D&D 5E Full feat or half-feat?

[Cap'n Kobold]

Right, so wouldn't you value it more as a "full-feat" (e.g. worth more) for a d4 weapon because it makes a larger difference?

No, they're saying the opposite: it is nicer to bring a dagger closer to a longsword because that adds flavour, but not much raw power. An outright boost to what is already one of the best options is much more power (so should require a full feat), but boring.

Given what you said below seems to imply otherwise..
[/QUOTE]

 

[TwoSix]

Right, so wouldn't you value it more as a "full-feat" (e.g. worth more) for a d4 weapon because it makes a larger difference?

By “better”, I meant more balanced and less problematic.

 

[Ancalagon]

I've been thinking about feats and "single attack", specifically the rogue.

The "weapon attack" cantrips like booming blade are balanced by the fact that you only get to pair them with a single attack - if you are a fighter or valor bard, you only get one attack with it, not two (in the tier 2 range), so the damage gain is not great.

But if you are a rogue, you're already only doing one attack. So taking magic adept and taking that cantrip (plus another cantrip and one level 1 spell - find familiar?), you gain a fair chunck of damage.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I've been thinking about feats and "single attack", specifically the rogue.

The "weapon attack" cantrips like booming blade are balanced by the fact that you only get to pair them with a single attack - if you are a fighter or valor bard, you only get one attack with it, not two (in the tier 2 range), so the damage gain is not great.

But if you are a rogue, you're already only doing one attack. So taking magic adept and taking that cantrip (plus another cantrip and one level 1 spell - find familiar?), you gain a fair chunck of damage.

It does limit you to just a single attack, which means less chance of landing your sneak attack in the first place.
Making a normal attack means the rogue gets the option of a second chance to land their sneak attack with an off-hand if the first attack misses. Using an attack cantrip means that if they whiff, that's it.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

One thing to keep in mind is that just using your ASI to increase your attack stat increases the damage by one, plus also increasing your to hit and whatever else that stat does, so full feet should definitely do better than +1.

How does that compare to the -5/+10 feats? Has somebody crunched those numbers to come up with what your expected damage increase is?

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

One thing to keep in mind is that just using your ASI to increase your attack stat increases the damage by one, plus also increasing your to hit and whatever else that stat does, so full feet should definitely do better than +1.

How does that compare to the -5/+10 feats? Has somebody crunched those numbers to come up with what your expected damage increase is?

The numbers have been crunched, and if I remember correctly, the -5/+10 feats are still a fair way ahead. They give other bonuses, and if a foe has a high enough AC that they're not worth using, you don't have to. Note that even after you max your attack stat, you can still take the feat.

Where the -5/+10 feats get more problematic is when the build around to compensate for the penalty and synergise for the bonus.

 

[Ancalagon]

The numbers have been crunched, and if I remember correctly, the -5/+10 feats are still a fair way ahead. They give other bonuses, and if a foe has a high enough AC that they're not worth using, you don't have to. Note that even after you max your attack stat, you can still take the feat.

Where the -5/+10 feats get more problematic is when the build around to compensate for the penalty and synergise for the bonus.

I've seen some of the analysis for these and frequently they forgot something or another. Like the person who has GWM has the same str as the person who doesn't. Or "ah, but my GWM has bless!" but don't give bless also to the person without GWM. In other words, opportunity cost is not fully accounted for.

It also becomes worse when your base damage is high. A rogue should never use it for example.

When you go for a more fair comparison, it was about a little bit more than 2-4 damage extra per hit. Significant, but not as amazing as people thought.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Feats are balanced against an ASI in your prime stat. Which is basically +1 hit, +1 damage, +1 to one save and a couple of skills.

This is half a feat (if that):

1. Would you consider a feat which allowed you to add 1-2 damage to a weapon attack once per turn a full feat or half-feat? I am thinking half-feat...

This is more complicated

2. What about a feat which allowed you to add 1-2 damage per attack with a weapon? Full feat or half-feat? I am thinking full feat.

Because +1 would be half a feat (spot on), +2 would be a full feat (just).

Suggestion: +1d4 would be spot on for a full feat.

 

[DND_Reborn]

This is half a feat (if that):

Yeah, this is basically Savage Attacker. I was considering it for my new PC and it occurred to me it is rather weak for a full-feat so I thought about maybe suggesting to our group either an additional feature or a +1 ASI for STR or DEX.

 

[MikalC]

First one I wouldn’t make a feat as it’s too weak.

second one, I would make a feat, just because they already did that with UA fighting styles.