D&D 5E Feats removed from the PHB, for the last Playtest !

[ECMO3]

From actual playtests, I can tell you Sharpshooter is ridiculously OP. Maybe not by itself, but when combined with Archery Style, Bless, etc, it's basically a +10 boost to damage. You have an effective +4.5 to hit over the norm - which basically counters the -5, and you never have to worry about cover, so there goes any tactical limitations, as you're now effectively armed with a lazer accurate machine gun that can shoot across any classic D&D encounter map.

It is a strong feat but it not nearly +10 damge in actual play.

The -5 is actually a -6 because and the bonus damage is +9, not +10 because you traded an ASI for it that would have boosted both attack and damage by 1. The long range and cover bonuses are bigger benifits than the damage boost IME.

Comparing a 16 Dex with archery style with SS to an 18 Dex archer without SS the damage difference per attack is only 1 point against a 16 AC target and you have a worse dex save and worse skills. That damage difference increases at lower AC and decreases at higher AC. At AC19 and above the guy who did not take SS is going to do more damage. That of course assumes you have no cover and are not at long range.

That also assumes you have no damage riders. If you are running hunters mark or hex or have riders like Sneak Attack or Dreadful Strikes it will fall behind someone who took the ASI at a lower AC.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sharpshooter is definitely OP. No, it can't be translated as a feat that gives you +10 damage. But it easily outcompetes every other option given in the PHB, except possibly for the other feat using the same abusable mechanism (GWM). The latter gives a bit extra damage, but suffers the considerable disadvantage of working only in melee.

That WotC keeps pretending this isn't a problem is shameful.

It is possible WotC has accidentally added more feats that can compare to it in later books, but those books did not exist when this thread was active. Plus,
a) "this thing is also OP" is not a good argument
b) adding more broken features is not a good way to redress a balance issue

Anyway, the math of the +10/-5 mechanism has been extensively studied elsewhere, and has been comprehensively proven to be eminently abusable. So let's not walk down that particular rabbit hole again and simply agree the mechanism is unsuitable for every gaming group. Perhaps putting it harshly: "just because you can't do it doesn't mean it can't be done."

(Yes, some groups don't care about damage and optimal play, and for those groups keeping the feat would not matter. On the other hand, removing it would do no harm. That's why I'm including every group even though some don't care and some don't even notice it.)

As a preemptive "sorry": no, I won't engage if anyone wants to argue. The issue has been settled for years, and you will have to find someone else to discuss it with. Personally I recommend you search the forums. Trust me, everything that can be said about those feats has already been said.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

As a preemptive "sorry": no, I won't engage if anyone wants to argue. The issue has been settled for years, and you will have to find someone else to discuss it with. Personally I recommend you search the forums. Trust me, everything that can be said about those feats has already been said.

Truly you've found the Sharpshooter of abusable rhetorical moves.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, I’m not really sure about the legality of sharing it…

All playtesters signed an NDA with, as I recall, no expiration date. So sharing the playtest docs would be in violation of that.

 

[CapnZapp]

Truly you've found the Sharpshooter of abusable rhetorical moves.

I don't think I am abusive just because my position is non-negotiable. I've shared my stance and in this case that's all there is to it. In many many other areas I remain amenable to discussion and different points of view. In this case you will have to find somebody else.

Now I'll leave you to it.

Cheers

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I don't think I am abusive just because my position is non-negotiable.

It's just blantant conversational powergaming. Non-negotiable positions are clearly overpowered, and completely throw off the balance of a discussion.

But all teasing aside, have a nice day.

 

[Ancalagon]

As a preemptive "sorry": no, I won't engage if anyone wants to argue. The issue has been settled for years, and you will have to find someone else to discuss it with. Personally I recommend you search the forums. Trust me, everything that can be said about those feats has already been said.

See, I am 100% sure I will not convince you specifically, so I won't attempt to. What you are wrong about is that the issue has been settled. I was there for those big discussions too, and an agreement wasn't reached.

(in brief: The big problem with evaluating the mechanic is that there is an opportunity cost to taking the feat, and also whatever means you can find to give yourself advantage, bless, whatever to hit should also be considered for the person without the feat. If you don't include this in your math, your picture is not complete. It still works out to about +2-4 damage per attack, so it's a good feat. But it's not actually +10 to damage. )

See? not settled at all. Your opinion is settled yes, but not the issue as a whole. The issue is bigger than you .

 

[CapnZapp]

You talk to me as if you expect a reply, @Ancalagon. If you do, you didn't read my post. Keep discussing all you want, but I'd prefer it if you didn't send me notifications by quoting or mentioning me. Thank you.

 

[Ancalagon]

You talk to me as if you expect a reply, @Ancalagon. If you do, you didn't read my post. Keep discussing all you want, but I'd prefer it if you didn't send me notifications by quoting or mentioning me. Thank you.

I would prefer it if you didn't pretend that your opinion (which may be correct!) is settled fact. Thank you.

 

[turnip_farmer]

You talk to me as if you expect a reply, @Ancalagon. If you do, you didn't read my post.

And yet, you keep replying.