D&D 5E Observations

[hawkeyefan]

I would agree with that...-5 is a significant penalty. We had a player who played with our group for a couple of sessions and he had the sharpshooter feat, and he used the -5 option all the time trying to do massive amounts of damage. At the level they were at, I think his to hit bonus was +8. So he was taking over a 50% attack bonus cut.

I remember watching so many of his rolls fall into that 5 point differential, and they would have been hits, but instead were misses. Those moments were brutal.

For some, it's better to have a strong chance to do 12 damage rather than a slim chance to do 22. I'm no math whiz, but over time, the numbers are probably not as different as we might think.

I find those feats most useful when an enemy is shown to be easy to hit because it has low AC, or for when you have advantage on attacks. But under normal circumstances against a foe with a medium AC IT's risky, and against a strong AC it's bordering on foolish.

I think that the accuracy factor seems to be a bit overlooked. -5 is a big penalty.

 

[Azurewraith]

I think the issue with the -5/+10 is that it gets to a a point where the risk is next to non issue as monster AC in 5e is well super dooper low so it just becomes a straight +10 damage id do some maths but my books are all the way upstairs and well iv hunkered down for the night now. Advantage also goes along way for offsetting the -5 i don't know about your tables but we rule advantage from flanking which with a shadowmonk is constant pretty much (ruling you can jump behind an enemy due to their shadow could be a bit much prehaps)

 

[hawkeyefan]

For lower AC enemies, absolutely. But given how small the attack bonuses are...6 from proficiency, 5 from ability, 3 max from magic, and maybe a few others do to fears or exceptions to the rules....a high attack bonus even in the upper levels would be a +15. Cutting that by a third seems pretty significant.

There are definitely exceptions to that, and I am by no means dismissing the impact of the -5/+10 feats...just pointing out that the accuracy trade off is a pretty big piece of things and seems to be hand waved.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think it's a feat that shines more at higher levels rather than low levels. Sort of the opposite of feats like heavy armor mastery, which shine at lower levels. It really comes down to what you prefer, and what level range you usually find yourself playing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think the issue with the -5/+10 is that it gets to a a point where the risk is next to non issue as monster AC in 5e is well super dooper low so it just becomes a straight +10 damage id do some maths but my books are all the way upstairs and well iv hunkered down for the night now. Advantage also goes along way for offsetting the -5 i don't know about your tables but we rule advantage from flanking which with a shadowmonk is constant pretty much (ruling you can jump behind an enemy due to their shadow could be a bit much prehaps)

I ran an NPC against PC fight just last night where, despite my being pretty good with math, I was unsure whether or not to power attack. AC 19 with +9 to hit for 2d6+5 (brutal critical for orc), or +4 to hit for 2d6+15. On the first round of the fight I kicked him in the chest to knock him down and then Action Surged for 5 Power Attacks--Power Attack was the obvious solution there. But then he healed up to full and decided to go for a second round at double-or-nothing stakes; I had already used my Action Surge so was genuinely unsure whether it was better to Power Attack or not. Post-hoc, I still think GWM provided minimal benefit in that scenario, except for the bonus attack on crit. Ironically, I rolled three crits and yet forgot to ever apply the bonus attack, so GWM did my no good whatsoever after the first round.

GWM is mostly useful against mooks with low AC, or beasts like tyrannosaurs. It makes easy fights easier and has no impact on important or hard fights unless you can gain advantage--it's basically a way of converting advantage into extra damage, which seems totally okay and reasonable to me.

Advantage for flanking is a problem because it undervalues advantage from other sources, since advantage doesn't stack with itself. E.g. Wolf Totem Barbarian becomes pointless, you'd have advantage anyway from flanking. Flanking is way too cheap and easy to grant something as supposedly central to 5E as advantage.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I ran an NPC against PC fight just last night where, despite my being pretty good with math, I was unsure whether or not to power attack. AC 19 with +9 to hit for 2d6+5 (brutal critical for orc), or +4 to hit for 2d6+15. On the first round of the fight I kicked him in the chest to knock him down and then Action Surged for 5 Power Attacks--Power Attack was the obvious solution there. But then he healed up to full and decided to go for a second round at double-or-nothing stakes; I had already used my Action Surge so was genuinely unsure whether it was better to Power Attack or not. Post-hoc, I still think GWM provided minimal benefit in that scenario, except for the bonus attack on crit. Ironically, I rolled three crits and yet forgot to ever apply the bonus attack, so GWM did my no good whatsoever after the first round.

GWM is mostly useful against mooks with low AC, or beasts like tyrannosaurs. It makes easy fights easier and has no impact on important or hard fights unless you can gain advantage--it's basically a way of converting advantage into extra damage, which seems totally okay and reasonable to me.

Advantage for flanking is a problem because it undervalues advantage from other sources, since advantage doesn't stack with itself. E.g. Wolf Totem Barbarian becomes pointless, you'd have advantage anyway from flanking. Flanking is way too cheap and easy to grant something as supposedly central to 5E as advantage.

Against that enemy, not counting advantage or anything outside or regular hits, power attacking is of little actual benefit. Out of 10 attacks, in regular mode you would score 5 hits for 12 avg. damage each or 60 damage. Power attacking on average grants either 2 or 3 hits for 22 avg. damage each , so either 44 or 66 damage. That is a lot of risk to gain only 6 extra points of damage.

 

[Azurewraith]

Advantage for flanking is a problem because it undervalues advantage from other sources, since advantage doesn't stack with itself. E.g. Wolf Totem Barbarian becomes pointless, you'd have advantage anyway from flanking. Flanking is way too cheap and easy to grant something as supposedly central to 5E as advantage.

Im not the head of the table at the moment and it is our first 5E when my time as god comes round i was wondering about the ruling for flanks providing advantage after reading your paragraph you have made me realize that 1) I have been spoiled by Flankvantage (that's so going to catch on!) 2) it wont be happening in my game and finally 3) I should possibly have a word with current GM about this.

Also we do fight a lot of animals and poorly equipped enemy's which could be why i value the +10 so much as the -5 is next to nothing when your target has around 15ac

 

[Ahrimon]

Wait, does flanking not provide advantage by RAW? I just want to be sure so I can make sure my DM knows.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Wait, does flanking not provide advantage by RAW? I just want to be sure so I can make sure my DM knows.

Flanking = Advantage is an optional rule at the back of the DMG.

 

[S'mon]

Wait, does flanking not provide advantage by RAW? I just want to be sure so I can make sure my DM knows.

It's an optional rule in the DMG.