many threads - that the problem is not the feats themselves but the feats when used in combination with the Guidance cantrip or the Archery combat style and in particular with both. Would changing Guidance to a first level spell that adds 1d4 + spell slot level to the roll would stop this abuse?

How does Guidance factor in? It only applies to ability checks.

 

[hejtmane]

The abuse is rampant on a Barbarian who can give themselves advantage every round.

The feat is flawed. In the cases where it is great it is too great. In the cases where it is bad it is quite bad. In all cases it's just a math calculation. As an option it provides a negative experience to games imo.

Even with advantage on every attack it has not caused me any issues; like I said some people may have issues with it and they have options if they think it is over powered.

The options are Pretty simple disallow feats or certain feats or modify the numbers. I know some people have modified the numbers to -3/5.

I know this subject keeps coming up over and over again and this form keeps acting like it is the biggest issue of the game but that does not seem like it from what WOTC is communicating most people wanted more feats by there surveys and nothing about adjusting the so called power feats.