D&D 5E (2014) Balancing Weapon Styles & Removing Power Attack

[dmhelp]

…………….

………………..

….

………….

…….

………..

…..

………….


…..

 

[NotAYakk]

So the baseline for a feat should be "how does it compare to +2 to your primary attack stat at level 4".

Using that metric, almost all 5e feats are underpowered.

PAM/XBE are strong. SS/GWM are marginal.

Most games don't hit 10. And classes like fighter and Rogue rely on ASI to spice them up. So the balance of feats against secondary stat bumps is less important.

The popularity of 3 level dips -- costing a feat -- indicates how feats are generally weaker than other levels past stat maximization.

Make feats stronger, don't nerf them.

 

[dmhelp]

…………….

………………..

 

[Shiroiken]

So the baseline for a feat should be "how does it compare to +2 to your primary attack stat at level 4".

Using that metric, almost all 5e feats are underpowered.

PAM/XBE are strong. SS/GWM are marginal.

Most games don't hit 10. And classes like fighter and Rogue rely on ASI to spice them up. So the balance of feats against secondary stat bumps is less important.

The popularity of 3 level dips -- costing a feat -- indicates how feats are generally weaker than other levels past stat maximization.

Make feats stronger, don't nerf them.

This is my view as well, as most feats are criminally underpowered. Using either Point Buy or Array, even going to 20th level is going to give the average character 2-3 feats if they want to max out their primary ability score. Variant Humans and fighters get more, but they're exceptions, rather than the rule.

Given so few feats, it's unsurprising that so many characters take the same selection of feat. Those are the good feats worth taking, but so many people cry "broken" at them. I think SS is slightly stronger than it should be, and would recommend having it reduce cover by 2 and double the short range of weapons instead. PAM, GWM, Resilient, Lucky, and WC are all strong picks, with a handful being useful for specific builds.

 

[DND_Reborn]

FWIW, Alert and Observant are probably the two feats most selected in our games.

Combat feats, such as PAM, GWM, and SS aren't picked often as most builds are already good on the combat side of things.

Personally, feats aren't meant to be powerful to me, but more "defining and useful". YMMV of course.

 

[loverdrive]

So the baseline for a feat should be "how does it compare to +2 to your primary attack stat at level 4".

Using that metric, almost all 5e feats are underpowered.

PAM/XBE are strong. SS/GWM are marginal.

Most games don't hit 10. And classes like fighter and Rogue rely on ASI to spice them up. So the balance of feats against secondary stat bumps is less important.

The popularity of 3 level dips -- costing a feat -- indicates how feats are generally weaker than other levels past stat maximization.

Make feats stronger, don't nerf them.

As a sidenote, I've ran a game where at every ASI you get both, well, ASI and a feat and... Nothing changed in terms of combat power.

So, yeah, most of the feats are pretty underpowered.