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

[CapnZapp]

No you have not. You have provided no hard facts, no maths to back up your claim and you resort to personal attacks. Your staff is broken good sir.

I have certainly presented much more compelling circumstances than you.

Thing is Yunru, I don't need to persuade you. I just need to persuade those who you talk to.

 

[Yunru]

I have certainly presented much more compelling circumstances than you.

Thing is Yunru, I don't need to persuade you. I just need to persuade those who you talk to.

And that's where your wrong: you shouldn't be persuading anyone. The facts you present should be.

I provided the exact numbers, the exact increase in average damage caused by GWF or Sharpshooter, where are yours?

You don't have any, that's where. You speak with hyperbole and conjecture, hardly "compelling circumstances".

 

[CapnZapp]

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?

I see this line of reasoning all the time. I never understand why these people do their utmost to avoid changing the core of the issue. (No offense to you Quartz - I'm not really talking to you personally here, just using your post as an example)

The core problem isn't those other things - the core is the ability to effectively go from Strength 20 to Strength 40.

So why not solve the issue at its core?

Guidance, or Archery (or Precision or whatever) is after all only enablers. They are only as powerful as the attack they enable.

So why not remove the core issue - the ability to make too-powerful attacks?

Do that, and chances are those enablers will no longer feel so problematic, since they no longer can enable something particularly troublesome...

 

[CapnZapp]

If you nerf GWM/SS to once per turn (I don't like once per round), -5/+10 isn't enough to make the feat viable, worth taking or even thematic. Explaining narratively why it could only be used once per turn is easy, you're shoring up all your strength for the one swing or for SS, your carefully aiming to try to hit a significantly small vital area in the middle of the Combat fray.

But once a turn for +10 damage? Seems kind of trivial for a feat ability especially at higher levels where +10 damage is piddly. If it's going to be once per turn, it should be something like -10 for a critical hit. The barbarian taking a massive swing to lop an enemy's head off or the sharpshooter making a called shot aiming at an eye would fit the narrative.

It would force you to work with your team to set up a better shot, get creative to earn Advantage from the DM or shoot, it would actually make something like the True Strike cantrip more useful (you spend a round casting a spell to take the perfect shot).

Once a turn, for possible +10 damage is meh.


Sent from my iPhone using EN World

Taken as an argument for "this tweak brings the feat back into the fold of the average", I have no issues with it.

But if you mean it as an argument to leave the feat unchanged, I completely disagree.

The bigger question is: why should only greatweapon and archery deal massive damage, and not other weapon combos?

And why should ANY weapon combo deal massive damage, when monsters can't do it, and are clearly not built to withstand it.

It is just such a "I win" button. While I can certainly see how this can be fun, that would be in a video game. Allowing one of the fighters to press "I win" but not the other in a ttrpg that is a cooperative experience makes no sense to me.

 

[CapnZapp]

You can't just look at a single AC in 5e and draw any realistic conclusions IMO

I have yet to see a math breakdown that takes my example build into account.

Of course the feat looks balanced if you haven't taken the steps real players will take to unbalance it!

Any math breakdown that does not assume advantage plus at least one more boost (guidance, inspiration or precision are three examples) is irrelevant.

---

Also, far too many statistics breakdowns forgets one key aspect of the feat:

The -5/+10 part is not mandatory. You get to choose when to apply it.

And you simply never apply it when you don't have advantage, or when you face some monstrous AC 22 tank. In these cases, calculating the math is directly misleading.

You never balance the good times (against low AC etc) against the bad times (high AC) because a competent player simply never experiences the bad times.

 

[CapnZapp]

I provided the exact numbers, the exact increase in average damage caused by GWF or Sharpshooter, where are yours?

Unless you take advantage and precision attack into account (or similar, doesn't have to be the exact build I posted earlier), your numbers are simply irrelevant.

All they prove is that in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use the feat, it isn't overpowered.

 

[Yunru]

Unless you take advantage and precision attack into account (or similar, doesn't have to be the exact build I posted earlier), your numbers are simply irrelevant.

All they prove is that in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use the feat, it isn't overpowered.

