D&D 5E Feats: Do you use them? Are they necessary?

[guachi]

I run AL games where anything in the PHB goes.

But for my home campaign I allow a maximum of one 'full' feat or two 'half' feats where a 'half' feat is a feat that grants +1 to an ability score. I also removed the -5/+10 part of SS and GWM an replaced it with a +1 to Dexterity or Strength but no player has yet shown any interest in either feat no matter how it's constructed.

 

[aramis erak]

I've run AL games in two states. Most players are taking them this season from what I've seen. Last season, not so many did.

I've only seen two feats that gave me pause...
The human ranger (Variant human) with Archery FS took Sharpshooter. He was 16 Dex (+3), and proficient (+2) and had (at level 2) +2 more from Archery... for +7 to hit at level 2 with his longbow... and could roll at +2 instead of +7 out of the gate. (Int was his dump stat...)
Likewise, a Variant Human Fighter with Great Weapon style and GWM... Only +5 to hit, or +0 and +10 damage... and using a greatsword... In AL play, vs stuff with level appropriate AC's in the 11-15 range...

So... let's do the math.

GWF
+5 means needing between 6+ and 10+ to do an average of 11‡ per hit... or an average of 8.6† DPA vs AC 11 and about 6.45† DPA vs AC 15
+0 to hit and +10 damage per hit... needs 11 and 15, respectively for an average of 21‡ per hit, DPA 10.9† v AC11 and 6.7 vs AC15
DPA: Damage Per Attack - accounts for hit rates and damage per hit.
‡ +1 for GWFS
†Including crits.

The Great Weapon Guy only gets better vs harder targets, where the chances of hit are mitigating the average damage.

The Ranger, with his 1d8 Longbow...
+7 and 7.5 avg damage, same ACs... AC11 is 6.6 DPA, and AC 15 is 5.1 DPA
+2 and 17.5 avg, same ACs... 10.7 DPA vs 11, and 6.875 DPA vs AC15.

That ranger has no reason not to use the increase if he can stand-off and fire... he's getting enough extra to make up for the lost hits.

 

[CapnZapp]

The math has already been done, over and over again.

The results always show the same: nothing can compete with the -5/+10 feats.

The designer has significantly overestimated the practical drawback of the -5 penalty.

By itself it's not so bad, but when you take into account getting bless, getting advantage etc etc that +10 damage blows every alternative out of the water.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The math has already been done, over and over again.

The results always show the same: nothing can compete with the -5/+10 feats.

The designer has significantly overestimated the practical drawback of the -5 penalty.

By itself it's not so bad, but when you take into account getting bless, getting advantage etc etc that +10 damage blows every alternative out of the water.

What makes you think they overestimated it, instead of having it be a design goal that "hitting things with a large axe" and "sniping things right between the eyes" be a good way to kill things? A design goal that I happen to agree with. Fighters are cool and fun in 5E precisely because of Sharpshooter/GWM.

The fact that GWM requires getting advantage from someone knocking them prone, and that Sharpshooter requires someone to Bless you in order to take full advantage, serves another design goal which is "the party should benefit from cooperation with each other." It doesn't work perfectly (my players still love to split the party) but it's an important social goal at least.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The results always show the same: nothing can compete with the -5/+10 feats.

The designer has significantly overestimated the practical drawback of the -5 penalty.

A lot of that is up to circumstances. Those abilities shine whenever you can get Advantage up to compensate, but they can hurt you against a target with high AC, or be wasted against foes with less HP who are likely to die anyway.

Since the selection of monsters and NPCs within the world is up to the DM / world-builder, your mileage on these things is going to vary wildly.

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

What makes you think they overestimated it, instead of having it be a design goal that "hitting things with a large axe" and "sniping things right between the eyes" be a good way to kill things? A design goal that I happen to agree with. Fighters are cool and fun in 5E precisely because of Sharpshooter/GWM.

I would agree that they overestimated it if players consistently pick those feats over Ability Score Increases and other Feats to be effective. If it is working as intended, it probably should have been a class ability or just part of the combat system (maybe as part of a "called shot" or maneuver system, "if you have proficiency take -5 to hit and either do X damage or apply one of these conditions on your opponent as appropriate."). The rest of the feats seem to be designed to increase versatility, flavor or provide a bit of focus, not overwhelm the math of the game to the point where they strengthen certain character types far beyond similar characters who didn't take that feat.