D&D 5E First Time 5E: Options?

[Werebat]

It simply turns the feat into a "half feat", with the other half being a +1 stat - consistent with a bunch of other feats. The -5/+5 is another option I guess. Personally if you want a -5/+5 option, I suggest making that a "called shot", and add it to the list of actions (ie anyone can do it without a feat).

That's an interesting idea.

 

[iserith]

On the WotC forums, I've seen some very convincing math breakdowns of the -5/+10 that show the increased chance of missing offsets the extra damage very well. So I wouldn't worry about it. I'm not a math guy so I won't make the argument myself, so if anyone wants to rebut my comments here, I'll go find the links and post them.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

On the WotC forums, I've seen some very convincing math breakdowns of the -5/+10 that show the increased chance of missing offsets the extra damage very well. So I wouldn't worry about it. I'm not a math guy so I won't make the argument myself, so if anyone wants to rebut my comments here, I'll go find the links and post them.

I'd like to see the argument myself. I don't know how it works one way or another, but the position that those feats are just way too good comes up sooo often that I'd like to see if there is evidence to the contrary so I can make my own decision on it.

 

[Paraxis]

From my experience the -5/+10 attacks are only worth risking when you have advantage. So if the archer with sharpshooter is a rogue who can reliably move>hide>attack>move on his turn or a barbarian who is reckless attacking or if using option flank rules than those attacks seem overpowered.

One of my players is a Fighter he never seems to have advantage and always uses the great weapon master option of -5 for +10 and he misses constantly, he hasn't caught on that he is hurting himself by trying to go for the less frequent big hits. I laugh inside when he does finally land a hit and does ridiculous damage to something that only has a few h.p left.

 

[Psikerlord#]

From my experience the -5/+10 attacks are only worth risking when you have advantage. So if the archer with sharpshooter is a rogue who can reliably move>hide>attack>move on his turn or a barbarian who is reckless attacking or if using option flank rules than those attacks seem overpowered.

One of my players is a Fighter he never seems to have advantage and always uses the great weapon master option of -5 for +10 and he misses constantly, he hasn't caught on that he is hurting himself by trying to go for the less frequent big hits. I laugh inside when he does finally land a hit and does ridiculous damage to something that only has a few h.p left.

In a basic game with point buy it isnt really a problem. It becomes a problem when the -5 is easily and consistently offset with bounded accuracy's mostly low AC monsters, flanking adv, spam bless spell, high rolled stats, magic weapons, etc. The extra 10 dmg becomes a free bonus at no penalty. It's simply unnecessary overkill that leads to balance problems between PCs. The maths analysis' - even assuming they are correct/reliable - are of no useful weight. What matters is how the players feel seeing certain PCs with those feats doing crazy damage every fight, at no meaningful opportunity cost.

If you want that kind of to hit/dmg trade off in the game, I suggest making it a "called shot" action - so anyone can attempt it any time. At least then relative PC damage remains intact. You will still end up with quicker combats (not necessarily bad).

 

[CapnZapp]

The maths analysis' - even assuming they are correct/reliable - are of no useful weight. What matters is how the players feel seeing certain PCs with those feats doing crazy damage every fight, at no meaningful opportunity cost.

No. Either the math is wrong or your players' impression is mistaken. You got to choose one.

Remember, the human mind is not very good at calculating probabilities. Our intuition often leads us to drawing flawed conclusions. Basically, it boils down to learning not to trust your "gut feeling".

 

[CapnZapp]

I'd like to see the argument myself. I don't know how it works one way or another, but the position that those feats are just way too good comes up sooo often that I'd like to see if there is evidence to the contrary so I can make my own decision on it.

A quick googling found this:
http://community.wizards.com/forum/dungeon-master-help/threads/4172796

The Too Long Didn't Read summary would be "GWF is fine. Don't let Crossbow Expert remove disadvantage shooting into melee, however"

(Of course, I don't know if this was the thread that iserith had seen.)

 

[Raunalyn]

From my experience, the flanking rules from the DMG are pretty effective. You're usually going to have more mobs than PCs, so getting them into an advantageous position can increase the challenge.

 

[Eejit]

I'd simply make the -5/+10 only apply once per turn, like sneak attack. That'll keep it under control while still making it useful, particularly in situations where you have advantage/bless/+X weapons or whatever.

 

[iserith]

A quick googling found this:
http://community.wizards.com/forum/dungeon-master-help/threads/4172796

The Too Long Didn't Read summary would be "GWF is fine. Don't let Crossbow Expert remove disadvantage shooting into melee, however"

(Of course, I don't know if this was the thread that iserith had seen.)

Yeah, that's one of them. I also asked the community to help me dig up threads so here's that link to check out (some discussion about the feats as well):

http://community.wizards.com/forum/product-and-general-dd-discussions/threads/4181976

I ain't too concerned about these things. I'm also not concerned about them because in my experience any player that has agreed to the goals of play doesn't abuse things and limits themselves to builds and decisions that are fun for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. So it's just a matter of establishing the goals and seeking buy-in before play.