Mhhm. So when are you going to post something other than conjecture?

Speaking of, now we're adding in advantage out of nowhere? It's nice to know your players can just get advantage, especially for the Sharpshooters, where it'd otherwise be very hard.

 

[Quartz]

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

You're right. An attack roll is the same in every way as an ability check, but is not actually an ability check.

 

[Tormyr]

I don't pretend to say it wouldn't be a significant nerf.

But the feat needs a significant nerf, since it is significantly overpowered in the hands of a player who knows what he or she is doing.

Whether it's too much is a different discussion. It certainly is not a good argument for keeping it as is.

---

-Prof/+2Prof changes nothing about the feat at high levels, where is it as its most abusable. At level 20, it even gets more overpowered!

And at the lowest levels, where you have the most difficulties overcoming the -5, the reduction to -2 is a godsend.

Yunru's claim is patently false. There has been several threads that use false or incomplete math, perhaps he's thinking of those. But no, I am sure I have personally shown him exactly why the feat is too good, and exactly how you go about abusing it.

For those new to the concept, in short: build a Dex/Con Battlemaster Fighter Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert using effectively twin 120-ft range shortswords (yes, I mean that literally, and can back it up with excruciating detail if needs be) to deal 1d6+15 damage (not counting magic) against enemies with as high AC as ~18 (which pretty much is every non-epic foe) at mid to high levels, attacking always with advantage (easily attained through party tactics), negating most misses with Precision Attack superiority dice. Add Lucky or Halfling and the window for straight misses shrink to almost only rolling 2's during nova rounds (the probability of rolling a 2 is close to one in four hundred, by the way).

This build utterly outclasses any martial build that doesn't use -5/+10 feats, since it outputs massively more offensive, without sacrificing significant defense or other utility, since it's still a sturdy fighter build.

Meaning it ruins the fun in variety, since you no longer can choose "regular" builds with a clear conscience - there simply is nothing that can excuse abstaining from +40 bonus damage per round. This means many cool weapon stances and combos fall by the wayside.

It also completely destroys the game's ability to function given standard encounters and monsters.

The feat absolutely positively needs to go. That's not an opinion, it's fact. Don't let anyone that haven't stress-tested the game at high levels tell you differently.

Just think of the featless game. It works MUCH better, and with a HUGE variety of builds*.
*) Sure, the EB Sorlock needs to be addressed in either case, but let us consider that as a separate discussion.

So the suggestion to remove this feat does not lead to some kind of fringe or exotic game. Unless you can claim the featless game is even more broken. Which it isn't.

The feat needs to go, at least if you have players who knows their way around a D&D charbuild.

-Prof/+2Prof changes nothing about this.

So I had a couple questions:
* How do 120 ft. range shortswords work?
* How do you use party tactics to gain advantage on every attack?

 

[FrogReaver]

Early level DMG guidelines for creating a monster and assigning it a CR are junk.

That is why the other options are in there as well. CR 1 creatures have a suggested AC in the DMG of 13, and CR 20 creatures have a suggested AC of 19. GWM falls apart when used against higher CR creatures (with higher AC) than the PC level. The unmodified level 1 and Level 20 examples are going against the "average" CR (with an "appropriate AC). At that point, the power attack being used every turn is just slightly better. Obviously there are all sorts of AC ratings for creatures of the same CR, but looking at specific AC values is not the important part. The important part is looking at the range where GWM is viable and what it does in that range.

After the average CR example that establishes a point where GWM is slightly better than not having it, the example that pits level 20 PCs against CR 1 foes is one type of ideal scenario. The advantage the level 20 GWM fighter has over the level 20 fighter increases from 5 DPR to 27 DPR by shifting the target AC from 19 (CR 20) to 13 (CR 1).

The average CR enemies with Advantage is another kind of ideal scenario. In this one GWM is worth another 20 DPR to the level 20 fighter.

The CR 1 with Advantage is essentially as good as it gets. At this point the level 20 fighter gains 47 DPR with GWM.

You do not need to look at every AC for every level. You only need to look at the range from where GWM is just viable to the point where the PC only misses on a natural 1.